Prop 401, 402 Supporter Is Disappointed in the ‘Weekly’
Many thanks to the Tucson Weekly for endorsing Propositions
401 and 402 to help improve funding for schools in the Tucson Unified
School District (Oct. 8). I know the Weekly also understands the
important role of our local print media in accurately describing the
complexities of the school-funding issues underlying the need for these
ballot measures.
For this reason, I was disappointed that the Weekly‘s
coverage (“Budget Boost?” Currents, Oct. 8) contained so many
misleading statements that were neither corrected nor clarified by the
reporter. For example, the article contained an unrebutted claim by an
opponent, Mary Terry Schiltz, that the state already funds all-day
kindergarten—and that the override’s provision of resources for
that valuable program is therefore redundant. In fact, all-day
kindergarten costs TUSD $12 million while the state provides only $9.5
million to fund it. To make matters worse, the Legislature has
threatened further cuts.
Schiltz also maintained that a 2004 bond override provided
technological upgrades. In fact, that bond money only funded computer
wiring within walls—and provided no resources whatsoever to buy
computers or upgrade Internet speed, which Propositions 401 and 402
would fund. I was disappointed that such a patently misleading
statement was neither rebutted nor placed into context.
In addition, Schiltz claimed that court-ordered desegregation funds
constitute a de-facto override. These funds have specifically
designated purposes, such as paying for busing, magnet programs and
state-mandated specialized instruction of non-English-speaking
students. They cannot be used to fund general school-district needs,
such as computer upgrades at all schools.
When I brought these oversights to the attention of the
Weekly‘s editor, I was equally disappointed with a response that
was defensive rather than corrective. Although the editor concedes that
the Weekly should have contacted my group, and that Schiltz
engaged in “serious spinning” (“Looking Back,” Editor’s Note, Oct. 15)
he suggests that Schiltz’s contention regarding the funding for all-day
kindergarten was correct. He bases this conclusion on information his
reporter gleaned from talking with a TUSD elementary-school supervisor.
After I told him that his reporter still did not understand the
complexities of the kindergarten-funding issue, he maintained that
Schiltz’s misinformation had been “fact-checked.”
In this era of rampant misinformation on the Internet, we depend all
the more on our print news media to provide an oasis of factual
accuracy. I recognize that the Weekly has limited resources and
that the resources of all print media are contracting, but I hope the
Weekly takes this role more seriously in the future.
Ann-Eve Pedersen
TUSD parent and member of the Invest in Our Kids Committee
Danehy Has It Wrong About Vaccines, the Flu
Once again, Tom Danehy has demonstrated that if bullshit were
currency, he’d be Warren Buffett. Let’s face it: An alt-weekly
columnist giving medical advice is akin to Bernie Madoff telling us how
strong the economy is.
There are myriad points I could demolish his bloviating rant with,
but I think I’ll let the most salient one suffice. To wit: his
assertion that “the long-held belief that some people contracted
Guillain-Barré syndrome from the mass swine-flu vaccinations of
the 1970s is also not true” (Oct. 15).
Actually, Tom, the same Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
you want to join forces with the Columbia School of Journalism in order
to hunt down the progenitor of a silly colloquialism begs to differ,
stating, “When cases of GBS were identified among recipients of the
swine flu vaccines, they were, of course, well covered by the press.
Because GBS cases are always present in the population, the necessary
public health questions concerning the cases among vaccine recipients
were, ‘Is the number of cases of GBS among vaccine recipients higher
than would be expected? And if so, are the increased cases the result
of increased surveillance or a true increase?’ Leading epidemiologists
debated these points, but the consensus, based on the intensified
surveillance for GBS (and other conditions) in recipients of the
vaccines, was that the number of cases of GBS appeared to be an
excess.” (See www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol12no01/05-1007.htm.)
Enjoy that lovely vaccine, buddy! Oh, wait, you won’t, because you
never have. Putting aside the obvious implications of your lifelong
opt-out versus your general state of heath, the only science necessary
will be to figure out if you’re the pot or the kettle.
Chuck Aubrey
Not All Real Estate Agents Like Prop 200
I’m sorry, Tucson!
I became a real estate agent in Tucson in 1985. I love Tucson and
the eclectic, diverse community we are. All the human-rights activists,
solar-energy buffs, incredible musicians, respected environmentalists,
strong neighborhood groups, etc. keep us positively engaged with each
other and make Tucson the vibrant place it is. My clients are delighted
to find a house within walking distance of a park, or are comforted to
know Meals on Wheels is feeding their neighbor, or are happy with
summer programs for kids.
If Proposition 200 guts our city budget, all this will end. (“Just
Saying No to Prop 200,” The Skinny, Oct. 15.)
So I’m sorry, Tucson. I’m sorry for all of us that the Tucson
Association of Realtors, the Southern Arizona Home Builders Association
and Jim Click are stirring up fear to push their strange agenda, and I
want you to know that many of us working real-estate agents out here
are not in lockstep with this plan. Vote no on Prop 200!
Susan Thorpe
This article appears in Oct 29 – Nov 4, 2009.