IRS must investigate groups with agendas
Re: the June 1 article "More than tea-party organizations may have been audited by the IRS."
Nowhere in the McClatchy article dealing with tea-party audits does it state why the audits were even considered, which was that nonprofits are not allowed to participate in/with any organization touting a political agenda.
You cannot receive this status if you use even 1 cent to support a political agenda. It's also why organizations like the Giffords-Kelly Responsible Gun group is not nonprofit; it supports an agenda.
Stop trying to twist things to support the lie that the audits were purely politically driven. As for Mark Drabik being audited, I'm amazed this is his first time. I've been audited and I'm just a schoolteacher. Maybe it was just his turn. The IRS is correct in investigating any groups involved in political agendas. It's federal law!
Retired military, Tucson
Let's just take down all the cameras
When it comes to photo enforcement, not all cameras are created equal. In the midst of the great debate over speed cameras, some are mistakenly throwing red light cameras into the mix. I am a strong advocate to abolish red-light cameras. They result in drivers focusing on crosswalk countdown clocks instead of traffic around them.
The creation of "curb line" intersections greatly expands the violation zone, and the timing of left-turn arrows almost assure a photo on every light change.
There is little doubt that red-light cameras are for revenue and safety is secondary.
Speed cameras, on the other hand, provide a 10 mph allowance before your photo-op. More fair, and possibly safety-driven. Unfortunately, they are stationary, resulting in localized safety in the immediate vicinity and pedal to the metal elsewhere.
Why not take them all down and eliminate the confusion and controversy?
Reducing language reduces thought
Re: the May 27 editorials "Do news organizations hurt free speech when they ban offensive words?"
Thank you for not following the AP stylebook and its ban on the use of "illegal immigrant." As you correctly point out, this term is merely a designation for someone in the country without permission. I think Hans Peter Ibold's assertion that the AP is advocating for more precise, contextual writing is specious.
In George Orwell's 1984, the goal of Big Brother's government was to reduce language, and thus thought, to the fewest number of words. Is this where we are headed?
Lucille Claire Morgan
City Council should act for common good
Re: the May 29 article "El Rio dropped as possible site for Grand Canyon U."
What were the wise members of the City Council thinking? Is a golf course that operates at a loss a better option than a college campus that provides education to our residents and good jobs to boost our economy? This city needs a labor pool that satisfies the needs of technology businesses, not more service sector jobs.
Tell us the reason for your change of mind, Tucson Vice Mayor Regina Romero. Higher education is a better option than more parks the city can't afford to maintain. It's time the "leaders" of this city start focusing on the basics of running a city and not on the interests of small groups. You were elected to make this a better place for all of us, not just the neighborhood groups in your wards.
Wraparound ads annoy everyone
What is it with these annoying advertising overlays partially covering news sections of the Daily Star? They must all be stripped off and thrown in the trash in order to get to the news that I pay a good price to receive. Every day, the first thing done in my house is to strip away those overlay ads and toss them while avoiding reading them because of the annoyance.
What a waste of paper! What an infringement! Is there even one subscriber who appreciates them? The advertising firm that designed them needs to go back to the drawing board!
Barbara A. Robinson
Retired , Tucson
Christianity doesn't follow Golden Rule
Re: the June 2 letter to the editor "Respect differences, commonalities."
The letter ends with the words, "The Golden Rule works for all, believers and nonbelievers alike." Can this be so? All Christian believers I've known have expressed irritation, even revulsion, at the thought of being proselytized by someone outside their faith, especially if it means abandoning their Christian worldview in favor of the alternative.
Yet these same Christians consider it their right and proper duty to implore non-Christians to abandon their non-Christian beliefs, despite knowing how offensive that may prove to those they target for conversion. This right and proper duty is known to Christians as their "Great Commission."
In my view, no honest person can simultaneously abide by the Golden Rule while honoring Christianity's Great Commission.
John W. Patterson
Retired, Green Valley