Salt Lake City Weekly | Comment Archives | stories | News | Opinion

Comment Archives: stories: News: Opinion

Re: “You Down With NPV?

Being a constitutional republic does not mean we should not and cannot guarantee the election of the presidential candidate with the most popular votes. The candidate with the most votes wins in every other election in the country.

Guaranteeing the election of the presidential candidate with the most popular votes and the majority of Electoral College votes (as the National Popular Vote bill would) would not make us a pure democracy.

Pure democracy is a form of government in which people vote on all policy initiatives directly.

Popular election of the chief executive does not determine whether a government is a republic or democracy.

The presidential election system, using the 48 state winner-take-all method or district winner method of awarding electoral votes used by 2 states, that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founding Fathers. It is the product of decades of change precipitated by the emergence of political parties and enactment by states of winner-take-all or district winner laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution.

The Constitution does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for how to award a state's electoral votes

2 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by oldgulph on 10/04/2017 at 2:47 PM

Re: “You Down With NPV?

Western states don't have influence.

Because of state-by-state winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution. . .

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker in 2015 was correct when he said
"The nation as a whole is not going to elect the next president,"
The presidential election will not be decided by all states, but rather just 12 of them.

Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind.

With the end of the primaries, without the National Popular Vote bill in effect, the political relevance of 70% of all Americans was finished for the presidential election.

In the 2016 general election campaign

Over half (57%) of the campaign events were held in just 4 states (Florida, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Ohio).

Virtually all (94%) of the campaign events were in just 12 states (containing only 30% of the country's population).

1 like, 0 dislikes
Posted by oldgulph on 10/04/2017 at 2:47 PM

Re: “Neckties

Rasmuson, a true loser. glomming onto a kid, a child, to try for some notoriety? full loser.

Posted by Robert Bryan on 08/20/2017 at 1:44 PM

Re: “Nazi News!

wow stan. i am shocked.

First, you go to great pains to avoid the pledge, the pledge that : Any person who uses acid bombs, aids urine, bricks, bats, feces or any other object to disrupt a lawfully permitted protest by U.S. citizens seeking redress of grievances through public assembly should be sent to prison as a dangerous criminal and civil rights violator. Go ahead Stan, you loser, say it, twice.

Second, you then wander mindlessly into a claim that it was 8 million jews, not even 6, another number which is a lie. Funny how Americans must now worship the 6 million number or face personal ruin by the zio forces. In case you didn't get the email, Auschwitz has lowered their claim from 3.2 million to 1.2 million, and even that number which includes gypsies, commies, homos. If ironic nazis want to protest that the number is not even 6 million there is no reason to use violence to shut them down. Your mind is dysfunctional.

Third, google/go daddy/(((cia controlled media))) is not going after and shutting down white nationalist sites. They went after once site, a comedy site, call dailystormer.com. The zio forces will tolerate zero dissent from the worship israheil dogma. use tor to find it on the dark web at: http://dstormer6em3i4km.onion guaranteed to produce laughs every time.

We know the that zio nazis are the real problem.

1 like, 1 dislike
Posted by Robert Bryan on 08/20/2017 at 1:42 PM

Re: “What Climate Change?

Yes, Stan was the advocate and you are the "counter-advocate" speaking in terms analogous to Kant's Thesis and Antithesis. I was simply using it in the generic sense that a lawyer or salesperson would only present one side of the argument. As a "friends of the court", both my brother (a psychologist) and I (as an economist) were sworn to testify, as best our expertise allowed, giving an unbiased assessment. My point in that regard is that, like Stan, you were giving only one side of the argument.

But again, that was not my main point. You clearly know a lot more than I about the climate issue and are an intelligent person. But please reread you initial comment and the way you dismissed in a derogatory way, Stan's point of view. You say you didn't mean to pick on Stan, but you did, whether you meant to or not. Look at your comment in terms of emotion and psychological content, not climate change. And note, even in your most recent comment, in denying you didn't mean to pick on him, you used the word "pontificate" a word that has both a negative connotation and denotation.

Ok, Ok, I admit pontificate is quite mild. I use it (and do it) occasionally myself. But in your original comment, you were somewhat more abusive. I am in agreement with your observation about the trash that fills the newspapers and internet. I sometimes comment on Barron articles and I am appalled at the mean-spiritedness and downright ignorance of some of the comments. I would add that social media seems to have greatly exacerbated that phenomena driving much of the discourse to some sort of "lowest common denominator". It is my opinion, that, as contributors, we should do our best to raise the level of the discussion. Your reasons did that, but your tone did not.

Now as for Stan. I know him well and he is quite capable of defending himself and does not need me to do that. He is "rock solid" emotionally and one smart guy. As an active volunteer and former Chairman of the Utah State Red Cross volunteer committee (of which I was a member), Stan has contributed to disaster, the Armed Forces, health, communications and most of all to the organization of the Red Cross and a number of other entities (I regard his best, but not only his area of expertise as organization). Yes he was too "off the cuff" on his climate change opinion and many of your criticisms are well taken if only they were made in a more respectful manner. In one of his recent articles, I too was critical of his optimism concerning the political process. But his vignettes are usually superb and thought provoking (in my opinion).

Perhaps its best to continue this conversation offline. I suspect it is getting tedious for any readers who are still following the thread. Over a cup of coffee or wine, I suspect we would have a number of tropics of interest on which we would probably also have disagreements. And I would certainly use some colorful words in private that are counterproductive to use on-liine. But you obviously have a useful knowledge base worth hearing, if you can refrain from restrain yourself (on-line, not privately) better than my former New York acquaintance, who now lives in a big White House in DC Hopefully, General Kelly will improve the situation, although I am not holding my breath.

Cheers,
David Horner

Posted by dhorner on 08/03/2017 at 4:10 PM

Re: “What Climate Change?

More precisely, Rosenzweig is an advocate--not of any plan of action, but of a belief system. I am a counter-advocate of his belief system, but an advocate of the one plan of action his belief logically calls for: nuclear power. Surely as an economist you are aware of the consensus among economists which essentially agrees with James Hansen's view: the Paris Accords are a farce. They can make no difference to the climate. Cap and Trade are merely a mechanism for the transfer of capital from rich to poor.

You are probably aware that solar and wind power are of specialized utility, and expensive, and that expense translates to energy efficiency: it takes more energy to build, ship, and install a windmill or solar array than it can ever produce. Likewise an electric car requires more energy for its manufacture than it can save--that's why it costs so much.

And it's not just economics; its the environment. One investigator concluded that solar power produces 300 times as much toxic waste per energy unit produced than nuclear power. So the superstition is not innocuous. We have a morbid cure for a hypochondriac's disease.

I hardly intended to pick on Rosenzweig; he is one of millions who consider it entirely appropriate to pontificate on the only subject which in their view requires no expertise whatever. He bases his story on anecdote, emails, and National Geographic. He begins with anecdote that suggests lack of ski snow is a new problem, never happened before. Such writing fills our newspapers and the internet. The counter-advocacy is nearly absent in print and buried in Google. I used to try to publish my view in the papers but gave up long ago. Your comment was the first evidence I have seen that I'm not entirely typing in the wind.

So I thank you for it. Cheers, --AGF

Posted by A G Foster on 08/03/2017 at 2:34 PM

Re: “What Climate Change?

Mr. Foster,

I wasn't as much addressing your points about climate change as much as the denigrating and dismissive tone that you displayed. In contrast to your points about climate change, which are well taken, I felt the tone of your response to Stan tended to inhibit rather than promote learning and productive discussion.

Three points:

I did not imply that you were wrong in the points you were making. You make many good ones. I only implied that humans do affect climate, even if we can not prove it statistically. I also disagree with you in your observation that "we cannot agree on the human impact", even if we can not measure its relative importance. We know, for example that our contributions to the oxygen, CO2 balance affects the atmosphere. There are a host of other impacts that we can agree on even if there is a legitimate debate as to how and whether we should address them. As an economist, I have on occasion spent considerable time studying the costs and benefits of both private and public responses to perceived problems and opportunities.

I also note, that, in contrast to your statement that I did "not address a single point in your comment" is in error. I agreed with your observation regarding the immense secular and cyclical non-human effects. And no, I don't think you invented your sources. And yes I am aware that there are many on the left that "overstate" their arguments and are just as disrespectful of the scientists who work to further our knowledge as there are on the right.

To summarize: Your points regarding climate change are well taken. But they had the perspective of an advocate and not a scientist. And scientists will give us the ongoing analysis and solutions, if warranted. Our responsibility as lay people is to discuss the issue with respect for our fellow citizens in a constructive way.

In contrast to your first comment to Stan, your response to me was respectful for the most part and I appreciate it.

David Horner
Mathews Capital
Salt Lake City

Posted by dhorner on 08/03/2017 at 12:14 PM

Re: “What Climate Change?

Just as a competent scientist insists on data and quantification, so a competent layman insists on specificity. But David Horner calls me the ideologue while refusing to address a single point of my comment, or at all delineating just how we should go about "dealing with the human impacts in a positive way."

We can't deal with "human impacts" if we can't agree on what they are. I dealt here primarily with the issue that Rosenzweig dealt with--sea level rise. I filled a great gap in your knowledge by quantifying it. While there are a few scientists (e.g., Axel-Morner) who dispute the figure of an inch per decade on the low side (Axel-Morner denies any measurable SLR), there are none who go beyond the satellite measured 3.4mm/year (a little over an inch per decade). The gloomy coastal picture Rosenzweig paints is sheer fantasy--no bones about it, and if Horner can't accept that simple fact we're wasting our time here. How can we address a fantasy?

And does Horner think I invented the quotations? Does he believe Oreskes' and Conway's nonsensical lies about a small cabal of oil-bought dissenters who overturned a scientific consensus like pied pipers? Has he even heard about the book (and movie) "Merchants of Doubt," let alone examined it? That work of libelous fiction has become the bible of climate propaganda, and rest assured, it is fiction, every page of it.

One of the specific points I mentioned was this: " What do the scaremongers say now? There never was a cold scare." Does Horner remember the cold scare? Is he even aware that alarmists deny it ever happened? Did he know that the most recent temperature reconstructions have largely deleted the cold spell out of the record? And I bring up this point mainly to illustrate the absurdity of Oreskes' and (NASA's) Conway's contention: that skepticism has its roots in Big Oil. Skepticism is older than the cold scare. It is born of a century old desire to warm the Arctic, and Scandinavia, and Russia; to permanently reverse the Little Ice Age; to prevent the "return of the deadly glaciers" (Callendar); to open the Arctic for summer shipping; to acquire a warm water sea base (USSR).

Skepticism toward global warming is a century old, and much of the current skepticism carries over from the cold scare of the 70s when the main concern was global cooling. And the alarmist literature blames Big Oil and Singer, Seitz and Nierenberg! I have made once small step to punch through the propaganda, for which Horner labels me an ideologue! Is reporting the true rate of sea level rise the art of the ideologue?

Now if we were to require constructive dialogue we might consider solutions to the supposed problem, and the one most agreed upon is that of nuclear energy. And here you find greater assent among the "skeptics" than among the alarmists. Uber-ideologue Oreskes called uber-ideologue James Hansen "a neo-denier" for advocating nuclear power as the premier solution to global warming, which goes to show at the very least that Oreskes is more worried about nuclear disaster than climate disaster. But what the ideologues are really after is the de-industrialization (=decline) of the West, and they are succeeding. --AGF

Posted by A G Foster on 08/03/2017 at 8:30 AM

Re: “What Climate Change?

I don't know A G Foster or his background, but he sounds much more like an ideologue than a scientist. His rhetoric drowns out the validity of his reasoning, some of which I agree with. His words, are designed to convince the uneducated with bombast rather than science.

My credentials are as follows. I am a social scientist, not a physical scientist. So like both Stan and Mr. Foster, I am not qualified to speak on the validity of climate change. But I do have a Ph. D. in Philosophy with a concentration of statistics and economics.

As an "expert" in statistics, I feel confident that the issue of climate change is subject to legitimate debate, just as are the issues of monetary policy (on which I am an expert). There are thoughtful experts on both sides of the issue. The main reason that the issue is unsettled is that, as Mr. Foster indicates, there are huge, significant, non-human-related phenomena that have, for billions of years, affected climate, resulting in both secular and cyclical changes. Thus it is very difficult to "tease out" the human impact. But that is not the same as concluding that it does not exist.

Having acknowledged the legitimacy of the debate, there is an agreed-upon body of knowledge about many human impacts on weather. We simply cannot separate the aforementioned non-human effects from the human effect with a degree of certainty that brings an end to the debate. However, that should not stop us from dealing with the human impacts in a positive way. Moreover as Stan suggests, corporations have a profit incentive to deal with such effects. Whether or not the observed change is human or non-human related, their incentive should be aligned in a way to improve our situation. This can only be accomplished if there is a partnership with government that represents the interest of the people (by the way, Stan, I don't think, as you suggest, that those who argue in favor of the conclusion that human-caused climate change is significant are all "left-leaning". There are many thoughtful conservatives that argue that humans have made a significant impact on climate).

Unfortunately, there is perhaps a bigger issue than climate change these days. The divisiveness exacerbated by emotionally-driven rhetoric, like that of Mr. Foster or those on the far right and left, has led us into a gridlock that prevents us from dealing effectively with important physical and social problems regardless of their cause.
Shame on you Mr. Foster. Let's work this out intelligently rather than denigrating those with whom you disagree.

David Horner
Principal,
Mathews Capital
Salt Lake City

Posted by dhorner on 08/02/2017 at 1:33 PM

Re: “What Climate Change?

Stan Rosenzweig writes in CW, July 26, 2017, "Just 11 years ago, I moved here chasing "the greatest snow on Earth." Since then, every major Utah ski area has invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in snowmaking equipment..."

Snowmaking began in Utah at least 35 years ago when Snowbird opened up, just before a couple of years of record snow. You can count on October ski snow like you can count on windmills for electricity.

And Rosenzweig has apparently never seen a sea level graph; if he had he would know what rubbish is the hype he parrots. The truth is there is not a competent scientist on the planet who
takes this sea level scare seriously--or the climate scare any more for that matter. So what defines a "competent scientist"? One who demands data, who insists on quantification. A competent scientist instinctively asks, how fast is sea level rising? And those who can actually give you the numbers know what ridiculous propaganda is being dished out by the climate alarmists.

The reason you don't know how fast sea level is rising is that you have been brainwashed--not educated, and the last thing a climate propagandist wants is for you to get educated on the subject. A rear admiral sees ports and bases in danger of flooding? Due to climate change?
Sheer nonsense. How fast is the sea rising?? Villages disappearing? 40 years ago the CIA was warning Nixon and Ford that the U.S. and the world were in danger of widespread drought and famine due to global cooling.

Sea level has been rising for 80 years fairly steadily, with no evidence of humans causing it. The rate is so slow that it cannot be accurately measured, but most agree, it's about an inch per decade.

Here's the sort of thing you hear from competent scientists: "I dont see a whole lot of difference between the consensus on climate change and the consensus on witches. At the witch trials in Salem the judges were educated at Harvard. This was supposedly 100 per cent science. The one or two people who said there were no witches were immediately hung. Not much has changed" (Princeton Professor Emeritus of Physics William Happer). Happer translates Pushkin's pentameter to describe the government apparatchiks and other useful idiots who chant the climate catechism:

"And muses will to me their tribute bring,
Free genius will enslave itself to me,
And virtue, yes, and, sleepless labor too
With humble mien will wait for my reward.
Ive but to whistle, and obedient, timid,
Blood-spattered villainy will crawl to me
And lick my hand, and gaze into my eyes,
To read in them the sign of my desire."

Happer himself was a casualty of Al Gore's purge of capable scientists at the EPA when Clinton took office.

What was scaremonger John Holdren (Obama's science advisor) saying in 1971? "The effects of a new ice age on agriculture and the supportability of large human populations scarcely need elaboration here." What do the scaremongers say now? There never was a cold scare. What were the "Merchants of Doubt" (libelous fiction of Naomi Oreskes and NASA historian Erik Conway) saying during the cold scare? Here's one of them, Fred Singer, in 1975 while advocating increased funding for climate monitoring in view of rising CO2 emissions: "...one might be tempted to make light of those who decry a warming of the climate, while others worry about bringing back the ice ages." So while perennial scaremonger John Holdren warned of global cooling, Singer (and Seitz and Nierenberg--Oreskes' and Conway's other libeled villains) were concerned about warming.

What happened to change the villains' minds? Nothing. The globe didn't warm to any extent that could be called out of the ordinary. The rest is propaganda. --AGF

Posted by A G Foster on 07/30/2017 at 2:38 PM

Re: “Shadow Men

Slap the phone out of his hands next time. Pretend it was a reflex because of the spider.

2 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by BeQui on 05/05/2017 at 2:36 PM

Re: “Sexy Swimsuits Aren't the Problem

For me the bottom line is that women should be allowed to wear what we want...so why can't you find a normal one-piece bathing suit that covers everything, without paying $90 for "resort wear" in winter. If women are wearing bikinis to "feel liberated" they've been had...you're wearing a bikini because nothing else is available. You're wearing a bikini because you've been forced into one. You're wearing a bikini, and short shorts, and tight tops, because your body has been defined as a sexual object for other people to look at and any attempt to take it back for yourself, and ONLY yourself, is met with impossible clothing choices. If I don't want anyone to see my body, except me when i come home and put on my gorgeous bras and underwear, except my boyfriend when he unwraps me like a gift...forget it. Nope. Everybody has to be able to see everything about my body all the time. Otherwise how would people like the poster who wants to "show off her hard work at the gym" be able to body shame me for my size? How would she be able to feel good about herself at my expense?

1 like, 0 dislikes
Posted by Viola Rose on 05/04/2017 at 7:59 PM

Re: “Sexy Swimsuits Aren't the Problem

I found this post while searching for a bathing suit that wouldn't make my 12 year old neice look like a 30 year old prostitute. I'm pretty sure we can all agree that 5-12 year olds aren't having sex and don't have anyone to impress on the beach. Parents are more interested (rightly) in whether their daughters can actually swim in a bathing suit without it falling off, or fall on the beach in a bathing suit without ending up with a rager of a rash across their stomachs, or have fun and run around without getting stared at by creepy pedos. Please get off your high horse with your proto-feminist "i dress like a whore and this is why I should be allowed to" nonsense. A dress code is NOT A RAPE. And women who want to cover their bodies should not be forced to walk around half naked because YOU think putting clothing on your body is unacceptable for some reason. Because THAT has nothing to do with men and every woman would be sitting around her house wearing pasties and hooker heels when she's alone because it's so comfortable? Girl, please. If there were no men on the beach, we'd all be walking around in swimsuits we can actually SWIM IN. I feel hobbled by these swimsuits, and you need to stop denying the experience of women who don't want men staring at them all the time as anti-feminist. We're all women. Except maybe the people who post this type of "I'm a feminist and feminists wear little to no clothing and pay all of a man's bills and never complain about anything" stuff. I'm convinced they're men, trying to convince us that serving their needs is somehow actually feminism because doublethink, that's why.

1 like, 0 dislikes
Posted by Viola Rose on 05/04/2017 at 7:51 PM

Re: “Homelessness Continues

I was homeless and unemployed for around three years. Applied for jobs that I was very clearly qualified for, and watched as my application was "filed" in the garbage after they read the address line.
My homelessness began due to unrealistic expectations and requirements set forth by courts for probation and therapy. After serving my time I was released with nowhere to go, no-one to go to for help, and nothing other than the clothes on my back. Deathbymonkeys says that things are prioritized as more important than housing by the homeless. That is true for some, attempting to stay free and be able to eat are much more important than a roof. How nice it must be for them to not be in this type of situation with no-one to fall back on for help.

Posted by Travis on 02/25/2017 at 1:59 PM

Re: “Homelessness Continues

Please contact me. I am a heroin addict at the Road Home. I will tell you the nitty gritty truth about what's hindering most from rejoining society.

Posted by Anne Smith on 02/24/2017 at 5:33 PM

Re: “Homelessness Continues

Actually the reason most are homeless is very similar, they prioritized something else in life more than their housing. For some this is drugs, others a car, cell phones, tablets, or other material possessions. Sometimes it is their passionate desire to remain out of the confinement of a mental institution, despite their acute need for treatment in such. Some rebound and find a way back out, and in so doing change the way they look at life and how they live their life. A majority that I have worked with however do not want to change, they just want more handouts to keep the disruption to their lives to a minimum while they continue to place emphasis on the things that they place more value on than their housing and well being.

2 likes, 2 dislikes
Posted by DeathByMonkeys on 02/23/2017 at 4:40 PM

Re: “Jason Jarred

Hi, I am from Washington DC and Rep Chaffetz by chairmanship of the Government Operations Committee has the power to get Congress to overturn laws passed by our City Council, chief among them, to prevent us from spending our own tax money as we chose. While this is indeed Congress's Constitutional prerogative, I wonder how many of his constituents realize that he spends part of his time interfering in our business, just because he can. If he were indeed, "doing his job" he would be investigating questionable goings on in the Administration and leave Washington DC to govern itself.

I'd be grateful if his constituents would go to bat for us. Let him know that we deserve self government just as much as any other city or town in America.

3 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by Thomas Hutcheson on 02/10/2017 at 6:05 PM

Re: “Gone to Pot

I applaud Dr. Shiozawa for his effort to provide relief alongside research. But the number of patients that would be in the study group may not provide the numbers that researchers are looking for, unless the research were to be greatly expanded; in addition, Dr Shiozawa's bill, like several others, was turned down for support by the Health and Human Services Committee in the Utah House.
Sadly, his bill may be trampled by a bill being offered by the chair of that committee, Brad Daw. Daw's bill is a poorly written "vendor bill", creating a position of "Cannabis Payment Provider", for a lucky company that would be the sole processor of any transactions IF a Utah cannabis program were to ever be created. Oddly enough, there happens to be a former state representative that works for such a company.
The same payment processing system, word for word, is also within the bill presented by Sen. Evan Vickers, who happens to be a pharmacist in southern Utah. But in addition to a payment processor clause, Vickers has created a job niche for his fellow pharmacists, by requiring a pharmacist be employed on staff for every dispensary.
A combination of Shiozawa's and Gage Froerer's bill may hold hope for suffering patients, but I doubt it has little chance of passing.
It may take years to get past the blinders being worn by many or our legislators. The studies are out there, spending 10 minutes with Google will prove that. In the meantime, patients are still prevented from accessing a viable option for numerous ailments, from cancer to epilepsy.

3 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by Doug Rice on 01/09/2017 at 3:33 PM

Re: “Dear Mormonism

As a member of the church still today. I grew up in the church just as you did. I went to primary, young women's and now I am in Relief Society. I disagree with your standpoint and I feel that you are not portraying the church correctly. You are more portraying the people. Every religion as well as every non religious person will have their good and bads. However, 8 strongly testify that the people are not perfect in the gospel but the gospel is perfect. The principles taught are perfect. If you come to church more worried about the people around you and what they think, you'll find yourself in the position that you're in. The church preaches free agency on a regular bases. It is wrong to say you did the things you did because the church told you to. The commandments given by the church are laid down to help give us more freedom and allow us to have peace because I know I for one, do not know anyone who has sinned and felt good about it. Evil never was happiness. I am not saying that what you believe in is wrong because I respect your opinion but I don't think it was right for you to portray the church so wrongly.

1 like, 0 dislikes
Posted by T Malo on 12/02/2016 at 1:48 PM

Re: “Weinergate: A Moment of Clarity

So -- still thinking Hillary and Trump are the same? Hillary -- won 75.9% of the African-American vote in the primaries and 88% in the general election. She was endorsed by John Lewis, Vernon Jordan, Myrlie Evers-Williams, the NAACP, Jesse Jackson, and given the name Strong Woman by the Palyallup Tribe -- which is EXACTLY LIKE having the KKK celebrate your win! Hillary -- she would have put in Steve Bannon in the White House -- as she is so "corrupt" and "dishonest" -- sorta -- vaguely -- although we have no idea what it is she is supposed to have done. The emails! right! The ones that proved -- three way sex! "Corruption!" "Lesbianism!" The emails -- they proved all that. Easy to play much? Complete embarrassment to yourself often?

You got the president you entirely deserved, John. Too bad the rest of us have to live with him.

As you work for a paper that pretends to be alternative, why don't you try catching on the REAL alternative press? There is plenty of it out there. You guys -- you make moderate Mormons (who are shocked and horrified at this election) look not only good -- but -- well -- radical. From now on, I band with them. They have yet to realize that "alternative" means none. They have not yet fallen to Hipster Cool Mind Petrification.

I'll post links, but read with caution. When you are Wholly Owned and Operated Subsidiary of Karl Rove, Inc. -- the source of the Clinton Is Corrupt! (Or Maybe a Witch!) hysteria of which you are a happy purveyor -- your small mind might be blown.

https://medium.com/@adrianjanchondo/owning…

https://medium.com/@CandaceKirby/congratul…

https://fanniesroom.blogspot.com/2016/11/e…

And speaking of that last -- an editor of a genuine alternative newspaper would read the four part series at the underground, as we used to call it, blog, Shakesville -- "Looking for Bernie." If you are opining without that you are writing blind.

I suppose I will still grudgingly pick up City Weekly for the restaurant reviews -- but I can't put enough distance between me and your politics to feel clean.

I will now go shower.

Bonnie Lee Fox

Posted by Bonnie Fox on 11/16/2016 at 6:34 PM

Top Viewed Stories

© 2017 Salt Lake City Weekly

Website powered by Foundation