I saw this show last night, and I don't know how 'absurdly talented' could be construed as demeaning. I think what the reviewer was trying to convey is that Tucson got lucky, because the absurdly talented cast was surely over qualified for a Thanksgiving weekend show at the TCC.
The developers have been letting Rialto use space for free, and have been trying to work out a deal with the city or the Rialto, so that they can make some money off of the deal, but neither the city nor the Rialto seems to want to share any profits with the developers, even though the developers are offering free-use of their property. Now they're fed up with giving away their property and getting nothing in return, so they're saying 'screw you' to the Rialto.
I really like the Rialto, but from what I've read so far it seems like the developers have every right to do what they're doing. What side of the story am I missing? Is there any reason to be sympathetic to the Rialto?
I consider myself an avid environmentalist, and the comments I'm reading here remind me of all the reasons why our movement needs to change direction.
Many 'environmentalists' ignore major problems and science when it doesn't fit their world view, and we are often guilty of not offering up good solutions. For example, most environmentalists think building a wall on the border will be bad for wildlife. I completely agree, but instead of whining about how bad the wall is going to be, what we really need to be doing is interacting with BP and the government to find alternative solutions. We can't just sit here and say 'no'. Illegal immigration is a major problem, and itself is causing major damage to border terrain. The only way we're ever going to win this battle is if we can bring a better alternative to the table.
We also are often against incremental change. You see environmental groups fighting against stricter standards regulations because they aren't strict enough, when what we really need to be doing is supporting incremental changes that get a little stricter each year.
Many environmentalists are also anti-business, and are against the very entities that actually have the power and know-how to make a difference. How many companies are going to spend money on R+D for alternative energy products when their best potential customers openly hate them?
We also are killing ourselves with bad marketing. Every year I donate to the Center for Biological Diversity, because I think they do a really good job of protecting wildlife in our area. Every time I donate, about two weeks later I start getting about half an endangered forest worth of Green Peace type junk mail. Now does this junk mail present the environmental problems rationally, with scientifically backed ways that a potential donation might help solve the problem? No, the junk mail has pictures of baby seals and says something like: "If you don't donate today, Dick Cheney will club this baby seal to death." Being alarmist and irrational gives us a horrible image.
We (environmentalists) need to stick to science and facts and start offering solutions instead of complaints.
Recent Comments
I really like the Rialto, but from what I've read so far it seems like the developers have every right to do what they're doing. What side of the story am I missing? Is there any reason to be sympathetic to the Rialto?
Many 'environmentalists' ignore major problems and science when it doesn't fit their world view, and we are often guilty of not offering up good solutions. For example, most environmentalists think building a wall on the border will be bad for wildlife. I completely agree, but instead of whining about how bad the wall is going to be, what we really need to be doing is interacting with BP and the government to find alternative solutions. We can't just sit here and say 'no'. Illegal immigration is a major problem, and itself is causing major damage to border terrain. The only way we're ever going to win this battle is if we can bring a better alternative to the table.
We also are often against incremental change. You see environmental groups fighting against stricter standards regulations because they aren't strict enough, when what we really need to be doing is supporting incremental changes that get a little stricter each year.
Many environmentalists are also anti-business, and are against the very entities that actually have the power and know-how to make a difference. How many companies are going to spend money on R+D for alternative energy products when their best potential customers openly hate them?
We also are killing ourselves with bad marketing. Every year I donate to the Center for Biological Diversity, because I think they do a really good job of protecting wildlife in our area. Every time I donate, about two weeks later I start getting about half an endangered forest worth of Green Peace type junk mail. Now does this junk mail present the environmental problems rationally, with scientifically backed ways that a potential donation might help solve the problem? No, the junk mail has pictures of baby seals and says something like: "If you don't donate today, Dick Cheney will club this baby seal to death." Being alarmist and irrational gives us a horrible image.
We (environmentalists) need to stick to science and facts and start offering solutions instead of complaints.