Matt Scholz 
Member since Jun 1, 2009



  • No friends yet.
Become My Friend Find friends »

Recent Comments

Re: “Live

I just moved from Denver, where no one knows of this band, so I can vouch for their proclaimed modesty. Thanks for all the great work you do, Weekly staff.

4 likes, 2 dislikes
Posted by Matt Scholz on 12/28/2013 at 12:44 PM

Re: “Serraglio

It is worth noting that the New York Academy of Sciences itself has distanced itself from this work because of its lack of hard scientific data. I'm all for a civil, fact-based debate of the (de)merits of nuclear, but Serraglio's piece doesn't contribute to that. To fail to acknowledge the valid points that pro-nuclear advocates make--agree with them or not--is to be a thoughtless ideologue. Former founders of the anti-nuclear movement such as Stewart Brand and Patrick Moore have embraced nuclear power, and it is worth exploring the evolution of their positions. For a much more respectful, balanced and though-provoking debate between pro- and anti- nuclear positions, I highly recommend this podcast:….

Posted by Matt Scholz on 04/23/2011 at 5:49 PM

Re: “Guest Commentary

I didn't realize that the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions had the force of law, nor that they trumped a couple of hundred years of jurisprudence. Guess I need to get the wool off my eyes....

Posted by Matt Scholz on 04/07/2011 at 12:10 PM

Re: “Serraglio

"it really isn't possible to know whether Roundup is safe, because it really isn't possible to know what's in it, since its composition is patent-protected." This is a false claim. Round-up hasn't been patented since 2000. It's composition is well known to every plant science lab in the country, but you need only inspire yourself to click on wikipedia to find it: It's an isopropylamine salt of glyphosphate that is delivered by a surfactant of known composition. If we're going to have this debate, let's have it on realistic terms.

Posted by Matt Scholz on 09/05/2009 at 11:17 AM

Re: “You Screwed Up

Jim, I was with you until you resurrected your Machiavellian argument against the clean elections system, which can be summarized as: "I find the candidates produced by the system to be at times unpalatable, ergo the system is flawed." Firstly, if people vote for Al Melvin, then Al Melvin gets to win...pity if you don't like it. More to the point, though, there are much better targets for your election ire than clean elections. For example, you could call for the elimination of party affiliation information from the ballots as is done elsewhere to reduce the problem of lazy voters voting by party, or you could be bold and attack the winner-takes-all election system (as opposed to the PR systems of almost every other democracy) which allots more constituents to a candidate than s/he actually won over in an election. Please stop your ad nauseum repetition of this ill-formed argument before we are forced to revisit the days when the realtors owned our elections.

Posted by Matt Scholz on 06/01/2009 at 5:20 PM

Favorite Places

  • None.
Find places »

Saved Events

  • Nada.
Find events »

Saved Stories

  • Nope.
Find stories »

Custom Lists

  • Zip.

© 2018 Tucson Weekly | 7225 Mona Lisa Rd. Ste. 125, Tucson AZ 85741 | (520) 797-4384 | Powered by Foundation