Dear Tucson Weekly:

As a concerned parent/grandparent, public education advocate and TUSD board candidate, I am very worried that the YES campaign on Prop 123 will dominate the media landscape and push through a dangerous and divisive proposition. How, you may ask, can a public education advocate vote AGAINST school funding? My answer is that I do not believe that this is school funding. This is an end-run around having to comply (first) with Proposition 301 legislation that was the will of the voters and (more recently) with a court order demanding compliance with that legislation. Prop 123 is being pitched to us as education funding by a governor who calls himself the "education governor" while presiding over a state that has defunded, for all intents and purposes, universities, technical education and K-12 school districts.

My point of entry into the subject is my brand new granddaughter, Emma, who I hope will have a broad and diverse public education here in TUSD. However, she will not be entering the system for about 6 years, which means that in a very concrete way she will experience the outcome of Proposition 123—an outcome which could be quite horrendous (just ask anyone who lost a home in 2008 if ever-increasing investments is something we can place all of our faith in....) She will never be educated in a public school with more than 49 percent of the budget; if she is, a trigger is tripped and all bets are off. Sorry, little Emma, guess the dream and the state's constitutional responsibility to educate you were just a fantasy!, Meanwhile, my granddaughter’s uncle, my youngest son is a high schooler who will have the huge opportunity to move from number 50 to number 48 in the nation in terms of school funding should Prop 123 be passed. Yes, teachers may receive a raise, but possibly at the cost of future employment, if public education is privatized. (The funds are "undesignated" so it is not even a given that they will in fact be used for teacher raises) Many fear that this Proposition is a "first step" to privatization, and nothing else.

I would like to know, after twice being fooled, just how much trust should we place in either our legislature or our governor? Why twice fooled, you ask? The first time was when the taxpayers supported extra taxation to go to public schools, and the 2008 economic downturn forced a compromise and the legislature canceled payments and used the money for general fund needs. The second time was when we the public all lined up AGAIN to designate a permanent 1/2 cent tax increase to take care of school funding, (to resolve the dire situation that our schools were left in by the first foolishness) only to have the election stolen by this very governor and his dark money friends. So my question here is, who is to be trusted and why?

I attended the April 5 public hearing on the Broadway project. As I walked the short two blocks from my car to attend the meeting on Tuesday, I passed at least 20 of the brass information plaques that grace our historic sites, as well as countless significant pieces of architecture. I imagined how the immediate surroundings of City Hall would look and feel if these sites had not been preserved, and wide roads were deemed more necessary or worthwhile then our beautiful historic sites.

Upon entering the lobby of the Pima County Administration Building, I was greeted by an attractive and prominent, permanent display of Pima County's varied and significant historic sites. Clearly the city understands how important our unique heritage sites are to our identity, pride and brand. The irony that I was confronted by a celebration of our city’s valuable sites, while lining up to go into a crowded hearing that would decide the fate of some of Tucson’s other historical sites, was not lost on me.

America is becoming more and more homogeneous. Every city has a snarling web of arterial roads punctuated by large plazas with box stores, that add nothing to the unique flavor of their communities. How many cities can boast such a significant strip of mid-century buildings? Tucson has some very important gems on Broadway that were built during what is widely considered America’s heyday.

The thing about architecturally significant buildings is that they get more significant with time, not less. Once they are gone they are gone forever, and it is shortsighted to destroy any of them. Banners celebrating Broadway as the “Sunshine Mile” mark the very area that the project would irrevocably change. Please do not turn it into the “Cloudy Corridor” of Anywhere, USA. Cities rarely, if ever, regret preserving their heritage. No one will ever visit Tucson to admire our six lane strip of asphalt.

Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton won the Arizona Presidential Preference Election Tuesday. Both races were called by 11 p.m. This morning, with the great majority of precincts counted, Trump got 47 percent of votes, or 249,842, and Clinton had 57.6 percent, or 235,667 votes. 

In the GOP race, Cruz got 24.9 percent, or 131,972 votes, and Kasich only 10 percent, which is a little more than 53,000 votes. 

Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders got 39.9 percent, or 163,368 votes.

Here in Pima County, Trump got 44 percent of the votes, and Clinton 57 percent vs. Sanders' 41 percent.

It was a messy damn primary election in the Grand Canyon state, and it's very hard to accept these results. Someone I know called it "Florida 2000 type shit."

I showed up to my polling place at the Armory Park Center and waited in line two minutes. There was one person in front of me and two behind me. Thankfully, the political party I have been registered in since I became a U.S. citizen four years ago hadn't been changed to "independent" overnight. Within five minutes, I voted, got my "I voted" sticker and went back to work.

But then I saw people's "updates" on Facebook—thousands of voters in the Phoenix area waited in line up to five hours. Some left, some stayed and ordered pizza, others were still in line way after polls closed at 7 p.m.

A friend of mine showed up to his polling place in Tucson only to find out a mysterious force had deleted his switch from independent to Democrat. He was sent home. It turns out numerous voters, who switched from independent to Democrat (or Republican. But most complaints appear to be coming from voters switching to Democrat, according to several reports) could not vote. In Arizona, independents are only allowed to vote in the general election. Many who thought had switched were turned away and given provisional ballots.

The other day, my dad (a conservative-leaning independent) and I (a liberal-leaning independent) were discussing freedom of speech in regards to Donald Trump. We both agreed freedom of speech is probably the quintessential American right, and it shouldn't be censored. That being said, we also both agreed that Trump's signature pompous and oftentimes discriminatory speech is flat out irresponsible. 
Only a couple days later, Trump himself proved us right in the crudest manner possible—blaming Brussels for being attacked by terrorists shortly after said attacks occurred. 

This morning, in wake of tragic Islamic State-led attacks on the Brussels Airport in Zaventem, Belgium, Trump told an anchor on Fox News that Brussels is "a disaster city," among other insensitive slights, according to reports from Slate. He blamed the bombings in Brussels on poor border enforcement and said they occurred for the same reason the November 2015 attacks in Paris did—failure to weed out and deny ISIS-affiliated people the right to immigrate (so, in Trump's eyes, basically any Muslim person). 

Trump continued to snub Brussels, calling it "horrible" and a "horror show" on CBS and again when he told Matt Lauer on Today that America itself needs to be "very vigilant" about who we allow into our country, he took a step over the unspoken line. 

Happy International Women’s Day, lovely humans of the Earth. Take a moment to thank the kick-ass women in your life a little bit extra today. Listen to some Beyoncé—you're #Flawless. Also take a few moments to try and understand the apparent and more concealed struggles women encounter on a daily basis.

Society puts women at a disadvantage that varies in intensity due to a variety of factors, be it race, socioeconomic status, religion, disability status, physical appearance, etc. We're conditioned to blame ourselves and are blamed by others for our own rapes, we make less money than our male colleagues, we're sexualized from grossly young ages, we're forced to fight to control our reproductive rights, we're taught "boys will be boys," we're called sluts and whores and unpure for expressing our sexualities, we're labeled as "bossy" for asserting our opinions and ideas—the list of injustices goes on and on. 

Listen. I'm not not here to judge if you've never registered any of these realities—though I think that's almost impossible this day in age, with social media, the internet as a whole, the supposed "Media Circus" and what not. I myself wasn't always aware of the inherent bias and discrimination our society imposes against women. I am here to tell you, though, that these realities are, yes, very real, and oftentimes heart-breaking for any woman or girl you may know and love.

If you're feeling rather disheartened, angry or just generally emotional after that last proclamation, good. You should be. But instead of just wallowing and feeling like a shitty person for just realizing this, be curious. Educate yourself and try to understand. Watch and read up on other kick-ass women's opinions and research regarding what it means to live as a woman in today's society. Check out the following educational starting points for your daily dose of Womanhood 101. 

A Republican lawmaker in New York wants to prohibit food stamp recipients from using the federal aid to buy steak or lobster at the grocery store. Because apparently people living in poverty shouldn't be allowed to eat either of said items?

How dare they.

The bill introduced in the New York Legislature by state Sen. Patty Ritchie refers to steak and lobster as "luxury food items," according to The Washington Post. And it would also prohibit people from buying things like soda, candy and cake. 

The proposal falls in line with a decades-old conservative fear that people use government assistance to purchase high-end foods. A strikingly similar proposal popped up last year in Missouri last year and another was signed into law by Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback (R) in April.

WaPo writes that the New York Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program already restricts buying liquor, cigarettes, pet food and hot or prepare foods—understandable. But with this proposal it seems more about chipping at people's dignity. "Only rich people can buy a cake for their child's birthday!" 

The New York Times' Fernanda Santos wrote today about the ongoing attacks by a group of UA students against the Islamic Center of Tucson.

Santos begins her story with a Syrian refugee who, when leaving the mosque after Friday Prayer, had two cans of beer thrown toward her. 

On another night at the mosque, Ahmed Meiloud, a Ph.D. candidate from Mauritania who is also the Islamic Center's president, was leaving the building when someone yelled from a passing car, "Terrorist, go back to where you came from!"

It's embarrassing and sad to read a distorted depiction of Tucson, a place that's so welcoming and open-minded, based on some of the ignorant residents attending the university—who are likely not even natives to the Old Pueblo. They remind me of the snow birds who temporarily move to Tucson a few months out of the year and do nothing but taint this beautiful desert with anger.

And, of course, it is people like myself who feel the most embarrassed about this type of national coverage of Tucson. Because, if you ask these kids, well, they don't give a damn. A world does not exist outside their boundaries made of tailgates, college sports and booty shorts.

Santos writes:

The diverse congregation of the Islamic Center—a squat copper-domed complex just outside the University of Arizona's sprawling campus here—has endured mocking, taunts and attacks of vandalism ever since hundreds of students moved into a pair of private high-rise apartment towers next door three years ago. In at least one instance, a shower of crushed peanuts rained down on the mosque; more typically, cans and bottles are flung from apartment balconies, usually on the popular party nights of Friday and Saturday.

"Yes, there are students, usually drunken students, but these attacks aren't random," Mr. Meiloud said. "We are the target."

Update Feb. 8, 6 p.m.:

It turns out that the Return of Kings meet-ups weren't actually ever advertised by the group to be pro-rape, according to an article posted by ROK member Rob Berne yesterday. From the horse's mouth:

Media reports resulted in a shut down of the meet ups planned among our followers...The Establishment intentionally took one article written by Roosh in which he proposed a thought experiment to increase the safety of women by 'legalizing rape on private property.' The elites took a gamble that taking that article out of context and exaggerating it to the fullest extent would create a firestorm—notice that few of the slanderous articles actually linked to the piece in
question, where any reasonable person could see that it was not written earnestly.

The media twisted the followers of ROK and Roosh into 'rape supporters' simply because of one article that was obvious satire. Jonathan Swift once wrote that poor children should be eaten by the wealthy. Back in the 18th century, no one was stupid enough to take Swift’s essay seriously.

So, Return of Kings's didn't intend to host a series of meetings advocating rape. My bad. The article written by Valizadeh—the one that apparently made everyone think the ROK meetings were pro-rape—was labeled as a "satirical thought experiment" in a note at the top of the page. According to Snopes, this thought was added after he initially received backlash for the article in Feb. 2015.

Based off ReturnOfKings.com's content and the fact that the meet-ups were aimed at heterosexual male readers, I  think it's pretty safe to say the meetings would have attracted a group of men who support rape culture and pro-rape attitudes.

Pro-choice supporters, feminists and generally good people everywhere are rejoicing a little extra today. Why? Because a UN committee declared abortion a human right. 

According to Mic.com, a woman from Peru called "K.L." filed a complaint to the United Nations Human Rights Committee after the Peruvian government wouldn't allow her to get a "medically indicated" abortion back in 2001, even though she was only 17 years old, and even though her fetus would never develop a brain and die due to anencephaly, an extremely rare and fatal birth defect.


It's a valid argument that K.L. should have been able to get an abortion solely for this reason. Actually, according to HuffPost, she really should have been—Peruvian law permits medically indicated abortions when the mother's life is at risk. 

Medically-powered reasonings aside, K.L. should have been granted the right to an abortion for the sake of her own emotions. Can you imagine nurturing something for months and months, knowing the entire time it will die—not maybe, not if. K.L. went into a deeply depressive state after her baby passed away at only four days old. Is that really a surprise? 

Withholding the reproductive rights of K.L. was inhumane, unethical. She probably would have faced emotional strife even if the government did allow her to go through with an abortion. Forcing a woman to give birth to a soul that's practically already dead isn't right, ever. 

With the UN's new proclamation, though, the future looks bright—maybe women won't need to fight claw and nail to make their own reproductive decisions. Abortion is a human right. Deal with it. 

This is part seven of a journal I’m keeping during my time working at a refugee camp in Greece. Part six, covering my first week working as an interpreter at a medical clinic, can be found here.

I started this week with the same job as last week, working as a Farsi interpreter at the medical clinic at Lesvos island’s biggest refugee camp, Moria.



Jan. 11

Today brought two of the most memorable stories of this month.

First was a young man who came in with charred and peeling skin on one hand. “It got burned in a fire,” he told me, “in Turkey a few days ago.” A doctor looked at his hand and found that there was no permanent damage, then went to get the young man vaseline and bandages.

While the doctor was away, I asked the young man how he burned his hand. “I was throwing gasoline on a bonfire,” he told me.

“Shouldn’t you pour the gasoline before starting the fire?” I asked him.

“Yes, but I wanted to throw the whole can on the top of the fire.”

I couldn’t help it. I turned my head to the side and pretended to cough while I quietly laughed, but he caught me. Learning to keep my mouth closed while swallowing a yawn has been the best employment skill I’ve learned, but I imagine that making an unavoidable laugh look like a cough would be equally useful. When I turned back around, the patient and I made eye contact and he tried to hide a smile. The secret was out. We both dropped the serious tone and laughed at what happened. His laughter grew as I explained to him that “The Spanish firefighters on the beach poured gasoline on a fire last week too. They lost control for a moment and scared everybody at the beach, and they were firefighters! At least you can pretend you didn’t know better!”

We quieted our laughter when the doctor came back. I resumed my role as a medical interpreter. A professional, stoic, interpreter. Definitely not someone that laughs at/with patients. “There is no permanent damage and your hand will get better every day. Apply plenty of vaseline, and change bandages whenever you do. Keep your hand clean. Come back here if the burning gets worse.” I shook the young man’s good hand and led him out of the clinic. I looked for him around camp later when I went for food but couldn’t find him. Something tells me we could have shared more cool stories.




The other story involved zero laughter.