After 8 years of deregulation, corporate profiteering and "common sense" government by the Republicans, we could use some good ivory tower solutions. It's funny that you should take shots at the "liberal ivory tower establishment," since you went to Georgetown. You aren't fooling anyone.
Like you knew anything about what being part of Spontaneous was really about - this article is shameful in its pride and mishapen view of a theater you helped destroy.
- Robert McDiarmid
It seems to have become a "hate State" I've seen on many of these comment boards, a lot of people who support this law, saying hateful or misinformed information on all Hispanics. They generalize that All Hispanics are illegal; when many Hispanics have been in the U.S. for generations, and yet people say negative comments about Mexicans. So I do see a lot of Hate.
Kangas is not being truthful when he says, "Outdoor user groups have not been contacted by Boise City, including those who have expressed a desire to utilize the open space at Hammer Flats. No public meetings have occurred. The first time “we the people” will have an opportunity to comment “on the deal” will be when the City Council votes on the matter after IDFG and Boise City finish their private meeting."
There has been at least one neighborhood meeting, at least forty individuals have provided comments, and several outdoor user groups have been contacted, including Mr. Kangas himself.
I agree with John Kangas, that closing the Hammer Flats area off to non-consumptive, non-destructive uses such as those recreational activities he mentions, is a highly questionable move, and an inappropriate one, on the part of the City of Boise. All five of the objectives of the $10 million open space levy can be met in the case of Hammer Flats, without closing the area off to all use by the public who paid this levy. "Preserving wildlife habitat" does not necessitate exclusion of all public use. Exclude hunting, by all means, and exclude off-road vehicles and dirt bikes that would tear up the terrain--but why exclude hikers, runners, kite-flyers, mountain bikers, nature lovers, bug-watchers, wildflower gazers, cloud contemplators, artists, birders, and hang gliders? Perhaps some additional restrictions might be warranted in winter when the deer are wintering in the area, but this certainly does not require year-round closure.
Long-time traditional uses of the area, such as hang-gliding and para-gliding, should be respected. This money was not raised for the purpose of a strict nature preserve where no human use is permitted.
David Whitacre, long-time Boise resident
Sorry, 12 million illegals have selfishly prevented probably 10,000 legal immigrants from their chance to live the dream. Proximity to the US is not a criteria to entry or to citizenship. It IS also tru that Conservatives have selfishly stomped the American poor by both attracting and hiring the cheap Mexican labor...AND SKILLED...Mexican workers. They play Mexican against white against blacks for the lowest wage. It is also true that MOST Mexicans believe that most of the Southern USA is theirs by land grant--and are slowly taking it back by volume of "immigrants" moving north. It is also true that Mexico has a very harsh illegal's system--just get busted there without your papers. It is also TRUE that both Republican and Democrats are stealing my 4th Amendment RIGHTS over this and terrorist crap. In the end, we cannot grant citizenship to millions at once. Acculturation is a vital part of maintaining unit cohesion in terms of a "country"...(that is UNLESS your goal is to NOT have a "country" when you are done???)
interesting that I would read about the death of a newspaper online.
Sorry. I am an Arizonan. I am married to a Mexican woman. Half of my family is Mexican. I work for a Mexican company. My Mexican colleagues think that all this crap that is going on is ridiculous. All the law states is that they (my Mexican colleagues) are to have papers on them that prove that they are legally in the country when they visit our U.S. office. Can anyone guess what I have to have in my pocket when I visit our company's Mexico offices? Duh.
Opinion: I can't speak for the world, but every opinion poll I've seen says that a large majority of Americans are in favor of Arizona's law. I've never seen such a huge disconnect between media spin and popular opinion in my life.
Anar: I'll bet a three-month membership at the Baku Hyatt fitness center that Mort Rosenblaum doesn't know shashlik from Shinola. He's just another ugly American trying to look smart and sophisticated.
What does Azerbaijan has to do with this? Does the author even know anything about Azerbaijan or did the name of the country sounded close enough to Arizona? For your information, Azerbaijan is one of the most tolerant states in the world in regards to immigration and religion. Next time, read up about things you mention in your article first. Otherwise you lose all credibility and sound pretty ignorant.
I have to cry "BS" on the "Hate State" label. This law has large majority support in the state. You can't get there with out the support of Americans of Mexican decent. I am not generally in favor of the law, but it is NOT about race. First, the law reflects the "Law of the Land" of the United States. It is illegal to be in the United States without the appropriate documentation and approvals. If the federal government was doing its job, nobody would have even considered this law. Current law encourages the creation of an unprotected underclass in this nation. Working below poverty level, unable to seek protection when victimized, generally limited in the freedoms and rights that citizens maintain. At the same time the lack controlled immigration allows for the flow of illicit drugs and other criminal activity to expand into our boarders. We do no one any favors by maintaining the status quo on this issue. This law at least points out the frustration and discourages the illegal activities.
Are you kidding me? Really? This is disgusting. This is legalized racism. Just wait, there are going to be Rodney King cases left and right, and it's going to be a-okay. And yes, Arizona is, in fact, the Hate State (notice it's capitilized, it has coined the term). Guess which state refused to observe Martin Luther King Day until the organizers from the Super Bowl told them it wouldn't be held there unless they gave it proper respect. Please don't try to rationalize this, because it isn't rational, it isn't fair, and it isn't anything that 'America' is supposed to be.
Cry me a river. Another elitist looking down his nose at people trying to protect their state. By the way, how do your French buddies enjoy their annual "youth" riots of illegal aliens and unassimilated North Africans?
Here's an idea: read the law. Arizona is the "Hate State"? No, Arizona is the state that is fighting back from the tyranny of the "compassionate" elite. Go feel good on your on dime.
This is one of the best Guest Opinion's ever published in the BW. COL(R) Wong offers a clear definition and differentiation of Strategic, Operational, and Tactical that all who analyze politics, policy should understand. Much of the mistakes made politically and policy wise emanate from a lack of understanding about these concepts; This article should be required reading as a "planning 101" primer for all who care about where our country and state are headed.
This is typical socialist diatribe. If YOU think parks are valuable, then YOU should pay fees high enough to support them.
If YOU want a pool for YOUR kids to swim in, then YOU pay to join the YMCA, or some other service for a fee option. Do not try to set a recreation district to build a pool and soccer fields for YOUR children.
It is very simple: ALL taxes are taken at the point of a gun. If you do not register your car, and in this case pay the park fee, a person with a gun pulls you over to enforce compliance.
I enjoy state parks, and do not mind paying fees to do so because it is my choice.
I resist and will not support fees on everybody for the enjoyment of the few.
That is why all state support for IPTV should be stopped right now. It will survive and provide a level of service equal to what users are willing to provide. End of story.
Should not the purpose of surgery and any medical treatment be to help preserve parts of the human body as long as possible - or is it to amputate normal and vital body parts of non-consenting individuals?
Would doctors perform female circumcisions if they were not specifically identified as criminal assaults upon females?
If male circumcision is such a beneficial procedure as we are led to believe then why do not masses of intact males (nearly 85%) rush to avail themselves of this surgery?
Is it a legitimate practice to amputate normal, healthy and vital body parts on non consenting individuals because it may someday prevent a disease or condition? If so - how many body parts of children should parents be permitted to amputate in order to prevent future problems? How far do we extend this lunacy?
If the amputation of normal, healthy body parts is an ethical therapeutic procedure used to prevent disease, would the amputation of other body parts such as routine mastectomies or hysterectomies also be acceptable? Today one in nine females develop breast cancer, and of these one in three die. Or is the male foreskin the only target?
Would any female in the USA undergo circumcision for any one of the reasons currently used to promote male circumcision even if it could be proven that there may be potential benefits for it? More than a decade ago a few medical doctors in the USA circumcised females claiming benefits of the procedure. There was a public outcry against this and doctors lost their privileges to practice.
Would any American female undergo circumcision of any type if it could be demonstrated that it would prevent penile or prostate cancer in males? If such reasons would be unacceptable to them, then why should similar arguments be made to justify male circumcision?
Would any male in America dare write an article debating the "pros and cons" of female circumcision? Why are so many American females adamant that males undergo a mutilating procedure which they themselves would not undergo? One must seriously question their real motive in defending male circumcision. They are demanding equality under the law - the right to choose what is in the best interests of their own body - "not the church not the state etc". - but will use every possible strategy to vehemently oppose the same rights for males. These individuals have no qualms expressing their outrage (publicly in the media - articles and letters) denouncing males who would dare defend their right to an intact body as they were created.
Why the continuous appearance of pro-circumcision propaganda by advocates of male circumcision in medical journals, magazines, newspapers, and television reviving myths which have long been disproved and rejected by every medical organization around the world? Why the persistent attempt to promote circumcision?
Why is it that only in the U.S.A.there is the possibility of all these terrible things happening to intact males? Why are these problems seldom seen in any other nations of the world where most males remain intact?
I agree with Steve 100%. I would be more than willing to pay an extra five bucks on my vehicle registration to keep the parks open. If your chief concern is economic, then you must factor in the loss of revenue to the local economy. But these parks are so much more than that. These are the places we go th refresh mind and body and to renew our spirit.
Clearwater Co., ID
[Eli's Hammer II KINGS 18:27 ] Africa has a lot of problems...third world countries don't fare well in the modern era. Now eating is one of them. Cultural practices is another. Tribalism and residual colonialism do not do much to advance the African cause.
So...some brainwave graduate students from Malibu or Manhattan decide that dicks are the way to save "humanity?" This coming from ones who seem to 'know' more about sub-Saharan Africa---than about their black gardener, butler or custodian? One must giggle in one's Latee else one become a nautilus of chromium wisdom----ish.
There can be only one answer to this penile thought...Remove said foreskin from the uncircumcised African and attach it to the circumcized one!
OR: Use the foreskin tidbits to forever rhinoplasty your ignorant middle-class, up in every class but your OWN's pie-hold shut.
Eli's Hammer II KINGS 18:27
I agree with the above to the point that a landlord shouldn't have to allow indoor smoking since it is property damage. At the same time I agree there is a large discrimination movement towards smokers that seems to have blind-folded the general public. There's talk of forcing smoking out of bars (ridiculousness) and even smoking outside (completely discriminating). They've used the media to drive illusional fear to ban people from smoking were smoking has NO health concern. THAT, I believe if FLAT discrimination. No matter what you've heard second hand smoke doesn't have enough hazard to it to be considered a concern.. I have proof of this and have sent it to both boise papers. Do they publish it? NO. Why? Because they know with this discrimination in the area the city would be in an outrage..... PLAY FAIR IS ALL THE SMOKERS ARE ASKING FOR..
© 2017 Boise Weekly
Website powered by Foundation