Tucson Speaks Out: Dec. 12 letters of the day

Re: the Nov. 27 letter “Disinformation follies.”

Last month the Star published my letter to the Editor. Since then the Star has published at least two letters written by Democrats critical of my letter. It did not seem to matter to the writers that Biden repeatedly lied to America when saying he knew nothing of Hunter Biden’s business deals and his son never received money from China. Biden met several of his son’s domestic and foreign business partners in the White House and outside while as VP. Long before Republicans in Congress were investigating the Bidens for corruption and money laundering, in 2018 a Bank Secrecy Act Manager at a financial institution raised red flags over Hunter Biden receiving millions in wire transfers from Chinese entities with no apparent actual business deals conducted. The manager was concerned regarding reports of China targeting children of politicians for the purchase of political influence. Republicans in Congress believe Joe “big guy” Biden received a check for $40,000 from one of those Chinese transfers.

Janice DeAngelo

Tubac

No placeholder for District 3 replacement

Some candidates for the District 3 vacancy have announced they would not seek election. I believe this is a great disservice to residents of the area, and we should be granted the strongest candidate who will hold down the position after a vote in 2024. An appointee who is seeking election is held accountable by the people for their votes and actions, as they intend to take their incumbency to the polls. An appointee who has declared their intent not to run has no motivation to work hard for the people because they have literally declared they have no interest in asking the public to vote on their job performance. A placeholder appointee does not have to care what anyone thinks, as they have chosen to be a lame duck on day one of the job. Don’t we deserve better?

Barbara Riehl

Northwest side

Do you use DoorDash?

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to everyone who has their orders delivered with DoorDash. As a delivery driver, you have helped support my family with a difficult and unprecedented transition. So many are generous with tips and it means the world! I would however, like to remind everyone that if you do not tip we are not making anything. We do not get an hourly wage. The two or so dollars that we receive from DoorDash only covers the gas and wear on the vehicle. We are not working for free. Pharmacy, pet store and grocery orders seem to be a particular problem. As a bonus, when you do tip, you will receive your order faster. Drivers pick up higher paying orders without hesitation. This would not be a problem if dashers could keep refusing orders with no tip, but we are required to do a certain percentage. If you don’t tip, please consider thinking about the person doing the job for you. Thank you!

Lorien Caldwell

Green Valley

ABOR mismanagement

The AZ Board of Regents states that they are responsible for increasing quality, affordability and efficiency of our universities, yet they have not acted to avoid the CHRONIC mismanagement that has resulted in debt of $240M, $125M last year. They are allowing the perpetrators, highly compensated management, to avoid any personal consequences. Their actions undermine the quality, reduce the affordability, efficiency and credibility of the degrees that they sell. It is ironic and unacceptable that UA executive management does not practice the business Management principles and skills that they teach. All persons experienced in developing human capital know that personal consequences, good and bad, are required to compel productive behavior (Pavlov). ABOR should not allow UA, the persons that created the debt, to shift the consequences of their chronic negligence to students and the Public. Instead, in fairness and to motivate effective corrective actions, Executive salaries should be reduced to pay off the debt for the next 3-years. If ABOR declines, they should be replaced.

Terry Finefrock

Foothills

Officer Hardesty’s murder

Re: the Dec. 10 article “Officer killer could go from death row to life in prison.”

As the prosecutor (now retired) who tried John Cruz for the murder of Tucson Police Officer Patrick Hardesty, allow me to clarify some misstatements regarding the case. In a 5-4 decision early in 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Cruz was entitled to a hearing on whether the instructions to the jury at trial in 2005 regarding his possible sentence were adequate. This ruling was largely based on another opinion from the court in 2016, eleven years after the trial. The Court’s 2023 ruling was that Cruz was entitled to a hearing, it did not rule that his sentence be vacated.

Instead of the evidentiary hearing, the current prosecutors simply agreed that the instructions were erroneous and stipulated that the death sentence be withdrawn. While such a decision is clearly within the authority of the county attorney, she should be clear that the decision was hers and the attorney general’s and not blame the outcome on the court which did not require such a result.

Rick Unklesbay

Midtown

An open letter to Biden

During Advent we examine our souls in preparation for the coming of the Prince of Peace. I am deeply troubled by your vetoing the Security Council’s call for humanitarian ceasefire in Gaza.

Your singular veto severed our connection to the rest of the world, thus abdicated the US’s role as a world leader, a champion for human rights. You portrayed the US as a greedy arms dealer supporting a repressive tribal state in its brutal revenge on a terrorist group at the cost of countless innocent lives in their own homeland, and you a politician selling your soul for your own ambition. Is this your legacy?

Repent, before it is too late! Rescind the veto, apologize for prolonging the sufferings of the Palestinian civilians, and insist on a two-state Holy Land.

God have mercy on all humanity. The peace of the Lord comes with our repentance. Amen.

Ke Chiang Hsieh

Midtown

U of A financial troubles

As a former CFO I understand the difference between revenue and expense. As I follow the reporting of the financial issues facing the University of Arizona it is becoming abundantly apparent that the officers of the university know very little about addressing financial challenges. They constantly refer to increasing revenue by laying off people. In my world this is reducing expense. Other than the administration which is clearly out of line as an expense line, laying off people that are generating revenue by teaching students will yes, reduce expense but could also impact revenue. Today a statement, not sure if direct quote but “laying off 100%” means nobody will be left. I believe the university would be well served by bringing someone that truly understands the difference between revenue and expense. Revenue minus expense equals income. A university can operate at zero income but will eventually cease to exist at negative income.

Lee Hanson

Green Valley

Gas prices and the US president

After having read scores of letters to the editor over the last few months blaming President Biden for the high price of gas, I am now anxiously awaiting the days when the same writers submit letters thanking him now that gas in Tucson is under $3 a gallon!

Diane Dittemore

Foothills