I participated in this march yesterday. People were peaceful and tolerant. People sang, chanted, beat drums and joined together. Marchers did not impede traffic. Marchers additionally respected police and followed parade-route instructions. No one engaged in insults or violence.
All of the men who participated in the march behaved like gentlemen, a disappearing species in today's American society.
The only "fresh" post I've found on this thread was written by "Self-pity doesn't add points." The rest of the posts are the same old redundant, boring gibberish. Heard it all before and sick of hearing about it. Whatever.
If these people want to form a group, they have a right to do so. Complaining about it won't stop them from doing so. In fact, it will probably motivate them further and they'll form more groups and movements.
No, Trump won't bring 70% of the country together. It's a sweet dream, but it is only that - a dream. Every time we have a new President, the winning side believes that their President will bring the country together, but the losing side always fights back. And the cycle continues.
I can't remember the last time this country was united under a President. In my lifetime, the country has never been united under a President because the other side always complains. Why anyone would post naive comments asking for unification is beyond me.
When Clinton was President, Republicans complained. When W. Bush was President, Democrats complained. When Obama was President, Republicans complained. Now that Trump is President, Dems will complain. The cycle never ends.
Joining a third party is the best option, then you can complain about both Republicans and Dems.
You don't like my comments. Tough. That tells me you are narrow minded and ignorant.
I think it is totally possible for a mining company to meet the needs of the Center For Biological Diversity. I know this because I worked for a very good mining company and I've seen it happen. And I've worked with the the mining reclamation area which is how I know that you are wrong. I've seen special areas set aside for wildlife habitat, ranchers allowed to graze their cattle which reduced environmental stress on their own lands and a canyon left untouched for hikers. I've seen closed mine sites providing critical habitat for wildlife pushed out by encroaching development. Development, that is homes, cause more damage to the environment than do mine sites. Old, abandoned mine sites provide habitat for bears, bats and other species. I've seen bills for saplings, seeds, native fishes and consulting fees for scientists working on reclamation projects. Yes, it is possible for a mining company to work with the Center For Biological Diversity whose arguments are legitimate and based on a scientific approach.
On the other hand, Save the Scenic Ritas has adopted a hard line, almost fanatical zealot stance which is unacceptable. Making a comment about protecting the tourism industry, tells me the group is out to protect the tourism industry. The tourism industry does not have the capability to pull Tucson out of economic distress. Money is spent filing lawsuits instead of working with the mining company. That money could've gone to education and the poor instead. This group doesn't know the meaning of the word cooperation and they've done nothing to promote economic growth in Tucson.
Note that I'm not making nasty, rude comments like so many people above have made. Like I said in earlier comment, those people are cruel and their nasty, rude comments only support my observation.
I'm late to the game but wanted to point out that Tucson is listed in the top 10 economically distressed cities in the US with 40% of the population living in poverty. Low wage tourism jobs won't pull people out of poverty. And blame will need to be placed on those that blocked economic growth. Gayle Hartmann and Save the Scenic Santa Ritas plus the Center For Biological Diversity are those who blocked economic growth. Her comments about water are ludicrous, if water is such a scarce resource then who allowed developers to build homes near the Santa Ritas?
I also wonder who is paying Gayle Hartmann. Could it be developers? Could it be the homeowners living near the Santa Ritas who don't want their pretty mountain views blocked? Or is it the tourism industry? I don't believe her motives are pure and would like to know who is paying her. There has been no transparency with this group, Save the Scenic Santa Ritas and I'd like to know who is funding them. If anyone has any information, please post it so all can see.
What I can speculate about her is that she has money and is comfortable riding off the backs of the poor. After all, who cares if someone is living in poverty thanks to a low paying tourism job? She's got money and all that matters are her own needs and wants. Same with the rest of the Save the Scenic Santa Rita group. They don't care about the poor and they certainly haven't provided opportunities for them. I haven't seen any evidence of job creation performed by Gayle Hartmann and Save the Scenic Santa Ritas, nope they haven't done a thing.
And for the rest of the people supporting Save the Scenic Santa Ritas, what have they done to create economic growth? Open a retail store or a restaurant? Sorry, that's not good enough. We need to bring people out of poverty not force them to suffer with food stamps, medicaid and welfare. You are a cruel bunch of people only concerned about your hiking boots and your own lives.
Tucson Weekly |
7225 Mona Lisa Rd. Ste. 125, Tucson AZ 85741 |
(520) 797-4384 |
Powered by Foundation