Sexist comments are as toxic as racist comments
I challenge you to determine for yourself if you would have given the same consideration for printing Mr. Burns’ letter if he had submitted it as follows.
To make my point regarding the derisiveness of Mr. Burns’ letter, I’m submitting my version of Palin is a New Dan Quayle, in Lipstick, (Voices, Sept. 17), by borrowing Mr. Peter J. Burns’ own words.
You see, sexist comments are as toxic as racist ones. If Mr. Burns disagrees with Gov. Palin’s and Sen. McCain’s politics and policies, convince me with reasoned and intelligent argument, not with acrimonious dribble. Mr. Burns’ letter really “burns” me!
And her satirical letter …
Nineteen months ago, Barack Obama, the Anointed One, was plucked out of obscurity to solidify the Marxist Democrat Party base.
He is a staunch, eerily radical left-wing presidential candidate who appealed to a broad swath of socialist Americans. Today, we’ve been dealt a new George McGovern, but with more color.
Barack Obama has the same uncompromising Marxist stances that appeal to a small but highly mobilized population of our country. They are commonly referred to in many circles as “the crazies.” They love him. They always love people who agree with them, simply because they agree with them when most people do not.
Do you know the difference between Lenin and Barack Obama? And I don’t mean the color. The difference is that Lenin was a real community organizer.
We must remember we have a Presidential candidate there at the Joe Biden rallies — a candidate who is dodging issues. Barack Obama likes his insta-celebrity position, dodges the issues, and refuses to talk real policy. It is classic evasive maneuvering, meant to dupe the people.
Tax to pay for a park, but ignore Oro Valley roads
Chet Oldakowski formed a PAC to stop the Naranja Town Site Park.
Dick Johnson (NTS supporter) is quoted in the news article. According to Johnson, communities have just as much obligation to fund parks as they do roads. And the burden to pay for such things falls upon all members of the community, not just those who benefit from them.
“That’s not the way we do things in America,” Johnson said. “It’s not just about me, it’s about the community.”
Interesting that Mr. Johnson brings up the analogy of funding roads as well as parks.
The TOV already has long-term “under-funded liabilities” that exist for TOV roads. If such “under-funded” obligations are permitted to grow over a long period of time, they can have a substantial effect on a government’s financial condition (sounds like our country’s current economic crisis).
Where is Mr. Johnson’s voice on “community support” for maintaining our roads?
Mr. Civalier, town engineer, appeared before the TOV finance committee in both 2007 and 2008 to discuss “pavement management;” that is, the strategy on how to maintain our streets (roads).
We are currently at least $1 million short each year in budgeting reserves for pavement management.
Mr. Civalier indicated it would help if we could spend about $3.8 million for about 7-8 years ($25-30 million) to maintain the roads properly.
According to Mr. Johnson, we must tax our citizens for a park and ignore our roads.
Writers missed the point about use of ‘captain’
In my Sept. 17 letter it was not my intention to denigrate Al Melvin’s service to our country. I was only pointing out that his use of the word “captain” was improper if not followed by the branch of service and the word “retired.”
My claim was fortified by the two letter writers in the Sept. 24 edition, both of whom signed their letters with their name, rank, branch of service, followed by the word retired. They completely missed the point of my letter. How interesting that both letter writers had to insinuate politics into a simple observation about the misuse of a military title.
I stand by what I said, and add that I spent almost 40 years in the New Mexico National Guard, the U.S. Navy and as a Foreign Service officer and serving our country proudly abroad for more than 25 years of those years. Thus, my patriotism to my country should not be questioned despite what the two letter writers are trying to imply.
Retired Foreign Service Officer
Candidate’s military status is relevant to uncommitted
I was somewhat amused and dismayed by the response, in the Sept. 24 issue, of Messrs. Hudgins and Bogard to Jerry Lujan’s letter of Sept 17th.
Jerry in his letter suggested that Mr. Melvin, who I understand is running for state senator, should identify on his campaign signs his military affiliation and status, e.g. branch of service, active, reserve, retired, etc. I for one, as an uncommitted voter, would appreciate this information. Could it be that Jerry was attempting to give Mr. Melvin a recommendation to enhance his campaign?
Jerry did in his letter inject a bit of humor to make his point. Messrs. Hudgins and Bogard evidently took umbrage with the humor bit. They in turn through some process of convoluted logic arrived at the conclusion that Jerry was mocking Mr. Melvin’s service, and was accordingly unpatriotic and did not appreciate the service of our nation’s veterans. Knowing Jerry Lujan as I do, I have to dispute these “infamous” charges.
Jerry is a veteran and than some. He has spent many years of service to our country. He is a Navy veteran, was a New Mexico National Guardsman, and spent over 25 years abroad as a Foreign Service officer. He is also a founder of a non-partisan, non-political troop support organization. During the past three years this organization has continuously provided care packages and telephone cards to our deployed troops, financial support to their families, and furnishes volunteers and comfort items to our disabled veterans at the Tucson VA hospital.
So Messrs. Hudgins and Bogard, I suggest you get the facts before you casually accuse any American who may not agree with you of being unpatriotic. Also remember as former military officers we swore to uphold the Constitution, which includes the right for all of us to express our differing views.
LtCol USMC (Retired)
Director denied a woman chance to speak
This is an open letter to the Board of Directors of the Vistoso Community Homeowners Association.
Last evening I attended the homeowners’ association board meeting.
I am concerned and affronted by the cavalier manner in which this meeting was conducted.
I was particularly offended by the way you, Mr. Ottley, the board president, responded when asked a question by a female audience member during what I thought was an open discussion period. You harshly reprimanded her for speaking, and then in the next instant, you allow a question from a male audience member to be asked and answered. No reprimand.
This attitude smacks of sexism or favoritism, both of which are an unacceptable way to run a community board meeting.
I am equally offended that none of you other board members spoke up.
Yes, perhaps I’m a little bit sensitive to what “bias” feels like. As an African-American female, I’ve had a lifetime to recognize it.
You were wrong… You should apologize.
Perhaps you didn’t intend to display a bias’ however, allowing a man to speak and denying a woman the same opportunity reeks of sexism.
Kindness is a virtue. Courtesy is simply good manners.
Thank you for your attention.
Bonds too costly in THIS economy
In a recent letter to the editor, Don Cox indicated that Oro Valley will be a town of mediocrity if the citizens don’t approve the Naranja Town Site (NTS) bond proposal.
How can that be? Without the developed NTS, the town recently received several excellent recognitions. U.S News & World Report stated Oro Valley was one of the top places to retire; Money Magazine reported Oro Valley was one of the best places to live in 2008; Family Circle and http://Parents.com">Parents.com rated Oro Valley as one of the best 10 towns for families; and Fortune Small Business Magazine ranked Oro Valley 44th out of the 100 best places to live and launch a small business.
It doesn’t appear the quality of our town or our property values have suffered from the lack of the developed Naranja Town Site.
Investing in the high cost of the NTS to save some citizens money on gasoline spent to reach recreational facilities outside the town is a minor consideration. A major consideration should be the current financial state of United States and its potential impact on the bond issue.
While it is anyone’s best guess, it appears likely the ability to borrow money for everyone, including the Town of Oro Valley, will be at a higher rate than when the town first asked its citizens to assume more personal long-term debt (up to 25 years and up to 12 percent per annum) by approving the bond proposal. Therefore, it is likely if the bond issue is approved now, we will receive fewer facilities due to higher costs.
The NTS will also cost more to operate. It would be wise to reject the parks and recreation improvements bond proposal for now due to the cost uncertainty. If approved now, the resulting additional property taxes (personal long-term debt) and operational costs will further reduce our shrinking standard of living.
Without the NTS, the Town of Oro Valley will not be a town of mediocrity. It will continue to be a community of excellence.
U.S. should not dig deeper hole
Americans in Tucson; we have a secretary of treasury scratching his head and insisting on being blindly insured by the American people.
He is backed by our President, who is in over his head. The Congress (both Republican and Democrat) appears ready to accept this approach. Congressional committee chairmen appear to agree?
But, all of the above want “We the people” to give the administration a free hand and $700 billion more to bail out failed financial systems, mortgages, etc. The people do not understand who owns these mortgages, where they are located, what the paperwork contains, plus many additional questions. The treasurer allocated $300 billion, borrowed a short week ago to bail out bank money market reserves and the largest insurance company in this world.
When “We the people” acquire this trillion dollar additional debt, how is it to be paid for? Silence prevails. Some are promising tax relief. What nonsense.
Aren’t the people being asked by failed leaders to blindly cover their backside by accepting this solution? All of us are going to share in this faulty decision? My “action” is simple. Let all of Wall Street fail first. Do not lend more.
We all will be afflicted somewhat equally. The bottom line, whatever has happened, you and I and our future generations will have to pay for. But … a crash is inevitably worse.
Our taxes, great now or greater later, will eventually pay this horrendous bill. It can get worse. Our nation can go broke and the streets filled with anarchists. The worst will require creating new financial systems and new worthless currency, that may not work.
Likewise, our elected officials and top-level federal managers must be held to term limits since all have failed us.
Why dig a bigger hole?
Lt. Col. USAF retired