Candidate: Here's Why I Am RunningI appreciate the Tucson Weekly's coverage of the election. I would like to clarify my positions ("Scramblewatch '08," June 12).
I became interested in running for District 2 supervisor because of my opposition to the Rosemont mine and incumbent Ramón Valadez's three-time refusal to support a resolution against the mine. It was not until a board meeting was packed with outraged citizens, who were angry over repeated delays to support the resolution, that Valadez finally voted to oppose the mine.
When I discovered information about Rosemont's proposed activities in Arizona Department of Water Resources public records, I tried to reach him, but he refused to take my calls or meet with me.
I have been the loudest voice to speak out against the Rosemont mining operations and request that a hydrological-impact study be done at Rosemont's expense. I attended five of the six Forest Service open-house meetings, and many other citizens' informational meetings, while Valadez attended only one citizens' informational meeting and none of the Forest Service meetings.
Valadez made similar actions with election integrity issues; he refused to meet with representatives from the Pima County Democratic Party, leading to a lawsuit that wasted hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars. Once again, he only did the right thing when activists and other outraged citizens packed the board meeting.
I'm increasingly concerned about what I have found while researching Valadez, including sweet deals he has promoted between Pima County and South Tucson. Another concern is that developers, lobbyists and contractors have supported Valadez's campaign, while most of them do not live in his district or belong to the Democratic Party.
I hope Democrats in District 2 will look at the issues and choose who will best represent their interests.
Robert G. Robuck, Candidate for Board of Supervisors, District 2
Marriage Isn't About Genealogy; It's About PropertyWilliam Winkelman's defense of his definition of traditional marriage ("Main Course of Marriage Is Genealogy, Not Romance," Mailbag, June 12) gets a lot of recent history wrong.
The current marriage battleground is best defined as concerning state-sanctioned property arrangement, and as such, it is fairly recent (post-Middle Ages) among the relatively few people with property. Before that, and for the property-poor, people had common-law arrangements, sometimes accompanied by religious ceremonies--but not always. It's the involvement of the secular state that is of import here and now in the 21st century. If you don't believe me, try getting officially divorced without the involvement of the state.
Let religions say, do and sanctify what they will. But if we are equal under state law, the state does not have the right to prevent the conjoining of property and obligations between any pair of adult individuals. In addition, any two adults have the moral right to be as unhappily married as anybody else.
Marriage is a mixed bag; let everybody have at it. Given adultery and divorce rates, we heterosexuals aren't doing such a great job "preserving" it to retain a monopoly.
Tarot Readers Stand on Front Lines Against TerrorThe article "Fortune Hunters" (Currents, June 12) seeks, after the manner of typical liberal media, to distract us from a deadly serious problem by presenting it in a light-hearted manner, and the city of Tucson is complicit in the deception. Licensure of Tarot-card readers is merely the harbinger bringer of the tip of the iceberg.
The nice lady sitting across the table and reassuring you about your love life has always been considered a part of Americana. But that was then, and this is now. In our post-Sept. 11 world, we no longer have the luxury of trusting just any old person who claims to be a card reader.
The city is using the $100 license fee and $25 setup fee to weed out the dross from the chaff, as it were. A real card reader, as the interviewee in the article points out, needs the fee money for food, gas, rent and clothes, and will complain about it. A terrorist, on the other hand, is part of a network with deep pockets and wishes to avoid suspicion, and so will pay the fees gladly. But too late for him--the fee clerk pushes a little button, and the police rush in and throw this terrorist's sorry ass into the slammer.
So come on, people; get a grip! Support the valiant fee collectors who are one of the last bulwarks between us and the blood-dimmed tide of international chaos. And when you see a Tarot reader, remember that he or she is on the front lines in the War on Terror. Swing on over, and get a reading. It won't kill you to drop $15, and the knowledge you obtain could be priceless.
Greyhound Park Needs to Answer QuestionsThank you for your excellent and timely article on the plight of greyhounds in South Tucson ("Dog Days No More?" Currents, June 19). As treasurer for Tucson Dog Protection and a veterinarian, I'd like to respond to what track manager Tom Taylor said about our veterinarian endorsements.
Taylor couldn't believe that 80 Tucson veterinarians willingly endorsed the Tucson Dog Protection Act. He's right. The number is up to 94 and growing. (Their names are online.)
Taylor singled out the potential banning of anabolic-steroid injections as a prime deal-breaker. Maybe he didn't know that experts in animal care don't repeatedly use anabolic steroids to keep dogs from going into heat. We'd be glad to educate him about spaying and separating females in heat, as has been done for centuries. Steroids are controlled substances because they can cause serious permanent harm. Furthermore, syringes are prohibited in the kennels, so who is dosing all of these dogs?
Taylor wants us to believe that the dogs at his track are so valuable for breeding that no one would possibly harm them. Tucson is known as a place where the losing dogs from other tracks come--and no one breeds a loser! The track has often paid good money to take greyhounds off their hands.
Tucson Greyhound Park takes in millions of dollars a year. They should be able to meet these modest standards and still pay their kennel operators a living wage. Those who patronize dog racing should insist on it.
Border Wall Again Shows How Corporations Profit by Duping AmericansI once heard someone commenting about the border fence say, "Show me a 13-foot fence, and I'll show you a 15-foot ladder" ("Let's Climb the Wall!" June 19). It is unfortunate that we still do not apply basic scientific principles to solving this problem. For example, what exactly is the root of this problem?
It is also unfortunate that American citizens continue to be duped by corporations making a profit off their fear ($2 million a mile). I recommend What's the Matter With Kansas? by Thomas Frank for more examples of how the poor continue to rally against their own economic interests.