… a new Weekly! And the new issue’s already online.

Feel free to comment on this week’s issue here.

This article appears in Oct 4-10, 2007.

33 replies on “Coming Soon to a News Rack Near You”

  3. Typo is in the third para FROM DA BOTTOM!!!!! (dat endurancin down through it on down to the town shoulda be countin sumthing at least a t-shirt or the mug)

  4. In short: Best of luck to Phil Bueller. Bring back Destry.

    I did have a question about an article last week about Tucson Access. It was written, “Those who love public-access TV want Pima County to include Access Tucson and some educational channels in its offerings.” I live in unincorporated Pima County.* I get Tucson Access. I don’t get why this sentence makes it sound like I don’t.

    * – mind I live a mile away from Tucson city limits, so maybe I get a city cable feed?

    “Forest Fodder” was an interesting story – very interesting angle.

    Oh yeah, and people up here pay $40 or so in monthly garbage taxes. Plus we can’t recycle loose paper — you don’t know how often I put loose paper in my car and dump it in random people’s recycle bins so it will get recycled.

  6. The Wingspan article seemed kind of weak; I wasn’t sure if it was raising questions or dispelling doubts. It sounds like the organization is doing fine, given the circumstances?

    Not sure what the story was about.

  7. Kynn: It was about the fact that the organization’s doing fine, given the circumstances.

    From one editor to another, I encourage you to worry about the content in your own publication before you start throwing stones from that glass house. 🙂

  9. Jim Nintzel’s piece on taxes shows either a lack of due diligence in researching the FairTax, or else an intention to lie to the readers.

    For those who want to disparage the proposal, please have the integrity to first understand what you’re disparaging. You could learn everything you need to know (and plenty more) by going to the source: either read the FairTax book (available at all major and most minor bookstores) or check out the FairTax website (http://www.fairtax.org)

    Points where Jim has it wrong:

    – The FairTax (in order to compare “apples” to “apples”) is shown as an inclusive tax, just like the tax that it’s replacing – the income tax. As anyone who’s bought gas knows, taxes at the point of sale ARE sometimes calculated inclusively. Whether the tax is figured inclusively or exclusively, the result is the same, and it would be a wash. In other words, whether you call it a 23% inclusive tax on the gross sale (over Jim’s objections) and compare that to the imbedded 22% inclusive (but hidden) taxes that would be removed from the gross cost of items you currently purchase plus the 15-35% inclusively calculated taxes you pay out of your gross income, or call it a 30% exclusive tax on the net sale (as Jim seems to prefer) and compare that to the imbedded 28% exclusive (hidden) taxes that would no longer be secretly added to the net cost of items you currently purchase plus the 18-54% exclusively calculated taxes you currently pay on top of your net income, the dollars and cents are the same.

    Jim “conveniently” fails to mention the effect of the removal of the currently imbedded taxes, which is a necessary prerequisite to passing the FairTax. (The 16th Ammendment to the Constitution MUST be repealed.) By failing to mention that, it would appear that the FairTax is an additional tax, which it’s not.

    Far from “shift(ing) the burden from America’s richest citizens to the poor…”, the FairTax is the only proposal that would remove all federal taxes from the backs of the poor. And the burden of taxes is spread out to include many who currently remain un-taxed – drug dealers, prostitutes, illegal aliens, etc. By spreading the burden, the burden is lightened.

    Some other points Jim fails to mention that are positive about the FairTax include:

    Savings are untaxed.

    Recycling is untaxed.

    Achievement is untaxed.

    Government loses the power to control behavior by giving tax breaks to special interest groups.

    But check it out for yourself. Do your own fact-checking. A great place to start is: http://www.fairtax.org

  10. i’m all about peace and love these days.
    and certainly i’m past the “la-BOT..OH MY!” drama of last week.
    but since were talking abou the sss-news…
    i can’t help but wonder what is up with the “notes from the editor” space jimmy (i’m jimmy dammit) b. uses for his pearls?
    for the most part from week to week it consists of either him taking a swipe at readers for bothering him, discussing his vacation, or filling us in on his private life like his leaky roof.
    couldn’t this space be better used to, well you know, take an editorial stance on something?
    it does happen from time to time, but line them up and it all seems a bit, well “limp.”
    and being a dick i know limp (figured i’d get that obvious pun out. of course “hard” news is still available.)

  11. Hey DH, thanks for clearing that up for us! I notice you state, “Achievement is untaxed,” and I can’t help but assume that you mean to suggest that people in higher income brackets should not be taxed at a higher percentage rate. Isn’t that what you mean? Because I think this begs the question, much like saying “Why should people be punished for making more money?” begs the question.

    The problem is in the assumption that equal income levels deserve equal percentages of tax. This assumption is based on the simplistic notion that percentage is the ultimate gauge of what one’s contribution ought to be: In other words, a person making $15k a year and a person making $300k should pay the same percentage because it’s inherently fair.

    This only makes sense if you are thinking of it as a simple math problem. When you look at the fuller reality of a person’s life and the way the economic system works, the logic fails. 30 percent of the income of a person making $15k represents a major degree of sacrifice at the level of eating vs. starving, shelter vs. no shelter, and other base-level survival issues. 30 percent of somebody making $150k has nowhere near the gravity of those differences: It might mean buying a 1-garage house instead of a 2-garage house. When you move up the scale to somebody making $500k a year the level of sacrifice exists on an entirely different plane.

    That’s one aspect. Another thing that comes into play is investment. A person earning on an investment is not “achieving” in the same sense that a person in lower tax brackets is “achieving.” To say that a higher percentage rate of income tax is a “tax on achievement” is a misnomer and a dishonest framing device. If I plop a million bucks into a set of stocks and walk away with $50k in dividends, it’s not “achievement” in the same way that a small-business owner making a $5,000 profit is. The term achievement is so loaded with prejudicial meaning — removed from what you actually are saying — it becomes propaganda for you to use it as an argument.

    There is another question, one of infrastructure. A person making $300,000 a year is undoubtedly benefiting from a larger scope of social infrastructure than a person making $20,000 a year. By any reasonable analysis of this perspective it is fairer to tax them at a higher rate. If you are pulling in $300,000 because you manage a large telecommunications company, for existence, your income is derived from the use of a great deal of public material requiring a great deal of governmental maintenance and oversight. Meanwhile, somebody making $20,000 a year only uses a tiny fraction of that infrastructure to derive his income.

    These are just a few of the reasons that the notion of “one tax percentage level for all incomes” is overly simplistic.

    One other aspect that is left unaddressed is the current level of national debt. Congress keeps raising the debt ceiling for the United States. It’s done quietly, with an article often buried on page A-16 of the newspaper. (It sometimes accompanies a resolution to grant Bush another $150 billion in Iraq war money.) We are currently in hock to foreign investors somewhere in the realm of $9.5 trillion.

    This reason alone is enough to suggest that any proposal that lessens the amount of tax paid into by citizens is suspect. On a practical level, the real question is — how are we going to pay off this massive debt? Can the United States really afford to remain perpetually in debt, considering that we aren’t even paying down the interest on what we owe, let alone balancing the budget or arriving at a surplus? Is this really time to worry about granting further tax cuts to the high income brackets?

    Economically the United States continues splitting in half, with a shinking middle class, expanding lower class, and an upper class increasingly distant from the other two. The shrinking middle class is the real problem tax-wise since historically they pay in the most cumulative dollars to the government’s coffers. But the upper classes also paid a hefty share and now they’re the only ones really benefiting from the cutbacks. (Also with the repeal of the Estate Tax, which is the recipe for a de-facto aristocracy.)

    No doubt the tax code is ripe for reform. But not until people offer some real answers to these problems.

  13. — King Marlow, I think Jimmy Boegle should use the editorial space for whatever the hell he wants.

    i agree as well.
    just seems kind of limp is all.
    but i guess those meanderings about cruise food are meant to be “alternative” to an editorial which takes a stance on the issues of the day.
    perhaps i just don’t understand this whole “alternative to bland news” thing the weekly touts.
    is being bland being alternative to being bland?
    i have much to learn from the weekly zazen masters.

  14. Haha… Maybe Jimmy’s idea is to give the Weekly a personal, conversational touch, with the sense there’s a real human there instead of an editorial machine. At least that’s better than making each page super-serious and “just business ma’am.”

    Do you have anything to offer besides criticism? Which parts of the Weekly do you like? What would you write in that editorial space? What would your editorial be about? Let’s hear it!

  15. No one gets all bent out of shape ala king marlow without a reason….what could it be? I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again – king marlowe has been rejected somewhere in the past by the Weekly tribe and just can’t let it go.
    Otherwise why put so much negative energy into the air?

  16. — Do you have anything to offer besides criticism? Which parts of the Weekly do you like? What would you write in that editorial space? What would your editorial be about? Let’s hear it!

    i love the movie times and that it is free.
    plus the skinny is a great recap of all the old news.

    — No one gets all bent out of shape ala king marlow without a reason….what could it be?

    my motivation is that if the weekly wants to tout itself as the “alternative” rag in tuxon then it should rise up.
    and perhaps bland writing and putting out marketing copy as news fits that bill.
    it sure is “alternative” to alternative media like the p. new times.

    — king marlowe has been rejected somewhere in the past by the Weekly tribe and just can’t let it go.

    its true. remember that time vanada when we danced and sang till dawn? of what a time that was. but would you be mine? no! i’ve been bitter ever since hatching my evil plans to seek my vengence upon the world via this site.
    bwahahahhah!

  17. So the two things you like are movie times and that the paper is free. Do you actually read it? Like any of the cartoons? Movie reviews? Feature stories? Calendar of events? Personal ads? Dining column? Anything at all? Well, at least you do like the Skinny.

    How do you want the Tucson Weekly to be more “alternative”? Rise up in what way? Which writing is bland? Which articles are re-written marketing copy? I am not sure what you are referring to.

    Do you write? What do you do? Why not propose some topics that the Weekly should cover?

    By the way, I don’t work at the Weekly, I’m just curious what your beef is.

  19. You completely dodged the questions. I asked your opinion of the other individual sections of the Tucson Weekly (besides movie times). I also asked you to state a few topics you’d like to see the Weekly cover, since you want the paper to be more “alternative.”

    You stated that the writing is bland, and that many articles are re-written marketing copy. Your answer was to post the link to another thread, but I read those messages and nothing in them suggests the TW is re-writing marketing copy.

    I also asked whether you’re a writer, and if not, what you do. Do you have some personal stake in your anger or criticism toward the Tucson Weekly?

    Your whole critique of the Best of Tucson issue is bizarre. We’re talking about 1 week out of the entire year when the paper touts various local businesses, places, etc. for recommendation. Last time I checked, recommending a business to readers was a legitimate function of a newspaper.

    I would agree that if advertising sales were putting pressure on an establishment to buy ads, and in any way implying that not to do so would result in blacklisting, then this would be unethical. But you did not establish that anything of the sort was taking place.

    I think you’re a little nutty-nuts. Perhaps Tucson in general is getting you down. It can be an insular and incestuous town. Go outside, take a nice hike, breathe in some creosote fumes. Maybe that will shake you out of your ill-conceived anti-newspaper malaise.

  20. — I also asked whether you’re a writer, and if not, what you do. Do you have some personal stake in your anger or criticism toward the Tucson Weekly?

    okay i’m game for answering all your questions and entering into a deep meaningful dialogue about bot and the tw since you are so interested in my thoughts.

    boy of boy this attention is really wonderful.
    i feel just like an alterboy alone with a drunken priest.

    but perhaps a few questions of you first?
    since you seem so interested in personal issues about me, i can’t help but be interested in you.

    fair?

    okay here we go:::

    what do you do for fun?
    what do you do for money?
    have you taken bold chances in life or have you lived a sheltered comfortable existance ever cautious not to rock the boat?
    can you give an example of something you’ve done which took balls of steel?
    why on do you care so much what i think?
    what do you have at stake in this conversation?
    what is the greatest failure in your life?
    what is the greatest success?
    name all the places you’ve lived for longer than 10 years.
    how old are you?
    based on my words quantify: bizarre
    based on my words quantify: nutty-nuts.
    based on my words quantify: anger.
    how do you define “alternative?”
    how do you define “bland?”
    do you write?
    what is writing?
    what is journalism?
    what is marketing?

    phew.
    that’s it for now.

    answer all these questions and perhaps we can engage in a meaningful conversation about me, wonderful glorious, me.

    otherwise, i appreciate all the attention and interest around here but i’m getting a little bored with all the same old same old.

    seems mostly like a conspiracy of dunces if full swing.

    funny how my posts have had better traction than anything else going on around here in a long time.

    so it seems i sure hit a nerve around here.

    wick should be paying me for this (shazzam! if that happens i could be a published writer after all! mom would be so proud.)

    where there’s smoke there’s fire.
    where there’s smoke there’s fire.
    oh-wadda-goo-siam.

  23. Okay so you completely dodged my questions again. It’s like you enjoy stirring up conflict, but when challenged you back down or resort to diverting tactics.

    Remember that the whole reason any of this started is because you made a point of coming in here to knock Jimmy Boegle’s little editorial missives. I figure if you’re going to be so critical, you might as well make it constructive criticism and offer some positive suggestions instead of simply saying, “That’s bad.”

    Your questions of me don’t have much to do with this subject. But here are a few answers: For fun I like hiking, photography, reading, music. (Wow, this *does* sound like e-Harmony!) One of the places I’ve lived longer than 10 years is Tucson.

    As for quantifying “bizarre” and “nutty-nuts,” shouldn’t I be qualifying rather than quantifying? Not sure if there’s a numerical measurement for bizarreness. The reason I think you’re nutty-nuts is because you go to such great lengths to criticize things, but you don’t have anything else to offer, and you clearly enjoy the attention way too much (as you’ve admitted). I don’t think there’s any reason to explain “journalism” and “marketing” and other words to you, as you can go to dictionary.com for yourself.

    You didn’t really “hit a nerve” around here, at least not with me (I respond to plenty of other subjects), and your posts don’t have any special traction. Look through the archives — many other subjects have generated an equal amount of responses. So stop patting yourself on the back. I don’t see why Wick would pay you for anything.

    “Where there’s smoke there’s fire.” You sure like the cliches and idioms. Too bad you don’t like having a real discussion that isn’t full of diverting tactics. I asked you direct questions that were relevant to the subject. You asked me a bunch of unrelated questions. Now let’s get back to what I asked you. Since you’re so down on the Weekly, how do you honestly think it could be improved? What should it cover that it isn’t? What are some alternative publications you admire? And why do you put so much energy into nitpicking something? Or is this all just for attention?

    And yeah, Mr. Reel, I shouldn’t feed the trolls.

  24. — Looks like it’s time to stop feeding the trolls…

    yes. please. please let me fade away. for my sake and yours. this grey hound has long run it’s last race. time for the of mice and men treatment. all of this began w/ a simple two line comment and now it is possibly one of the top ten thread in all of weeklyblogdom.

    i’m honored and perplexed about all the attention.
    i mean awhoe writes tomes explaining what i write (hey i must be a writer after all!) isn’t worth responding to.

    kind of funny.

    where there smoke, yep, there’s fire me thinks.

  25. — And all those silly questions…who so you think you are E-Harmony?

    ARGHAG!
    MY COVERS BLOWN!

  26. Dude, I didn’t write anything “explaining why what you write isn’t worth responding to.” I wrote nothing of the sort. I asked you specific questions which you have dodged yet again.

    “Where there’s smoke there’s fire.” Meaning what, exactly? What smoke, what fire? This sounds like an accusation of some sort, and yet I think I’m right in suspecting that you are unwilling to actually come out and state what you mean. (Seems to be a pattern with you.)

    Feel free to fade away. Nobody has to “let” you do it. It’s your choice. Just as it was your choice to come into this forum to crap on Jimmy Boegle’s editorials and then completely back down when challenged to offer some constructive comments or to expand on the kind of journalism you would like to see more of.

  27. why is ir when you click on king marlow what ever hi is calling himself, you get the Media Watch web site?

  28. awhoe you got a thing for me don’t you?
    you’ve really personalized this.
    how come?
    what is really at stake for you?
    who really is your daddy?
    funny at first i thought reel was talking about me when he mentioned the trolls. but maybe i got that one wrong.
    so here are a few tips about moving on.
    let go.
    deep breath.
    ooooommmmmmmmm.
    better?
    no?
    okay try again.
    it takes practice but you’ll get there.

  29. I haven’t personalized it much. Nothing at stake for me. Yes, you are the troll Reel was referring to.

    You still haven’t answered any of my questions. Basically you’ve completely backed down. I am not surprised.

  30. Quoting King Marlow: “okay i’m game for answering all your questions and entering into a deep meaningful dialogue about bot and the tw since you are so interested in my thoughts.”

    Whoops, guess that wasn’t true.

  31. oh come on now awhoe.
    you’re not being very truthful are you?
    seems your taking my words out of context once again.
    you can see original post for details but:::it was only contingent on you answering those questions.
    yez?
    however, your delusional obsession with me is very flattering.
    i seem to be developing a fan club.
    way cool.
    perhaps wick will spring for my very own column: ask a dick.
    judging by this and the bot thread posts it’d be at least as popular as the radar van.

  32. Jimmy,

    Hey, if we can’t rib each other, who can we rib? Besides, at least people seem to be READING your paper! Me, just silence. 🙂

    I’d love to hear constructive criticism about Colorez!, if you or anyone else is so inclined.

    I was hoping to hear more about Wingspan from the Weekly, because honestly, we are somewhat limited in what we can and can’t cover. A view from outside the GLBT (but from friends, such as the Weekly) is always nice to read.

    I didn’t mean to be as critical as must have come across, though. Sorry!

  33. — I’d love to hear constructive criticism about Colorez!, if you or anyone else is so inclined.

    i had no idea colorez was in tucson when i first saw it.
    i saw COLO-REZ and thought: “gee, what is a pub chronicling native american life in colorado doing here.”

Comments are closed.