McSally can do
no wrong — just ask her
I find it interesting that on the day you printed Martha McSally’s guest opinion, which she used to attack Ron Barber for not doing anything to secure our border and to suggest that she was the savior to solve our immigration problems, President Obama made front-page news declaring his intent to take executive action to solve our immigration problems due to obstruction in the Republican House.
In her last guest opinion, McSally blamed Barber for not doing anything to save Davis-Monthan Air Force Base and the A-10 fighter — which was later proven false — while she had the expertise to save both. It now appears that D-M and the A-10 will survive without McSally’s interference.
It makes me wonder what McSally will blame Barber for in her next guest opinion. Maybe for not doing anything to assure a 12-month water flow in the Santa Cruz River? She, of course, has the expertise to make this happen, and when it does, she will modestly walk across the river.
Jet noise on takeoff
is what’s relevant
The correction graphic regarding comparative Davis-Monthan aircraft noise on the front page of the July 2 Star is a pointless exercise, unless the point is obfuscation. As a resident of many years within a mile of the runway centerline, I can attest that the approach noise levels aren’t a particular issue.
If the paper would like to publish some useful information on the topic, perhaps the public-affairs office at the base would like to provide the noise levels of average takeoff noise at 1,000 feet, both in a standard takeoff, and in a tactical or full payload mode.
I have experienced both in the case of the F-16, which can be only slightly more than the generally benign A-10, or an ear- splitting, window-shaking event.
The debate isn’t about bringing in aircraft for parking in the boneyard.
Even with a surplus, county wants tax hike
I see in the July 2 Star that Pima County is going ahead with their plans to buy land for soccer fields, this time using money from the year-end surplus instead of from the road-repair funds. The logic that soccer fields are more important than good roads is absurd, but if there is a year-end surplus, then why is the Pima County saying that they need a tax increase to meet their budget expenses? That is mind-boggling, too. Is anybody checking this boondoggle?
Segal’s signs don’t meet legal requirement
Justice of the peace candidate Anne Segal has been running an ad offering a reward for information on the person or persons removing her campaign signs. She correctly states that it is a crime to do so.
However, if she were to read the statute further, she would be aware of the requirement that “The sign contains the name and telephone number or website address of the candidate or campaign committee contact person,” (ARS 16, 1019-C(5)), none of which is on most of her signs.
Additionally, she was one of several candidates who conjured up their own interpretation of the 60-day rule and placed her signs early. I contacted the Pima County Department of Transportation and asked that she be notified to remove her signs until the appropriate time. Perhaps the appropriate governmental entities are actually enforcing the campaign sign statutes this election cycle and removing improper signs.
Segal and her fellow candidates could avoid these issues if they simply “think legal,” especially if you want to be a judge!
too hasty to make sense
I am appalled at the closure of Wingspan, an organization I dearly love and have given time and money to.
Since its lease is not up until July 31, what was the big rush to make such a hasty decision by the board of directors on or about June 24 or 25, without the president or the vice president of the board in attendance (both were out of town)? In addition, the board did not give the LGBTQ community an opportunity to rally in Wingspan’s support.
Oh, I am sure we have been given an excuse, but is it the whole truth? I think that there is more to this closure than we are given information about, and I hold the board of directors accountable to both me and the community.
Cats, thoughtful people prefer AZ Public Media
Re: the July 1 letter “Don’t fund unneeded AZ Public Media.”
Only after reading the latest letter about the funding of AZPM did I begin to see the heart of the debate. It is a divide that exists.
On one side there are educated people who enjoy civil discussions conducted with gracious guests expressing opinions based on facts. This is seen as “droning on in a monotone that puts cats to sleep.”
On the other side there seem to be listeners tuned to 104.1 FM on the radio (rarely “The Truth”) who prefer outlandish diatribes that are carried out in a “snarky” manner at an uncomfortable decibel level. The hosts spout accusations and insinuations, in a rude tone, masquerading as facts. (Any cat would beg to be euthanized!)
The tone and “sniveliness” is most unpleasant. The shouting hurts my ears. NPR listeners prefer thoughtful, gentle discussions presented for a thoughtful listener.
Retired educational administrator, Tucson