Member since May 16, 2009




  • No friends yet.
Become My Friend Find friends »

Recent Comments

Re: “The Skinny

This piece suggests many questions that I hope the Tucson Weekly addresses in the weeks to come.
At this moment in American history (and American politics), any seat in the US Senate remains critical.
The fact that these two contenders amass so much cash post-Citizens United, tends to raise some pretty nasty red flags. Who are their generous _donors/sponsors_? Corporations, dark money 501's, or "bring-back-the-New-Deal" dems? Not all funding sources are created equal, ideologically speaking--as future favorable legislation _and_ tax-giveaways to those who need them least will likely ensue. Let's remove our Pollyanna-tinged eyewear (or brain-filters). The fact that one candidate runs behind the aegis of the GOP and the other under the Democrat umbrella remains next to meaningless in this day and age; I suspect many candidates target voters who stubbornly cling to and vote based on shallow, anachronistic labels. I have come to believe that a candidate's platform, proposed legislation, and ideas/views matter, that such matters trump party-line appeals.
Sometimes I wonder how many folks don't bother to register, and if registered don't bother to vote based on viewing the binary "choice," and just stay home--expecting the next election cycle. I don't have data on hand, but isn't it something like 40% of folks eligible to vote? Who just say "no" to both sides of the political aisle and self-disenfranchise? With some of the choices "our betters" provide us, why bother? These past 45 years with rare exceptions, I will note that third party candidates have provided better, healthier solutions for our republic. They just weren't able to raise corporate cash to get their message to voters who can make a difference.
One final question: why does the Tucson Weekly, an alternative paper, play the corporate media game and highlight these two candidates and their fund-raising? Surely, there must be more candidates in the running...
Be well.

52 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by socrates2 on 01/16/2020 at 11:00 AM

Re: “Danehy

Mr. Danehy, I swear. Thank you for this light(er)-hearted, post-Christmas entry.
All the while as I slowly enjoyed your tortilla-odyssey narrative a sense of poignant empathy flooded my holiday-blued soul. Welcome to a universe where mom, the wife, girlfriend, concubine of choice or significant other while standing over the pan or mixer cries out, "Darn, forgot the X, want to drive over to Y (local store 1/2mile away) and get me a small package of X?" And so, the Christmas quest begins. The closest store is closed (or open but they're our of X) and the saga continues as one navigates from holiday-zapped closed store to closed store, then to yet more open ones with empty X bins. And so it goes. I almost leaped and kicked my heels at your success. Gluten-free hippie! Hah! I still chuckle as I write these words. Reminder: keep those friends. They're the ones who were there for you when your local grocer wasn't. Re: the urban legend about Chinese establishments: they're all true! Thank god, or Buddha, or whomever...
As for that "Trump-more-popular-than-honest-Abe" Republican poll, take it with a grain of salt, or a sip of grain (preferably of the single malt variety). Republicans suffer from Stockholm syndrome; nothing more need be said on this particular, real-life "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" moment. They Live on. In the sage words of Ron White, "You can't fix stupid." All one can do is out-live it and out-vote it...
That said, hmm, the old lady and I will try lasagna for Christmas dinner next year! We're still burping our extended family's tamales, ham, tri-tip, turkey, etc....
Happy New Year, thanks again for the, as always, illuminating entertainment and be well.

72 likes, 13 dislikes
Posted by socrates2 on 01/09/2020 at 10:05 AM

Re: “Danehy

Mr. Danehy,

Charity is charity, of the Christmas variety or otherwise, but (a BIG but), who--in his right mind at this point in history--can deny that Donald Trump did not violate the Emoluments Clause?
The lamest, blindest, most generous Christian can spot President Trump's most obvious Constitutional violation. Even cognitive dissonance has its outer limits. Anything else is, gulp, seriously delusional behavior. Or as a friend commented some years back, "The Republican Party suffers a bad case of Stockholm syndrome..."
President Trump violated said Clause and became automatically impeachable the moment he removed his left hand from the Bible (I assume it to be so, it could be the Necronomicon for all one can tell from TV or photos; but after the Flavian thesis, what difference does it make?) held out by Melania. President Trump took the oath that tied the noose around his nihilist neck.
Candidate Trump had an absolute duty to divest himself from foreign holdings, or, at a minimum, place them in a blind trust over which he had no influence. He failed to do so. The man dissed the very Constitution he swore to uphold and defend.
Yes, the man is impeachable. And I hate to refer to outside authorities on this conclusion, but take a look-see at the most recent Ralph Nader interview on "Democracy Now!" That is indeed a laundry list of "High crimes and Misdemeanors" but who's counting?
Be well.…

69 likes, 10 dislikes
Posted by socrates2 on 12/19/2019 at 2:30 PM

Re: “Claytoon of the Day: A Trumpian Supper

Arkansas, huh? Hmm. Must be _something_ in the water...
Be well.

22 likes, 2 dislikes
Posted by socrates2 on 11/21/2019 at 6:18 PM

Re: “Danehy

What? No "CC and Company?" No "Revenge of the Nerds?" No "The Outlaw Josey Wales?"
Granted mostly forgettable, but still have to make your "filmed-in-Tucson" list...
And in your defense, not that you need it, but all columnists need to live _in_ weird days. Unlike reporters who serve up the facts and move on, a columnist's job is to take a very conventional news item and transform it into a controversial topic, to disturb the status quo, to turn the ordinary into polemic. I could quote Mick Jagger about those "who can't take a joke" but this remains, after all, a family paper. Write on, Tom!
Be well.

14 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by socrates2 on 11/21/2019 at 3:05 PM

Re: “Danehy

Mr. Danehy, allow me to preface, I have four sisters. Needless to say, the three older than me, intelligent, resourceful, with oodles of social smarts became my primer in feminism. Hell, some decades back, in the face of ridicule I dated the intelligent, charming, and lovely (is it PC to use this adjective?) president of the campus NOW, a woman if ever there was one!
But I digress. I agree 100% with your assessment. Biology and the testosterone advantages a developing male body experiences should not be minimized. Transgender folks definitely carry evolution's gender-bias upper hand where muscular development and efficiency are concerned. To deny it is to deny the fundamentals of human physiology. That said, following in the tradition that acknowledges gender "differences" wherein we have created male/female binary divisions in athletics, nothing says we cannot as a culture open new categories that validate, acknowledge, and make room for cisgender and transgender participants respectively. Allow transgenders their category; co-extensively allow cisgenders theirs. Anything else would be disingenuous.
Be well.

4 likes, 2 dislikes
Posted by socrates2 on 11/14/2019 at 9:41 AM

Re: “Claytoon of the Day: Corey's Fairy Tales

When DNC Chair Wasserman Schultz and Hillary conspired to funnel all DNC moneys into Hillary's campaign and to starve Bernie's campaign, they set up a Trump victory. When Hillary assisted Trump's campaign when she and her staff perceived Trump to be the easiest Republican to beat, she practically got Trump elected.
You see, when democracy fails the People and favors the wealthy, unhappy folks tend to turn toward a populist who claims to speak for them and to restore their power, their status, and self-esteem. Hitler succeeded in Germany when folks saw themselves betrayed by their elites. Only Bernie and Trump campaigned on populist rhetoric. Hillary, a DNC "democrat" (republican "light") never stood much of a chance against ANY well-funded populist. Since Hillary and Deb Wasserman made sure Bernie's funds "dried up," the remaining well-funded contenders were Hillary and Donald.
A people hungry for an "outsider" populist, any populist, turned out for Donald in droves. Disgusted minorities and others who had propelled Obama (who shares the blame for betraying other outsiders and idealist coalitions who voted democrat) into the White House, stayed home.
True, Trump lost the popular election and a seriously dysfunction Electoral College, unaware of its true mission, voted him in. The fact remains. He's the President and Bernie and Hillary are not...
At this stage of American history where economic elites pretty much elect our Congress (and the marginalized People know it), only another populist can beat Trump. Warren had better borrow some of Bernie's juice with angry voters if she expects to win. Or else prepare for Herr Donald and his greedy minions to plunder and finish off our republic.
Be well.

22 likes, 2 dislikes
Posted by socrates2 on 09/19/2019 at 11:26 AM

All Comments »

Favorite Places

  • None.
Find places »

Saved Events

  • Nada.
Find events »

Saved Stories

  • Nope.
Find stories »

Custom Lists

  • Zip.

© 2020 Tucson Weekly | 7225 Mona Lisa Rd. Ste. 125, Tucson AZ 85741 | (520) 797-4384 | Powered by Foundation