« The magical thinking election | Main | Phoenix 101: Midwesterners »

November 04, 2010

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Sigh. Why are you always so astute?

I doubt Arizona or America is toast, although our political leadership as of today will be in 2012. I think after they take the reigns, the stupid part of the electorate that voted in the neo-Cons will notice the ineptitude of the right.

I fear for much of the state, especially those that run reddest. For them they may continue into a bleak future will little bacon brought home to their districts from Washington. While the Center City, not immune to the viral-right, will remain healthier and is probably the only place that will see growth, lower unemployment, and a future. Maybe the people of Arizona will see the more liberal areas move ahead economically and, if common sense prevails, will vote out their Tea Party kooks next time around? While Tucson, Flagstaff, and Phoenix continue to grow and tax themselves to make up for state cuts in their budget, the rest of the state will languish. How sad!

It is already happening; Phoenix was among the fastest growing job markets in 2009 (number 3) and reports from this September have Phoenix at the same spot for growth.

http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/news/2010/11/03/phoenix-3rd-in-september-job-gains.html

phxSUNSfan, I'm not persuaded that a rather modest uptick in employment for METRO Phoenix means that we're on some road to recovery. It certainly doesn't support your contention that central Phoenix is somehow leading the way. And even if you accept the premise that Arizona is doing something right, you have to ask exactly what that is and who gets credit. Other measurements of the economy - foreclosures, median income, and unemployment itself - are still very much in historically negative territory.

I used to e-mail Bob Robb about his perennial cheerleading for Phoenix, asking him many of the same questions Talton raises about our low-end economy. For him, it was enough to compare Phoenix to some woebegone rust-belt city and chortle how libetarian principles (i.e., low taxes, homebuilding, anti-environmentalism, and a starved public square) prove that "statism" doesn't work. But that airbrushed optimism neglected to tell a story many of us could see at ground level: Phoenix is simply a metastasized suburb with no central nervous system and no strategy beyond luring people here on the basis of cheap houses and endless sunshine.

I suspect that's the real story behind Phoenix's improbably good employment picture. The growth machine is broken and beyond repair but there's some still some inertial forces, particularly on the fringes of the metroplex. Many jobs are service-oriented and pay poorly but they're better than nothing.

Still, it's worth pointing out that Phoenix does enjoy some inherent advantages. It has a huge number of seniors on Medicare so the health-care/industrial complex is doing very well. If you see a crane on the horizon, chances are it's building a new hospital. This is the mostly unspoken story of the American economy: government spending in health care and - to a lesser extent - education are keeping Americans working at good-paying jobs. At some point, the nihilists may want to cut some of that spending if only to be ideologically consistent. Will they? Not on your life.

"...they embraced it with the addled heat of high-school kids in an Ecstasy hookup..."

Oh, nicely done. ;^)

But while I'm enjoying your articulate despair at the intractable willingness of the middle class to vote against their own interests, I suspect that this coming train wreck has less to do with Republicans and Democrats, and more to do with the steamroller of history.

Our technologically complex, automated, digitalized and globally competitive post-industrial economic environment is going to render useless the majority of our population. And no public policy is going to change that.

Soleri, I'm not really trying to persuade you or cheerlead, but face up to the reality that the cities and us more liberal or modest folk will end up paying more in order to sustain and grow our regions.

I believe Phoenix can and will still grow, with the Center City leading the away along with strategic high tech zones in nearby suburbs (mainly Chandler). An example would be Intel's $8 Billion expansion with much of that going to the Chandler Fab.

There is no growth in the exurbs in Phoenix, they are seeing more downturns in home prices out there and the industries (growth) that sustained those places are kaput. Growth is coming from education, medical, and renewable energy along with high tech manufacturing.

The difference here, I truly sense is urban growth. Those urban ares will also pay for their sustainable futures with dwindling funds from the state; meaning we'll have to become "self-sufficient" at the local level. An example is ASU's move to "privatize" its law school. This move will ensure continued investment and new buildings for the school in its move to the downtown campus.

The downside is that tuition for this highly ranked and sought after program will mean private school like tuition fees and possibly other high-ranked programs following the lead; W.P. Carey School of Business, Walter Cronkite School, and the School of Nursing and Health Care Innovation...

I call Bob Robb, Rob Robb, sounds much more cheerleader like...

Ah this reminds me of 1946. A midterm election and the economy had imploded with many soldiers coming home. The democrats lost 50 odd seats and the Republicans gained 50 odd seats to get to a 55% house majority, the first majority since 1928. The GOP tried to obstruct Harry Truman and it helped the democrats in 1948 retake both houses - including a 75 seat house pickup and help Truman eek out a win against Dewey.

"Those urban ares will also pay for their sustainable futures with dwindling funds from the state; meaning we'll have to become "self-sufficient" at the local level." - phxSUNSfan

"sustainable"? That word may now the most abused word in the English language. The redundant "sustainable future" is a perfect example of this abuse.

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." - Iñigo Montoya

There is NOTHING sustainable about 5 million desert inhabitants dependent on imports and the largess of their more productive neighbors.

Tonite in my adopted town of Fountain Hills, the Flat Earth Society is out in force at the Council meeting . . . fixin' to derail a long-overdue single hauler initiative which would provide garbage and recycling with ONE hauler vs. the 5 duplicating entities that have been tearing up our roads with vile, stinky monsters. When I look in the protester's eyes, I swear I can see their hair follicles! To them, Jan Brewer is a model of steely resolve. God help us!

Rate Crimes, there is most certainly a sustainable path to follow for 5 million desert inhabitants in the Sonoran. A more urbanized, less paved desert landscape will mean a healthier future. If it were up to me, I'd steamroll some of those largely foreclosed developments in the hinterlands and restore the beautiful Sonoran vegetation.

Maybe my use of sustainable became part of my vocabulary for a reason; what is the definition of an overused or abused word anyway. By that definition "the" and "like" are abused. I hope you don't mean that California is a "more productive" neighbor. On the contrary, their debt actually makes Arizona and Phoenix more productive with more companies locating here.

But I fear California and even Washington and Oregon may become "to big to fail" in the near future; I can see them petitioning for special bailouts from the rest of the nation more.

Please omit "more" from the end of my last paragraph...my bad!

I saw the first news story today proclaiming that a third Bush was beginning the preparation to be president. Jeb Bush. You knew it was eventually going to happen and you know he will get elected.

I propose a thought experiment: close all state borders to imports/exports for ten years. Emigration/immigration would still be allowed. What would be the population of AZ in 2020?

One of the problems envisioning a forward-thinking Arizona is an electorate that routinely rewards kooks and charlatans with MORE power, not less. If this election was a referendum on the direction the nation was taking, why did local voters ignore the obvious downward trajectory in Arizona? The answer is simple and sad: "getting tough" is a flight from complexity and difficult choices. Now that Arizona is facing insuperable budget shortfalls, the poor and defenseless may well pay with their lives for the Randian fantasy construct that is the real religion of white America. Note: this religion applies its nostrums against have-nots, never the haves. A state relishing Third-World status for itself (already the second-poorest state in the union, no less), is less likely to engage reality as a matter of governance or strategic planning.

There is no recovery here from the toxic ideals of right-wing power. Its entire point is to freeze in place the various advantages of the wealthy at the expense of everyone else. It's why astro-turfed activists seemingly argue against their own self-interests. Once the mainstream media was effectively neutered, there was no countervailing force for the raw propaganda of corporate interests. They became free to make nebulous "values" dominate the political discourse, like frugality during Democratic administrations and the absolute sanctity of wealth.

It's been widely noted how globalization has stripped middle-class Americans of the security and upward mobility that used to define Americanism as an answer to the nettlesome tribalism of other nations. Now, that's gone. So, the wealthy played a card that is breathtakingly vicious: blame the least powerful for this set of circumstances. Because simple explanation easily prevail over more nuanced ones, this was as easy as the Wehrmacht waltzing through Belgium.

I'm not sure how this nation (forget about Arizona) survives this. Our social compact was based on the implied openness and generosity of the American Dream. Globalization is a fact of life that can only be ameliorated with labor and financial regulations. It's why Germany is still strongly middle class. But Germany is mostly homogeneous so the divide-and-conquer strategy of the plutocrats could not succeed there.

Material prosperity is a necessary component of domestic tranquility. Without it, this nation will not survive. In this respect, the bitterness of contemporary America is a legitimate emotion. It's wrongly directed because the concentrated wealth pushing America rightward is essentially the very problem making life hellish for millions of citizens.

I want you, Sarah.

I want you, Jeb. <3

Sarah Palin and Jeb Bush !? What are you doing on this blog?

Rate, my guess about your experiment is between 100,000 and 150,000 population.

Soleri, I believe the Arizona experience can be summed up by this bumper sticker, "Higher education takes lots of time and effort, ignorance is instantaneous." Who knew that the movie "Idiocracy" was a TRUE documentary of our state and country.

I believe what we have in Arizona is a confounding variable, one that will only lead to disaster for the Republican Party in Arizona and the newly elected.

Arizonans still, even with the Tea Party element trying to gain power, have moderate and Democratic undertones and this was evident through the propositions passed or close those that may still be approved. For one, medical marijuana (a proposition that scares the Tea Party to the core) is still too close to call.

Even more evidence are the land slide victories to keep the Land Conservation Fund (a huge Democrat voter initiative dedicated to preserving open lands) and First Things First. First Things First is a childhood program that is very "liberal" in thinking as it is a large social welfare program with a relatively huge amount of cash in its reserve. The organization offered the state a $300 million loan to "balance" the budget that Brewer accepted but was rejected by the legislature. The Kooks wanted the voters in Arizona to wipe-out these programs; even relying on their dismantling to help "balance" the budget by moving their monies to the general fund.

I hate that the media missed the opportunity, and the Dems for that matter, to expose this Republican plot. It was only talked about AFTER the election so most voters were unaware of this accounting gimmick. The state will have no choice but to cut popular programs and worse, raise taxes in order to cover the $1 billion in foreseen gaps in the $9.2 billion state budget.

Either way, in order to get the books in order very unpopular choices will have to be made by the leadership at the capitol, which that means that fickle voters will once again reward Democrats next time around.

As for the experiment of closing Arizona’s state borders, I don't see the point. Imagine closing any state's borders; it would spell disaster. But those states that are able to grow crops, pasture the herds, and generate power year round without imported oil would fare best; including Arizona.

We have year round crop yields that help feed the nation, huge diary productions and ranches around the state, 320+ days of sunshine to power solar plants, hydroelectricity (I'm assuming since we are closing the AZ border we'd then keep our power from Hoover Dam and Palo Verde, sorry CA and Nevada)...

@ phxSUNSfan

Prop 301 (land conservation fund) and Prop 302 (early childhood development) were both opposed by anti-tax types.

Jacob, of course! A.K.A. the Tea Party and the right wing kooks, I'm not sure why you pointed out what I already pointed out?

This is not so much about Nihilism but about a vacuum (of faith) in politics. As classical conservative parties lose the ability to integrate center-right segments of voters, new parties use the frustrations and fears of those voters. Taxes, markets, regulation are a common theme but the cultural-social attitude of their (at least partially high-earning) clientele is fashioned into sharp rhetoric to galvanize towards electoral success. There are such examples in Europe like VVD in the Netherlands, Venstre in Denmark using immigration as the linchpin issue.

This is not a new avenue of politics. A future full of economic difficulties and eroding wealth, an atmosphere of great ideological uncertainty (among others) is where soleri's "getting tough" meme comes from.

"Our own experience, as well as that of other countries, demonstrates that merely being rich is no bar to a society's retreat into rigidity and intolerance once enough of its citizens lose the sense that they are getting ahead. [...]

"The attitude of people toward themselves, toward their fellow citizens, and toward their society as a whole is different when their living standard is rising from when it is stagnant or falling. It is likewise different when they view their prospects and their children's prospects with confidence as opposed to looking ahead with anxiety or even fear."

Friedman, Benjamin M. The Moral Consequences of Economic Growth
http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/friedman/files/The%20Moral%20Consequences%20of%20Economic%20Growth.pdf

Postscript: the Fountain Hills single hauler kerfuffle basically ended when one gent said he'd joined the Tea Party because they believed in practical, cost-effective solutions and asked why they had a beef with such a common-sense initiative. Thereupon, we're told that many of the wingnuts lost interest and went home. The initiative finally passed. Maybe democracy works in small doses?

It seems they are in a fight with themselves over divided principles; to support cost effective efficiency with a single hauler or to support "competition/free market" by not allowing a monopoly (principally) that the tea party also loves with sometimes misguided consequences.

AWinter, I read your link and it was quite provocative. I notice it was published in 2006 so it would interesting to get the author's ideas about the current crisis.

BTW, I tend to fluctuate between his idea of the imperative of economic growth and a kind of Simplicity Movement wish for less growth. What has tilted me to the growth side is the realization that only reasonably prosperous societies can actually manage, politically and economically, the long-term environmental costs of our too-large human population. If we were to venture into a collapse of industrial civilization, as Kunstler posits in The Long Emergency, then there would be no management PERIOD. Instead, it will be one hellish scenario after another, ala Mad Max. In the worst Hobbsian version, humans might exploit every last fossil fuel reserve since survival would be the only goal left.

It might seem counterintutive but planetary health may fare better with a functional industrial civilization - and baseline prosperity and social democracy - than a definitive breakdown.

"As for the experiment of closing Arizona’s state borders, I don't see the point." - phxSUNSfan

The point is an honest accounting.

"But those states that are able to grow crops, pasture the herds, and generate power year round without imported oil would fare best; including Arizona." - phxSUNSfan

First, to conflate fuels for mobility with electrical power confounds the discussion of energy policy. Though, all forms of power production are essentially dependent on fuels for mobility.

Second, what population do you think could be sustained in Arizona with locally-grown food? I doubt that it's today's 6.6 million souls. Even the much smaller sustainable population would be consuming very few animal products.

How many states have a worse circumstance for a self-sustaining than Arizona? Other than Alaska, I can think of few. Especially, when warming trends are considered.

@soleri, I concur that a continuation of a more resilient industrial civilization is the most promising way to solve our problems. However, I don't see the direction where we could 'step on it' to propel us into the next iteration. I'm afraid such efforts (like renewables or...) will all be overtaken by adverse circumstances.

That's what John Michael Greer calls a "Terrible Ambivalence". We will grow, we should grow, we have to grow, but we can't grow.

What follows is that "there is no brighter future ahead." Neither 'Back to the land' nor some modified 'Business as usual' will provide it.

"a continuation of a more resilient industrial civilization is the most promising way to solve our problems." - AWinter

A distinction must be drawn between an "industrial" civilization and a 'technological' civilization. Yet, whatever technologies are pursued, without ethics, we're screwed.

"If we were to venture into a collapse of industrial civilization, as Kunstler posits in The Long Emergency, then there would be no management PERIOD. Instead, it will be one hellish scenario after another, ala Mad Max." - soleri

JHK, wisely, disclaims prescience. Management will likely be localized. Choose your neighbors wisely and keep smiling.

Rate Crimes, I remember an Oxford don, Steven Runciman, giving a lecture at UofA during the Vietnam war. He was asked at the end what conditions best promoted peace. His simple answer: "high mountains". I think this is the problem with Kunstler's thesis. For localization to triumph, you'd ideally need natural deterrents to brigands and militarized gangs. As much as we might like to think a central government is unnecessary to our happiness, it does relieve us this core anxiety. Remember that this is not a homogeneous nation steeped in village life, necessary patience, and silent suffering. We're contentious precisely to the degree we're different - ethnically, racially, religiously, and culturally. We quite naturally distrust each other. Insofar as we've succeeded despite that, we can credit prosperity and an upward arc of living standards. That's why things are already getting a bit too interesting for comfort.

AWinter, thanks for the Greer "tip". I'm usually a bit impatient with New Age types but I like the fact he doesn't eroticize Armageddon, something too many doomers reflexively enjoy. He seems instinctively humble about his ability or anyone else's too control our "descent".

Jim Hamblin, nice lead letter in today's Arizona Republic.

Are we sure that the national shift of power is anything other than a reflexive reaction to bad economic times by an uninformed population? Wasn't dissatisfaction with the status quo what put the Democrats into power a few years back?

My concern is timing: the Republicans are coming in just when the economy may be starting to perk up a bit. We'll see whether the Republicans ruin their (entirely unearned) good fortune by pissing in the wind.

Arizona actually has plenty of revenue options. We just aren't hearing about any of them from the state's newspaper of record or political leadership.

State Democrats should regard their legislative impotence not as a hindrance but as the freedom to propagandize the alternatives without having to live with voter ire over the consequences of their ideas (since those alternatives will never be passed by Republican legislators).

State Democrats should be pushing revenue enhancement options like hell; and when the Republican cuts take effect, they can smile and twist the knife and say "I told you so...if only you had listened to me, here is all the disposable income for vital spending programs we'd have today."

Did you know that a slight change in state income taxes would bring in a billion a year: increasing the bottom 2.59% bracket to 3.39%? Increasing the top 4.54% bracket to 5.95%? That doesn't sound so bad.

* An increase in General Fund revenue of $1 billion in each of the next two fiscal years would require a 31 percent increase in rates (from 2007 rates of 2.59, 2.88, 3.36, 4.24, and 4.54 for each of the five brackets to rates of 3.39, 3.77, 4.40, 5.55, and 5.95 percent). These rates are similar to those that existed in 1994.

Did you know that Arizona imposes a state gasoline tax on top of the federal tax, which state legislators may control? That the state gas tax was set in 1990 and has never been indexed to inflation? That simply updating it (an increase of 12 cents per gallon) we can raise $350 million a year, some of which can go for public transportation?

* In addition, all highway taxes that are imposed on a per license, per vehicle, per gallon basis should be indexed to the Consumer Price Index (CPI) and be adjusted every one to three years. For example, the current $0.18/gallon tax rate on motor vehicle fuel (gasoline) was set in 1990. The CPI increased almost 68 percent over this period. Had the motor vehicle fuel tax rate increased accordingly, the current rate would be $0.30/gallon and revenues from that tax alone would have been almost $350 million higher in 2008, assuming no change in gallons consumed as a result of the higher tax.

Did you know that by eliminating some planned business/property tax cuts, we can raise $300 million a year?

* By placing Class 1 property back on the original schedule for being reduced to 20 percent by 2015, and by making the SET elimination permanent beginning in 2012, the budget deficit can be reduced by roughly $300 million over each of the next three fiscal years.

Did you know that we could cut the state sales tax rate to 5 percent AND raise up to $10 billion a year by broadening the sales tax base? That due to revenue sharing, this would also pull the cities out of their holes? Even if we include (as we should) low-income tax credits to reduce regressivity and/or continue to exclude some sectors, the sums to be raised are staggering:

* The Arizona Department of Revenue in ―The Revenue Impact of Arizona‘s Tax Expenditures FY 2007/08 estimated that approximately $10 billion in additional revenue could be raised at a 5 percent tax rate if all sales tax exemptions and preferential tax rates were ended.

http://ebr.eller.arizona.edu/research/fiscal_alternative_choices_team_final_report.pdf

Plenty more where that came from! Just take a look at the report.

Regarding money and politics, did anyone see this:

"Defeated House Democrats outspent GOP in campaigns"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/03/AR2010110308465.html

Did the Post get it wrong? Is this a con job? Was something overlooked? I genuinely don't know. I'm almost out of online time and barely had a chance to skim the story.

Emil, all those "revenue enhancements" are excellent ideas but you don't need to persuade us. You need to persuade the radicalized Republicans in the state legislature. Good luck.

"He [The Hon. Sir James Cochran Stevenson Runciman (thanks, Wikipedia)] was asked at the end what conditions best promoted peace. His simple answer: 'high mountains'." - soleri

As a professor of Byzantine history, he certainly would have recognized that empires are sustained by a culture of freeholders who recognize their interdepence and are willing to struggle together against invaders.

Historically, such freeholders are excellent at defending themselves against external threats, but fail at recognizing internal threats. Once estates begin to aggregate into fewer, ever-wealthier hands, the defense is eroded and the empire eventually fails before it falls.

Are we certain that professor Runciman's answer wasn't metaphorical?

Rate Crimes, I think his response was straightforwardly mordant in this respect: human beings tend to aggression and greed when opportunity is aroused. For much of our own history we attempted to curb these tendencies by A) allowing their partial expression in our frontier and B), curbing their toxicity elsewhere with law. A, obviously is long gone and B, unfortunately, has fallen victim to corporatism and cynicism. So, how would freeholders manage this feat? Law is only as good as the gunpowder that backs it up. Take that away and you're left with a fantasy in need of a cold shower.

It's not an accident that most of the Blue/Red divide in America is also an urban/exurban divide. People who live in cities instinctively understand the need for law based on reason and fairness. Living in close proximity to others demands no less than shared abridgments of certain freedoms. OTOH, if you're living in Mohave County, those kind of laws seem intrusive, even "tyrannical". There are very few urban teabaggers, needless to say.

Kunstler's idea here, of course, is that cities would mostly disappear. Where would all the people go? He doesn't like to talk about the "cleansing" inherent in his formula because it's simply too horrifying for civilized discourse. If I had a nice place in Saratoga Springs, NY, I might not worry. But I don't.


"If I had a nice place in Saratoga Springs, NY, I might not worry. But I don't." - soleri

I say it's time we lay siege to Saratoga Springs!!! To arms! :)

I just took another look at that Washington Post article:

"Overall, Republicans were more reliant on interest-group spending. In the 63 races that switched to the GOP, Republicans benefited from $43 million from interest groups, compared to $32 million spent on behalf of Democrats."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/03/AR2010110308465.html

I was a little confused by this, because of another recent article (Bloomberg News):

"Republican-leaning groups outspent the two political parties combined during September’s first four weeks in a bid to sway the U.S. congressional elections, Federal Election Commission reports show.

"The groups -- including Crossroads GPS, advised by Republican strategist Karl Rove, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce -- spent more than $33 million, mainly on advertising. That compares with just under $20 million spent by the Republican and Democratic committees charged with electing their party’s candidates."

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-09-29/republican-leaning-groups-outspend-both-parties-in-bid-to-sway-elections.html

The Bloomberg article does refer to the first four weeks of September, whereas the WaPo article says "Democrats saved money for the end of the campaign, spending $40 million nationwide in the final two weeks", though that doesn't speak to Dem-leaning interest-group spending.

I was also confused by this statement from the Bloomberg article: "As a trade group, the chamber doesn’t have to disclose its donors even though it is publicly playing a major role in the campaign, with plans to spend $75 million."

Then I noticed that the WaPo's figure of $43 million refers to "the 63 races that switched to the GOP".

Maybe this accounts for the apparent discrepancies?

On the other hand, the WaPo article states: "The Post analysis looked at fundraising by general election candidates through October 13 and independent spending reported by the parties and interest groups through Election Day. It did not include money raised by candidates in the final weeks before the election, or transfers from the parties to states for turnout operations. A full accounting won't be possible for another month, when new disclosure filings are due."

But the Bloomberg article notes that "Crossroads GPS says it engages in issue advocacy and grassroots lobbying. Neither of the Washington-based groups has to register with the FEC, though they do have to report some political activity."

Does registration, in this case, bear only upon the disclosure of donors or other organizational information, or does it allow some independent political spending to go unreported to the FEC?

Also, can anyone steer me to a news article analyzing not just spending by interest groups in races flipping to the GOP, but in all races? I'd like to see compare total GOP-leaning "independent" expenditures by Rove's and other groups, with total expenditures by Democrat-leaning groups.

These are not rhetorical questions. Your feedback appreciated.

The older I get, the more simple my mind grows. Rather than nursing the post-election wounds, I'm resolved to try and shine more light on our myopic and self-destructive relationship with Mexico. It is a subject for which I have both great energy and open-minded understanding. And I won't give up. Ever.

"I'm resolved to try and shine more light on our myopic and self-destructive relationship with Mexico." - Jim Hamblin

Gracias, Señor Hamblin. May I suggest, "mutually destructive", as a modification to your phrase?

We already know most of the details in this longish Der Spiegel piece on the American crisis. Still, the cumulative impact is devastating:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,726447,00.html

Good article, soleri, even if the topic is a bit stale. If only more 'ditto heads' would read international sources . . . or read.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

My Photo

Your email address:


Powered by FeedBlitz