Member since Feb 18, 2011


  • No friends yet.
Become My Friend Find friends »

Recent Comments

Re: “Loaded Legislation

Why doesn't someone introduce a bill that will actually help matters all around, Instead of this flawed bill that includes just enough good ideas (increasing funding for mental health and providing diversion programs) to get support, while undercutting all the good stuff with the extremely BAD idea of making it easier for people with a history of mental illness to reinstate their right to own a gun? No matter what side you are on.... mental illness is not a disease like the flu or a cold... you don't just get over it or grow out of it. Anyone who was found to be unfit to possess a gun, should have to prove to a psychiatrist and a court that they are now fit BEFORE being added back to the list of those allowed to possess a weapon.

15 likes, 4 dislikes
Posted by simplee on 02/04/2016 at 9:47 AM

Re: “Councilman Cunningham Says GOP Challenger Who Wants Him To Leave His Seat Vacant "Must Be Out of His Mind"

Our system now is superior to having it be ward only or general only. It accomplishes the balance needed between making sure each ward's interests are served, while also making sure the best interests of the city are served. If we are forced by poor-loser Republicans to choose between ward only or general only, then the only logical choice would be general only. If we were to go with ward only, the City Council would never be able to come to agreement on anything... esp. since most Republicans labor under the arrogant illusion that they are always right and no one else is ever right, and are they never willing to compromise for the good of anyone or anything but their own selfish short-sighted greedy interests! They have made this very clear on a nationwide basis.... blackmailing the entire country by threatening to shut down the government over one single issue on which they are in the minority .

4 likes, 4 dislikes
Posted by simplee on 11/17/2015 at 9:17 AM

Re: “Solar Fight

How disgusting is it for TEP to cite 80% coal and 3.6% solar electricity production as something to brag about in a state where we have 310 sunny days a year!? It seems that TEP needs a whole new set of directors, CEO, etc. The current ones clearly are not in touch with reality!

12 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by simplee on 07/30/2015 at 9:44 AM

Re: “The Skinny

What Tucson needs is not more power or more money for its Mayor and Council. What's needed is more transparency regarding the actions of the Mayor and Council, and all its elected officials.... more pressure on elected officials to act in the interest of ALL residents of Tucson, not just those with lots of money and power. But to achieve that, we will have to have elections that are fully publicly funded only..... elections where private spending on campaigns is prohibited.... elections where the local TV news networks are required to provide the public with real debates among all candidates during primetime viewing, and where all candidates are provided the exact same amount of money for ads that address only the issues and voting records of candidates.... not mudslinging about personal issues.

Until we have that, things are not going to get better for Tucson. The only thing that will continue to improve is the growth of short-term profits by the already wealthiest corporations and individuals in and around Tucson.

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has completely blocked any city or town or state from being able to pass publicly funded elections, by claiming that a corporations is a person, and therefore has all the rights of a person, including freedom of speech, and that same Supreme Court defined money as speech. So any attempt to regulate or prohibit money buying our elections is against the law!

This means that the only chance Tucson and any other city in our nation has, for improving the lives of average citizens, is passage of an amendment to the US Constitution, which entirely eliminates corporate personhood and the false definition of money as speech, and makes it clear that campaign funding and spending can be regulated and even prohibited by government of the people. So far only one of the amendments proposed will do this.... the Move To Amend amendment.... the "We the People Amendment". for more details and to sign the petition for passage of this amendment go to

5 likes, 5 dislikes
Posted by simplee on 01/01/2015 at 10:56 AM

Re: “Noise Fight

Well, "Bless your heart", you can resort to name-calling, and making insulting guesses about people and their lifestyles, but I prefer to stick to facts. As for me, I am 71, and haven't lived with my parents since 1962. I worked all my adult life until retirement. The TFI survey covered 17 of Tucson's 20 residential zip codes. The majority of the respondents support the base, but oppose the plan which would bring in louder, riskier planes, and increase the number of overflights. If the F-18 and F-22 are allowed to fly over Tucson regularly, as the AF plan proposes, there will be a whole lot more "backyards" effected by the noise. By the way, I don't live under the flight path, but I really don't like to see those who do live there, bullied and treated unfairly, esp. those who cannot afford to sell their homes because the homes have been so devalued by the unrelenting increase in overflights over the past 3 plus decades.

14 likes, 3 dislikes
Posted by simplee on 11/22/2014 at 9:43 PM

Re: “Noise Fight



If the Air Force gets by with the false claim of this EA, which says it has a "Finding of No Significant Impact", then they will not be required by NEPA to do the more in-depth EIS. So it is imperative to take them to task for the contradictions in their own statements within the EA itself. They admit that there will be more impact on the minorities and low income residents living near the bases, and their own noise charts for the planes they want to bring here, show them to be clearly much louder than anything currently flying over Tucson, yet they claim this ridiculous "Finding Of No Significant Impact".!!!???

17 likes, 12 dislikes
Posted by simplee on 11/20/2014 at 9:18 AM

Re: “Political Roundtable: Gabby Giffords, Redistricting, Occupy Tucson & More

In Paton's illogical tirade about Romero's proposal, he displays his ignorance of the difference between a RIGHT and a PRIVILEGE.

Freedom of speech and assembly are RIGHTS authorized under the Constitution.

PERMITS deal only with PRIVILEGES.... in this case the privilege of holding a commercial or celebratory event in a park. But, Occupy Tucson is not holding a commercial or celebratory event. The occupiers are there for purposes of redress of grievances against our now corporate-owned government. That is clearly and unambiguously exactly what the first amendment right was created for.... freedom of speech and assembly for redress of grievances against the government!

CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS always trump laws regarding privileges!

2 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by simplee on 11/20/2011 at 6:52 PM

All Comments »

Favorite Places

  • None.
Find places »

Saved Events

  • Nada.
Find events »

Saved Stories

  • Noise Fight

    A group of Tucsonans continue to question Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, releasing their own citizen survey
    • Nov 20, 2014
Find stories »

Custom Lists

  • Zip.

© 2019 Tucson Weekly | 7225 Mona Lisa Rd. Ste. 125, Tucson AZ 85741 | (520) 797-4384 | Powered by Foundation