« The transportation vote | Main | Mad dogs and Phoenicians »

August 06, 2015


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

Hillary Clinton isn't dirty.

She's filthy.


Throw in the email server issue and you should have a candidate that no one except some kind of tribal nut would vote for.

We don't need any more "firsts" as a meaningful criteria to elect a President. That "first" criteria was used way too much for the current President, and look where that got us.

Since INPHX hates Hillary, I'm definitely voting for her!

Emails are quite the conspiracy, but racism, killing our nation with ALEC inspired legislation and Koch demands are to be ignored.

I didn't realize that Carson, Cruz and Rubio were racists!


Of course they are. Them and George Zimmerman. And all the rest of the GOP, and anyone 1/4 inch to the right of Bernie Sanders.

I ask this to gather information: because those three candidates aren't White, or White enough, does that automatically mean they can't be racist?



They certainly could be racists. Or not. Same with the other candidates.

It was you who brought up racism. And RC suggested that some are "fear the brown people hustlers"


What evidence do you have to support a claim that any of the candidates are racists?

Racism in terms of Republicans in general; basic M.O.

Evidence = Trump and the support he's enjoying.

INPHX, this blog would benefit from a conservative who could actually debate and focus on the issues raised. Then, once you've made your point...move along. Add some value. I keep getting requests that you be banned. And these are not from other commenters but from readers. This blog is not a church, but neither is it your personal streetcorner from which to yell tiresome cliches. As I have said before, add some value. You know exactly what you are doing now. So you know you could add value rather than just toss around the furniture and troll.

I read the Kunstler screed and I was pretty much on board with most of it until he blamed Obama for Citizens United. Jesus Effing Christ. Why not blame Ralph Nader for throwing the 2000 election to George W Bush, resulting in John Roberts and Sam Alito being elevated to the Supreme Court and, hence, supplying two of the crucial votes for that wretched decison? At least there would be a chain of causality instead of the primal scream that Obama doesn't use his superpowers the way a real movie hero would.

I waste a lot of time complaining about the public's naiveté concerning politicians. They are not supposed to be your best friend. You're not supposed to "trust" them like you would the Good Daddy of your dreams. By the same token, you don't need to find betrayal in every judgment call a president makes. It's enough to know that the guy who doesn't confuse Creationism with science, that he understands the complexity of the world and the nation that he doesn't instantly manufacture cheap solutions for every problem, and that he listens to sane and sober advice from intelligent people instead of ideologues enforcing dogma and scripture.

The Green Lantern School of Presidential Power, in the manner of Kunstler, imagines a president who can do anything because "he's got all the power"! It's how Obama was relentlessly blamed for not giving us single payer instead of that dog's breakfast called Obamacare. Never mind that there wasn't 60 votes in the Senate to pass it. If Obama had used his superpowers, anything would have been possible!

Kunstler lost me a long time ago when I realized he was fundamentally a bigot. A politically astute writer understands the culture and time we live in. Kunstler, by contrast, simply throws tantrums about people he finds icky (blacks, gays, Latinos, the transgendered, feminists, artists, etc.). Okay, then. I get that not everyone is to his liking. Who does he like? Well, if the themes of Clusterfuck Nation are any indication, it appears anyone who has Neocon foreign policy instincts, believes in Ron Paul goldbuggery, and enjoys his Malthusianism undiluted by any passing concern for humanity.

Jon, I am not big on BANNING.
Maybe in extreme circumstances but IMHO we have not reached that point. After all I am sure there are a few folks out there that would prefer I not post my insane dribble. That said not only do I enjoy myself and Ruben but I also like the really intelligent discussion that takes place. Speaking of intelligence we have not heard from Petro as of late. As a late friend of my said many times, "keep scribbling."

Rogue, I am amazed at your latest post directed to IMPHX. Banning your commentators is supposed to be a no-no on this blog; you have said so numerous times and with self satisfied relish.
What has happened to that big-hearted openess you so desired for this blog?

Well, Terry, you are always welcome with your superior, smug but minimalist posts.

I am not big-hearted where quality is concerned. When readers start to complain, I take notice. Thousands of people read Rogue; only a few write comments.

Also, nobody gets to tediously hijack the blog. Not everyone can write at Soleri's level of excellence, but bring some game, have your say, and don't keep repeating. This goes for the left as well as the right.

I am also mindful that the right pays people to infest blogs with talking points or worse. We had a particularly toxic one at the Republic called "Zbig." I will not let that happen here. It's not picking a fight with the vast right-wing infrastructure, but an effort to preserve the quality of the blog.

The person who caused me to make this public doesn't leave an email, or I might have had the conversation offline. But it's useful for all. He or she is perfectly capable of being a valued regular commenter. He or she has chosen not to do so in all to many cases, and I hope that changes.

The good news is that the next president has not entered the stage yet. Enjoy the side show for now.

Where we are now with the Internet, you have to cut people off from commenting. A third of American folks are not doing much but posting dog pics and trolling.

I thought you had to provide an email address to post here. And once again I fail to understand what is the problem with posting with your real name.

DUDE U R right about that. And that's why I have no facebook, twitter or anything but an email and this blog
Is Leftcoastdude some kind of trucker handle?.

On Soleri's (and most of the posters here) disapproval of the SCOTUS decision in Citizens United:

The question is simple. Under the Constitution:

1. When should political speech in this country be limited, and,

2. Should that criteria be modified based on the type of organization that is engaged in that political speech.

The answers are "just about never" and "no."

Scalia was never better (from Wikipeda, quoting the actual opinion)

"Scalia stated that Stevens' dissent was "in splendid isolation from the text of the First Amendment...It never shows why 'the freedom of speech' that was the right of Englishmen did not include the freedom to speak in association with other individuals, including association in the corporate form."

I understand that many are uncomfortable with the ability of big money to influence elections. Problem is, there is nothing in the Constitution that gets anywhere near a limitation of free speech (especially political ) based on money.

Oops, is Dood the same thing as Dude?

"question" should be "questions"

On the smack on the hand:

1. It's your blog. Do what you wish.

2. I am not "Zbig" but I remember him. Are you suggesting he was paid?

3. I don't think Republicans had (or have) an exclusive on paying (or at last encouraging people) to contribute to blogs. Rest assured that I am not paid or otherwise encouraged. I guaranty that the chatter (and the money) will increase as the election draws near.

I just want to say I would never ask that anyone be banned, so it wasn't old Pat. I do wonder sometimes why anyone would visit a blog like this and never express an opinion on architecture, landscaping, or Arizona and/or Phoenix history, while obsessing over proving that George Zimmerman is no racist, or that public pension plans in Illinois aren't funded (and the government will steal INPHX's loot to fix it) or whatever, constantly posting mostly worthless links to try and validate his worldview-which is something I can read all day long on The Drudge Report or Huffington Post. I don't get his (yeah, he's a guy)affinity for this particular blog, unless it was assigned to him.

I want to weigh in here on the house question: should INPHX be banned? I don't have an answer mostly because I really don't care one way or the other. I get that the College Republican debate style gets old very quickly ("you just said potato but other times, you said potatoh. Which is it?") Ted Cruz is the best current example of this proscutorial tic. It's snide and obnoxious and tends to wear out the little bit of good will people have with those they disagee with.

That said, I appreciate the intelligence and knowledge he brings to these comments. I say that not because I respect his opinions about this "knowledge" but that he actually does know stuff. At the same time, this blog has very specific viewpoints that INPHX disputes almost in their entirety. It would help, therefore, if he actually expressed (as he just did in his defense of Citizens United above) a more measured kind of tone. Boiling-point outrage wears out everyone.

Because I'm prolix and argumentative myself, I get the problem with always being even-tempered. We are passionate here for various reasons. We think not just in the neo-cortex but with our guts, too. The best conversations have a quality of exchange - ideas cross-pollinating and informing one another. I can't say INPHX really understands this but I do know he's more than a Fox-bot loose on the internet. Since I'm used to right-wingers being profoundly uninformed and easily duped by their puppetmasters in the media, it's almost tantalizing to talk to someone on that side who, at times, seems vaguely aware of that chain-yanking.

One more thought here and then I'm through. Our comments really don't prove anything nor should they. We have opinions more than encyclopaedic knowledge and the ideal relationship between the two can be vague. I love to read opinions that have both passion and knowledge expressed in language that illuminates actual civic issues. I'm not very good at this myself. I think Rogue comes very close to this balance. So do Paul Krugman, Kevin Drum, Ed Kilgore, Heather Parton, and Ta-Neshi Coates. Political writing does not have to be hack work. The best of it is really an art. You know you were in a good "conversation" when you find yourself invigorated after it's over.

INPHX, at your best you are a great addition to the blog. I second Soleri's points.

The post on Scalia's reasoning is you at your best. I don't agree: The framers couldn't imagine the power amassed by today's corporations and the potential for corruption, mischief and undermining the Constitution.

Also, the Bill of Rights almost always applies to individuals. They have the right to assembly and free association. It does not apply to "associational" rights or powers. The one institution it insists upon is a free press.

But you make your point well.

When you feel the need to attack, do so with knowledge, wit, a rapier slash and then move on.

Soleri writes:

"At the same time, this blog has very specific viewpoints that INPHX disputes almost in their entirety."

I think "questions" might be a better verb than "disputes"

On the recent blog about the expanded transportation vote here, I asked several times for people to provide support that the first phase of light rail "worked". I asked because I'm curious- and I admitted doubts.

AS I recall, phxSUNSfan responded that it worked for her- saved her time and money.

Not one response with any type of objective data. As a matter of fact, I provided most of the data and the references to it.

Her is a him.

RC- are you suggesting that there is an accepted ratio of bringing value: yell tiresome cliches? If so, please administer it evenhandedly. This is a blog about Phoenix and Arizona. It necessarily must include comments from right-wingers. I'm no judge, but I think that INPHX is aa good and reasonably articulate representative. There are too many blogs that I like where the comments sections too often become echo chambers, and where values that I profess get turned into smelly little orthodoxies. PC is far from that; when INPHX is not commenting, the comments here are still very good.
The problem with having an excellent blog is the attention that must be payed to process. I don't envy you in this task. Maybe this can become a part of meta-discussion. Meanwhile, as I did eat St. Mary's elementary and in the big church there, lets all do an examination of conscience and see what we can do to eliminate a headache for the proprietor of THE BEST BLOG IN THE LAND!

Dawgzy, sorry if I wasn't clear. All viewpoints are welcome here and I am very liberal in moderation. I've probably taken town four posts in eight years among 22,389 comments.

What I don't want is for the comments section to be hijacked or for readers to complain. We have had others who went away when they couldn't get their way. Fine. But Rogue Columnist remains open to all. But trolling will be closely monitored, especially when it bores readers.

The Hair.

Why he is so popular.

Because he is sitting there punching holes in the artificial construct that is American Political Theater.

Why he talks about immigration.

It is the ultimate bottom half of the people argument. Get rid of the wave of millions of poor folks we have imported into competition with our own native poor folks. It is an easy argument, one well worn in US History, and it is now thanks to 11 million illegals a big winner.

Face it, when The D lit up all our politicians as stupid, he was right. Want to cure illegal immigration- Real ID, baby, have to have been identified, and in the system for anything- job, benefits, etc. Real enforcement would generate a wave right out the door, followed by higher wages for the bottom half of America. Teen unemployment is huge, and why? We even import summer help from eastern europe in many tourist areas, and import our ski resort help from South America. WTF are we really thinking?

But that would utterly savage inphx's business compadres to actually have to pay living wages.

In short, The Donald Duck is the next version of populism in America, and unless both parties wise up, he just might win, and then they are really screwed.

The rise of populism is a measure of how we have managed to screw up our country, and no amount of business trying to paper over it all is going to put it back, so they had better get some of the solutions done before it gets worse.

America, land of we only fix crap in a total crisis. Well, guess what, we are getting to one, and the next idiot that decides our runaway benefits is a problem will get the chop.

People on the bottom side of this economy know it sucks, and they are going to give massive power to anyone who says they can fix it and give them a better life. And no, they don't believe in trickle down anymore, so that is pretty much done since business has grown so large and so rapacious that it can't even manage to look half decent.

In short, the Republican Party is being eaten by a populist meme called the Tea Party, and it spells the end politics as usual.

In addition to enjoying Jon's insights, I love reading the comments. It's a joy to read people who know how to write and possess intelligence.

As a former employee of The Republic (yes, on the sales side, yet still a die hard reader of the hard copy newspaper), I also enjoy seeing some names of people who were colleagues, even if I did not know them.

Concern Troll, if Trump is really advocating a national ID, a notion that fuels the populist rage that government is out of control and intrusive, I think the nuts will abandon him. Granted, that would go a long way to "fixing" illegal immigration, which in turn would mean paying significantly more for grunt labor, along with higher prices and economic chaos. Both sides are to blame in this sense for not speaking forthrightly about the winners and losers in our immigration free-for-all and globalized economy. But as you probably know, money doesn't talk, it screams. So, at the end of the day, we'll continue to do what we've already have been doing - hiring illegals when no one is looking and then blaming the other guy for not building a fence high enough to keep them all out. Trump, by the way, knows all this as his own hiring practices show. That's why he's not going to win. He's a complete and utter fraud and can't endure any close inspection.

Either we continue to soak up huge numbers of surplus folks from Latin America and have cheap labor, or we don't.

Business can deal with the chaos.

They are good at it, and will manage just fine. The restive nature of the voting public is what needs real appeasement, and business has just begun to realize they can't keep throwing a few pennies at the circus to keep it down to a dull roar.

The anti-immigration bunch was in charge from the early 20's on to the 70s: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1924

Now, just imagine a million or less per year, with massive deportation of everyone not authorized.

It would be something else to see, all of the population pressure would be relieved, and wages would have to rise.

A real tragedy that, it surely would be one.

The limitations on immigration are one of the reasons why the 50s were so golden, high demand, and labor got paid fairly well.

And it is one of the reasons why our economy is so far out of whack now, wages on the bottom are never going to rise as long as there is a limitless supply of people from elsewhere.

But I guess one has to be a real control freak to honestly say it is simply a matter of enforcing the law, and doing adequately.

Trump can win, after all, if Scott Walker can get re-elected, the public will buy almost anything.

Soleri, you just have to watch the populist fairy dust magic, because people really want to believe.

The 50's were solid for US worker wages because the US still had its industrial base without competition from other countries such as Germany and Japan who were still rebuilding their manufacturing capacity after World War II. The descent of US worker wages had everything to do with US manufacturing going overseas and nothing to do with restrictive immigration laws which may have been in place during the 1950's. Those immigration laws were the same during the 1930's when wages collapsed for reasons unrelated to immigration.

Immigration needs to be stepped up in the US and more so in other countries like Japan, China and several European countries to offset the bulge of aging citizens.

INPHX should be restricted from this blog until she has graduated from college and has had a few years of work related experience. At that point, INPHX will hopefully understand the terms she uses in her boilerplate right wing arguments.

The Golden 50's for US wages.

Let's not forget that it was golden for white male workers, in part, because females and people of color were barred from higher paying jobs. Those discriminatory practices certainly limited labor supply and forced up wages for white males.

Immigration is used as a red herring all to often especially in Arizona where you have Anglos from the heartland with their isolationist, know nothing heritage.

From the "debates," emerged the new GOP motto: "E Pluribus Feces."


Hey- let's make a deal.

How about you not pretend that you know anything about my education or work experience and I agree not to tell you about how to move the weenies behind the little "These items are still cooking" tag?


Onward with the adult leadership...

And although supporting Hillary Clinton is necessary, can she really cut it?

If Mr. Talton means: Can she go toe-to-toe on the hustings, I think the answer is already out there. Remember Mrs. Clinton teeing off on Mr. Obama in 2007-8? Remember the notoriously red-faced Bill as her cornerman? It was awesomely powerful. Remember Obama voters hating on the Clintons for their pugnacity?

The Clintons can go blow for blow against whomever the Republicans run. They can sling mud and kneecap with the best. And because on most issues they are on the correct side of history, they can win the "vision-thing" too.

So yeah:

A long year, but I am looking forward to a solid Clinton win and adult leadership for another 8 years. Solidifying all the gains we made.

In a few more years the population will be increasingly grateful for the ACA. The third leg of the social stool is a historically HUGE thing. As are all the many actions taken in the last 8 years to address global warming.

We are winning.
And it feels good to be a winner.
So I'm greedy: 8 more years please.

Drifter, you miss the point, even those low wage jobs paid more in real terms than what people can make today.

The race to the bottom is real, and guess what, tariffs are another part of what is missing in keeping employment up in America.

In short, what we have is an economy starting to resemble Brasil- nice to be on top, a struggle to be in the middle, and hell on earth to be really poor.

But hey, as long as we elect people who believe in fairy tales rather than actual evidence and data, so be it.

The social justice of early decades aside, the total earnings of labor versus capital is a much better measure of the health of an economy, and by that measure, we have been on the slide for decades.

Which is a tough nut for Inphx to crack, but I am sure he will dredge up some bad research to push Cato/DC stuff.

Which is kind of sad, because reality dictates we begin some serious reform in America, but with one party seriously awol, and the other committed to the opposite of what I have stated, I see nobody at the table set by reality.

Has anyone read the NY Times opinion piece by Howard Schultz,CEO of Starbucks,dated 8/06/15? I highly recommend it.

Concern Troll, there was a time when visitors to National Parks could interact with authentic locals who were employed there, such as real hill folk at Shenandoah, and actual American Indians at Mesa Verde, and that's something most visitors, including foreign tourists, seem to enjoy (most ski resorts are on National Forest land and operated by concessionaires, so the same dynamic applies.); but the concessionaires decided to import youth from abroad to fill the seasonal jobs because they didn't have to pay for their social security or unemployment compensation. If concessionaires can save a few bucks while diminishing the quality of the experience for tourists, they'll do that until they can't. I guess it's hard to quantify the value of a tourist from abroad being exposed to a sullen, homesick kid from Jamaica rather than someone more representative of local culture, but you and many others from around the world seem to understand that value, even if our own government doesn't.


Thanks for the suggestion on the Schultz article; he makes some compelling points.

I think he's right about one thing; a 2016 President has got to be someone who can being the parties together in order to solve problems.

Color me cynical


Thanks Ronnie!

Climate Change
I looking for Signed copies of the two books THE FRANCIS EFFECT. I'm hoping to get President Kasich to sign them.

Because Monday is difficult to avoid - or even get started - I read the Howard Schultz op-ed piece in the New York Times a commenter above recommended.

Just fucking shoot me.

I understand Schultz has a shtick and it somehow dovetails with making overweight Americans obese with horrifying concoctions like "Frappucinos" and Caramel Macchiatos. He's made a lot of money while elevating a kind of retail service model that is like the love child of Oprah Winfrey and the Dalai Lama. That is, make niceness the lubricant that solves all social problems. And we can begin by stopping with all the partisan bickering. Like Right Now!

The very nice commenter INPHX thought it had compelling points. Can't we all just get along? Can't we just agree that both sides are equally to blame? Let's start now by repealing Obamacare for the 100th time.

No. Both sides are not equally to blame. Both sides are human but one side no longer even tries to do policy, let alone governance. It does agitprop, as in decrying anything a Democratic president might do as The Worst Thing Ever. For six years now we've heard how inflation is right around the corner because of Obama's reckless spending. When that didn't materialize, they blamed their own health-care plan for making run-away insurance premium hikes inevitable. When those didn't materialize, they blamed the Iranian nukes deal for making Israel's march to the ovens a sure thing. When that hyperbole doesn't quite convince, they start talking how Obama is taking another vacation and making us pay for it.

In 2010, Obama was ready to give away the store to Republicans in the so-called Grand Bargain. Along with cuts to domestic spending, SS, and Medicare, he asked for a modest tax increase. It was 90-10 deal, with Republicans getting the much bigger end of the stick. Guess what? It was dead on arrival. Because Republicans don't compromise or even negotiate in good faith. Why? Because they are not a political party. They're a cult. Full stop.

Politics is unpleasant because greedy assholes are unpleasant. When one party demands as its only economic policy idea that tax cuts for the rich pay for themselves, they're demanding government itself be crippled. WHICH IS EXACTLY THE POINT. Anarcho-capitalists want the government to fail, because, er, then we'd all be billionaires if we didn't have to pay taxes!

This is our idiocracy. Thank you, Howard Schultz, for convincing me never to spend another dime at your wretched coffee stores.


It really doesn't matter who is to blame. Holding grudges (sane or not) is really not constructive.

Forward. (does that sound familiar?)

And if anyone is interested in a more objective, detailed, accurate, nuanced, and informed analysis of the Grand Bargain meltdown , this one's pretty good:


I always thought that the primary reason that the Obama-Boehner deal collapsed was when the Gang of Six (running kind of rogue) just threw everyone's expectations out of whack.

Let me start with the demos. They have Hillary. Hillary is synonymous with corruption. So, you could state, " there is rampant Hillary in Mexico." Everyone would know you meant corruption. So, if you want corruption in the US to reach the levels of Hillary in Mexico, then vote for corruption.

Now the repubs. Trump has exposed the entire field of candidates for what they are: gutless, two faced, cowards, weenies, morally corrupt .

Trump has exposed the media, especially FOX as completely in competent. If a candidate doesn't follow script, they fall to the ground, curl into a ball, suck their thumb and whimper for mommy.

We are at a pathetic place in our political history.

I'm a couple days late, but INPHX raised a question above about when we should regulate political speech in the context of the greater question as to whether Citizens United was wrongly decided. Rogue responded to him with respect to the power of corporations. I mostly agree with INPHX---government's ability to regulate political speech should be very limited. If government can regulate political speech, the First Amendment is meaningless.

Of course, like Scalia, INPHX is framing the issue in a way that demands his answer. If we are debating whether corporations (and their uber-rich shareholders) can spend as much as they want, the question is not whether Citizens United was correctly decided. The question is whether all of the jurisprudence on campaign finance is correctly decided.

To get to Citizens United, there were several prior SCOTUS decisions concerning campaign finance. The first, and the one that I believe truly underlies the problems addressed by Rogue above, is Buckley v. Valeo. That's the case that needs to be overturned; with that gone, Citizens United would necessarily fall.

In Buckley v. Valeo, SCOTUS first said that donating money to political campaigns was essentially speech (or expressive conduct) as opposed to "mere conduct" that would be open to more regulation. Once SCOTUS concluded that money was akin to speech, it was very easy to hold that the First Amendment restricted the ability to regulate the donation of money to political campaigns. Once SCOTUS said money = speech (as opposed to mere conduct which can be highly regulated), you were going to end up at Citizens United eventually.

tldr; If you don't want the rich controlling elections, you need to clarify that money is not speech under the First Amendment rather than simply overturn Citizens United.

Once upon a time about 6 and a half years ago a man believed to be both black and white was elected president of the United States of America by the voting public of the US. Not by Supreme Court ruling wherein the deciding vote was cast by a Republican Judge for a Republican candidate.
Prior to the election of Obama I counseled my swooning liberal friends that Obamas election would not result in a strong progressive movement led by Obama. Rather I warned it would bring together, in a radical and out front way, all the seething bigotry in this US since Lincoln (a good Republican) declared war on the southern wealthy land owners. Lincoln was physically and violently assassinated.
From the day of Obamas election those same greed merchants and their ignorant and white followers have attempted to assassinate Obama with verbal and legislative assaults. They would lynch their own mother should she suggest Obama is a good human being and thus worthy of consideration.
As a republican (not a kook) I find little to talk about with many Republicans today. But I also run into white moderate Republicans and elitist Democrats that view Obama as an “Uppity Negro.” I am not happy with Obamas love affair with Wall Street and his Trade agreement package. However in the trade deal I suspect Obama sincerely believes it’s good for the US. I think he was wrong in letting the Justice department pursue reporters and whistle blowers in the manner they did. Snowden should be welcomed home and give a medal/ Pinned on by Daniel Ellsberg. And the immigration thing is a whole big cluster fuck. I do think his continued use of drones will forever haunt this country. Regarding many other parts of his administration he was blocked from many things by those that were not willing to let a Black socialistic communist get credit for anything. The message, “Black does matter” to bigots that hate being told to do anything by a black person.
So Obama got a few things done I liked, The ACA (I would have preferred single payer). Attempting to close down the Gulag in Guantanamo. Opening up talks with Cuba, a huge half century mistake. Most third and fourth generation children of old Batista supporters could care less about going back to Cuba. The Castro’s are no worse than was Batista and his American gangster backers. Obama closed down US involvement in war zones. Refused to put American troops in harm’s way by putting many more troop feet on the ground in war zones. He has started an effort to evaluate and release nonviolent prisoners. (Needs to release all nonviolent drug convicted prisoners and prisoners like Manuel Noriega who was set up, used and locked away by the feds.) He is now of late beginning to do some good environmental pushes (please more Roadless-wilderness).
Will the Iranian bomb deal be a good deal? I think negotiations with Persia are a good thing but I harbor doubts about deals with any religious theocracy here in the US or any other place on the planet. I believe given the opportunity they will revert to their original beliefs. Maybe just maybe the Ayatollahs will recede and a great Persian society of freedom will arise.
I have yet to see a presidential candidate for 2017 that I could support but I got to admit I admire the spirit of ole Bernie Sanders as I do ole Jose Mujica.

Ruben, government is getting a handle on corruption!

"In 71 American cities it is now a criminal offense to feed the homeless. "
If you have not got your latest copy of Adbusters, you are missing some great art.

Trusting theocracy clarification.
Please note as I have said before I am not a fan of ANY organized religion. Including followers of Ayn Rand. I have visited all in the past and have thrust off the heavy robes of bullshit mythology.

Begs the question. Is captalism a religion?

Cal - is Socialism?

Capitalism may emulate religion due to those who worship money.

To me socialism would be the antithesis of religion.

I stopped going to my very pleasant local Starbucks when the ceo excited that the baristas write "get together" on all of the cups. Perhaps they were supposed to give an elevator spiel, or direct the curious to a website. The latter I think. I don't know whether it was during the shutdown or not. Fortunately the locally owned place down the street had started making better coffee. I found that it was a lot nicer in other ways, too. A great place to read, big windows, sorta comfortable. Schultz: tool or fool? "Both"is acceptable.
This sort of thing and Trumpeting flips the old saw around: if you're so rich, why ain't you smart?

Hey Dudas next time I'm in Tucson I'll buy U lunch at Wildflower from that 290 dollar's I get from Social security.

Speaking of "never again" don't bother to look at "10 things Phoenix liberals believe" or some such in Phx new times. Made to order for INPHX. Lemmons has been the go-to guy on maricopa corruption, will start googling him rather than entering the front door.

New Times has always been a place to go to for corruption. One of the best pieces of investigative reporting ever was the Baptist Foundation expose by Reporter Terry Greene Sterling. And even before that there was good stuff. I'm suprised they have survived since Lacey pulled out to retire at his Hunter Thompson ranch.

I still have a copy of PNT's 24(?) page special report on the bolles killing et al. I had to dig on the azcentral site for the latest developments on arpaio. But feathered bastard has been folded into another section.

Dawgzy, We even had Tom Fitzpatrick and John Dougherty writing for the New Times.
I was in and on the beat as these REPORTERS brought us the truth. It was some good times.

What do Chicago, Kansas City and Phoenix have in common with Murder?
Don Bolles picture and a pictorial small history is still on the wall in the hallway of the Phoenix Clarendon Hotel where he was blown up (his blown up car is in the Smithsonian) in 1976 by someone that was tired of his investigations of gangsters and political criminals. The cops got John Adamson who confessed and they got two more guys that claimed they were innocent. The question remains to this day, who they didn’t get. If you have any information on this case please call……………………..

Cal - the bread & water at Wildflower would ruin your budget. Nice try though.

But Terry, with one slice of bread I can feed thousands of you all and we can meet on the banks of the San Pedro.

PS I'll get a loan from one of those Arizona notorious enterprises made legal by our legislators,
Cash for Titles

Bernie is gathering followers.
Hillary is gathering $$$$$$$.

Trump is gathering followers.
Bush is gathering $$$$$$.

The real race is in the shadows.

Cal - you forgot the fish, and there are none in the San Pedro or the Santa Cruz. Oh, I forgot the 'sand trout'. They're not too tasty however.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

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

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.


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