Context Important in City CoverageTo the Editor,
They say that those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. Such is the case with some of your coverage.
A few months ago, Molly McKasson and Dave Devine co-authored a story on poverty in Tucson ("The Changing Face of Poverty in Tucson," Jan. 23). Their claim was that poverty increased significantly in the 1980s--more than in any other decade. Somehow, they fail to mention that Tom Volgy was at City Hall as both councilman and mayor throughout the 1980s.
Recently, Dave Devine wrote an article about grade-separated interchanges ("Bye-Bye, GSIs," July 24). He mentions that the 1990 transportation plan had seven GSIs, while the 2002 Transportation Plan--supported by Mayor Walkup--had three. Devine neglects to mention that Volgy was a leading supporter of the 1990 plan and its seven GSIs--including one at Grant Road and Campbell Avenue.
Now in The Skinny, we read a defense of Volgy's record on the economy ("By the Numbers," July 24). The Skinny claims that if the economy was terrible during the Volgy years, it was in part because of Volgy's inheritance of 10 years of bad city budgets.
Yet again, The Weekly neglects to mention that Tom Volgy was on the council voting on those bad budgets.
The Weekly usually does a better with its accuracy, so please tell the whole truth about both candidates and save the bias for the editorials.
In Defense of Francisco MoragaTo the Editor,
I generally love The Weekly, and I look forward to reading it every week. In particular, I enjoy The Skinny and its take on local politics and such. But I'm really disappointed in the continuing mean-spirited attacks on Francisco Moraga ("Pork Served Daily at TUSD," Aug. 7). I was in the Drug Court program with Frank, and I can't be silent in the face of your misguided crusade, or whatever it is, against him.
First off, Frank has taken responsibility for what he did in the past. He had a life-threatening problem. He admitted that he had the problem; he took recommended steps to manage the problem; he has attempted to make amends when possible for the harms caused by him and his problem. You don't escape from active drug addiction (not for long, anyway) without gaining some human qualities such as compassion, humility and a passion for helping others. These are all traits that I'd want my nephews and nieces to have in their schools' employees.
Secondly, the phrase "Get out of Jail Free" card, as used to characterize the Drug Court program, is bullshit. There's nothing "free" about it. Participants endure a mind-numbing schedule of counseling, court appearances, random piss tests and other fun things determined at the court's whimsy. The monthly fees, when I was in the program, exceeded the cost of the drug habit I was shedding--and trust me, that was a lot. All for what? To avoid having a felony show up on your record.
I'm pleased that somebody who's admittedly not perfect but has learned plenty from his mistakes now has a chance to redeem himself. And my only regret here is that he's only making $65,000 considering how long he's been serving the children of Tucson. Like most educators, he should be making at least double.
--John F. Gatty
Where did Christ Speak in Leviticus, Exactly?To the Editor,
Renee Downing's column on how the Bushites misuse Christianity ("True Colors," Aug. 7) was yet another whitewashing of the nature of Judeo-Christianity. While Downing's assessments of Bush's policies and attitudes were on target, the suggestion that the neocons' claims to Christianity are erroneous were just plain wrong.
Christianity is not, Ms. Downing, a religion of love. Read your Bible; when I did, I found that I could no longer have anything to do with the Christian faith I was raised in. Christianity has nothing to say about same-sex marriage, according to Downing. Well, as far as the legal or religious ceremony, she's right. As for homosexuality--the basis of same-sex marriage--it brutally condemns it. Not once, but twice, in Leviticus it is called "abomination" for a man to "lie with mankind as he lieth with woman." The second time, it calls for the murder by stoning of any man who does so.
Now, let's move on to the glorious status of women in the Judeo-Christian tradition. The Bible calls for the stoning to death of any woman who is raped within the city because, it is presumed, she could have cried out and been saved; she gets to live if she's raped outside the city "in the field." How enlightened.