Letters to the Editor May 18

After the 2019 flood of Central Americans coming into the country, Donald Trump began aggressive construction of the border wall in Arizona. Congress appropriated some money for that, but Trump also used money from the Department of Defense budget. By the end of Trump’s term, about 225 miles of new and reconstructed wall had been built in Arizona, only 51 of 280 completed in Texas. Trump faced multiple litigations by anti-wallers in federal courts delaying construction.

Mexico did not pay for it, although Trump’s better trade deal with Mexico replacing NAFTA may indirectly do so long term. Many opposed the wall here in Arizona including environmentalists. Now we have another Central American migrant flood occurring, but unlike 2019, most are entering by crossing the knee deep Rio Grande River in Texas, where there is no wall.

Tom Galloway

North side

Audit results go in the trash bin

Eventually, when the Republican party audit of Maricopa County 2020 elections comes out with their probable statement, something to the effect of “There were many, many irregularities in the vote,” are we, the people, expected to believe them? This is the party that threw in with the greatest liar of them all and continues to do so to this day.

So no, you can take your audit and march off into the sunset of relevance as the people of the United States replace you with additional forward-thinking Democrats and moderate Republicans who put their service to the country above whatever it is you are trying to sell.

James Hailey

Foothills

Belief not necessary for change

Re: the May 15 letter “Connecting the dots on climate disaster.”

The article disparages Republicans on their rejection of climate change science. Although, I believe the science of climate change is real, I suggest belief is not necessary for change. Adapting to a renewable clean energy system has many advantages, but I need to just list two.

Wind and solar are cheaper than fossil fuels. This would be even truer if the government stopped subsidizing fossil fuels.

Clean energy is better for our health.

If Congress enacts good carbon pricing legislation, the U.S. would benefit economically and health-wise, and millions of new jobs would be created. I urge readers to look at the Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act.

Belief in climate change is not a necessity to understand we can move forward to do better for society.

Jonathan Light

Downtown

Defining free speech

Re: the May 15 letter “Woke progressives embrace censorship.”

Words are shortcuts to express complex subjects like the right to free speech, or political ideologies. Words save time, but can oversimplify or miss the real issues.

This writer’s letter is about free speech. No American denies the importance of free speech. The censorship he discusses should be about speech that is harmful to individuals or to our society.

Our Constitution provides for a few rights, but the founders probably assumed the citizenry would understand that rights in a society always carry with them responsibilities. We are not solitary cave dwellers. We don’t have the right to steal from our neighbor or deny our rights to others. We don’t have the right to public speech that endangers others, such as falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater, with the sole purpose of creating chaos.

The right to free speech is a given. Using free speech responsibly should be the discussion topic.

Glenn Rodey

SaddleBrooke

Home-sharing for seniors

Re: the April 26 article “Home-sharing becomes trend.”

Yes, that’s possible, but only if and when individuals and organizations embrace the practice, educate the public about benefits and endorse a program with funding. It’s time to withdraw from politics and partisan bias and focus on affordable housing as a humanitarian solution that benefits Tucsonans, especially older adults.

It is also time to establish a sustainable Home-Sharing Pilot Program, much like the 50 other programs in existence in 17 other states. Home-sharing is a realistic and viable option for those elders willing to share their home with another person and/or for those seniors seeking a lifestyle combo of companionship and affordability. Mutual benefits abound.

Let’s work together to make home-sharing an affordable housing priority for seniors in Tucson. Please support this effort.

Lucy Read, Board of Directors Tucson Home Sharing

Foothills

GOP ‘fraudit’ in Arizona

Several writers to this page have asked why the Democrats are so set against the so-called audit. It is because we have become painfully aware of the wholesale acceptance by the faithful of patently proven lies and falsehoods from their morally devoid leaders and media.

Any result is justly suspect as the frauditors have declared in advance they are supporters of the “Stop the Steal” campaign. Their incompetence is evidenced by statements made before the farce started and the lack of performance to date. Perhaps the main motive is fund-raising.

I want to thank the clever person who coined the term “fraudit,” as I heard the term in passing and I do not know who it was. It is a fraudulent audit.

Jeff Rayner

SaddleBrooke

Kids develop critical thinking

Re: the May 17 letter “Measure could work in teachers’ favor.”

I had a knee jerk reaction to the Arizona bill that seeks to force teachers to present all sides on a controversial issue or face strict financial penalties. I thought this was ridiculous; why give class time to flat-earthers or Obama Birthers? Then I read this teacher’s letter to the editor and was surprised to find myself in complete agreement.

All sides of an issue should be taught to students. In the interest of developing critical thinking skills, students need to learn to look at information they receive, including where the information comes from and the credentials (and possible agenda) of the people delivering the information. Was Jan. 6 an insurrection, or was it the equivalent of an orderly Capitol tour? Let’s look at the videos, hear the testimony of witnesses and evaluate the evidence. Kudos to the writer and the Star for bringing us both sides of this issue.

Susan Miller-Pinhey

Foothills

More asphalt won’t help Tucson

How can the City of Tucson continue to sponsor Regional Transportation Authority (RTA) road-widening projects? We’re asked to accept the destruction of businesses and homes and the heat-mass effect of more asphalt in exchange for upgraded intersections, more accessible sidewalks and wider bike lanes.

Well, guess what: all those improvements can be made and to many more miles of existing roadways for the cost, if we ditch the 1960s mindset that prioritizes even more space for cars. Six lanes on First Avenue? What problem does that solve?

I’m sick of hearing that these projects must be completed because they were in the plan voters approved in 2006. That was before the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report warned we must limit global warming to 2°C. Before Tucson had reached 2.5°C warming since 1970. We know how to create livable cities, this is not the way. RTA is a doomsday machine that must be stopped.

Suzanne Schafer

Downtown