By now you’ve likely heard the news that refugees coming to Greece are being sold fake life jackets.

I’ve personally seen this, and it’s every bit as despicable as your gut reaction tells you it is. Unfortunately, the life jackets are the tip of the iceburg. If smugglers sell water-absorbent life jackets for only 45 euro (roughly 45 U.S. dollars), imagine what they’ll do for real money.

I hate writing this, but the media seems to ignore everything except the headline-grabbing life jackets. Someone has to tell it…

Bademli, Turkey and Lesbos, Greece are separated by less than 10 kilometers. The Aegean Sea lies between the two, with generally calm water and a mild climate. This short trip between Turkey and the European Union has been the most common route into Europe for refugees, with over 500,000 refugees arriving on Lesbos in 2015. A raft can make the trip in less than two hours on a clear day.

The trip is almost always done on a dinghy boat. These are made of rubber and will pop like a balloon if they hit a rock. These inflatable boats come from China and cost smugglers 1,200 euros. An average of 40-60 refugees are packed into each raft. 40-60 people on any of these rafts is far beyond any safe limit, with refugees sitting in the middle and hanging off the sides of the raft. Most arrive to Greece with only what fits in their pockets, as any bags on the raft with them are tossed into the sea to make room for more people. On top of all of this, refugees are told to steer the ship themselves. The price for all of this? 1,000 euros each.


The tickets are so expensive that many refugees wait in Turkey for up to a year, working under the table until saving enough money to be smuggled. This makes them easy targets for gangs and human traffickers. Or sweatshops. Sweatshops where they make fake life jackets. Once you’re able to save 1,000 euro, you are able to be smuggled into Europe with only the clothes on your back.

Two Arizona members of Congress, Senator Jeff Flake and Representative Martha McSally appeared at one point to be on the fence regarding the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action or Iran nuclear deal, but have since come out against the agreement. Their reasoning is questionable at best and they should rethink their positions and vote YES.

Starting with Senator Flake, he states many aspects of the deal are good. He seems to agree with what former Secretary of Defense Harold Brown said about verification, namely, “compared with past agreements with the then more threatening adversary the Soviet Union, the provisions for oversight are remarkably more intrusive and capable.” However, the Senator cannot support it because the administration will “forfeit its ability to impose sanctions on Iran for behavior on the non-nuclear side.” In a study conducted by sanctions legal expert Tyler Cullis “nothing could be further from the truth.” There are significant sanctions currently in effect regarding Iran terrorist activities in the region and its human right abuses towards its own people and they will not go away because of the JCPOA.

Additionally, the President retains the ability to impose significant sanctions if he believes doing so lies in U.S. interests. These include but are not limited to sanctions on Iranians involved with acts of terrorism, including providing financial assistance to Hamas or Hezbollah; on Iranians who have provided support "to large parts of the Syrian Government"; to withhold visas and assets of individuals responsible for human rights abuses of Iranian citizens; the ability to disrupt computer networks of the Iranian government that are used to commit human rights abuses; and sanctions against persons who "materially contribute to the proliferation of WMD or their means of delivery, including missiles.” Senator Flake's rationale is without merit.

I don't understand what the Minnesota dentist, Walter James Palmer, gained from killing, beheading and skinning Cecil the lion. What a useless investment of $50,000 (that's allegedly about how much this guy paid to kill Cecil). 

CNN reported that the dentist and his guides—a professional hunter and a land owner, both residents of Zimbabwe— lured Cecil out of the Hwange National Park with a dead animal on top of a vehicle to then shoot him on private land. First, Palmer shot Cecil with a crossbow and 40 hours later shot him with a gun.

(Palmer says he was relying on the guides to ensure a "legal kill." Here's a good recap of it all by CNN.)

Palmer's two guides were recently released from jail on a $1,000 bond each, and could reportedly face 10 years in prison. According to CNN, Zimbabwe officials want to speak with Palmer, and he has said that he'll cooperate with any investigation. "Although, he said in his statement that he had yet to be contacted by officials in the U.S. or Zimbabwe," the write up says.

Well, the People for Ethical Treatment of Animals thinks extradition and execution are viable punishment options.

PETA President Ingrid Newkirk issued this statement:

Hunting is a coward’s pastime. If, as has been reported, this dentist and his guides lured Cecil out of the park with food so as to shoot him on private property, because shooting him in the park would have been illegal, he needs to be extradited, charged, and, preferably, hanged.

To get a thrill at the cost of a life, this man gunned down a beloved lion, Cecil with a high-powered weapon. All wild animals are beloved by their own mates and infants, but to hunters like this overblown, over-privileged little man, who lack empathy, understanding, and respect for living creatures, they are merely targets to kill, decapitate, and hang up on a wall as a trophy. The photograph of this dentist, smiling over the corpse of another animal, who, like Cecil, wanted only to be left in peace, will disgust every caring soul in the world.

Yes, this guy is a dick and a reminder of greedy, ignorant tourists who go to foreign countries expecting to eff things up, disrespect what's sacred, and expect to pay their way out of any trouble. But PETA just took this conversation into the depths of the dark side (and reaffirmed PETA critics on the thought that they are a bunch of nut jobs) suggesting to hang the dude. I think extradition (after all, he killed an animal that was living in sanctuary) and a nice stay in a Zimbabwe prison should teach Palmer a lesson or two. Unfortunately, it'd be unsurprising to hear that, aside from public shame, he won't suffer any other repercussions.

We Tucsonans know that the best Mexican restaurants north of the border are found right here in the our town, but it was not until recently that the vortex of sabor Mexicana was identified with “The Best 23 Miles of Mexican Food”! With the skill of a corrupt redistricting commission, all of the best Mexican eateries were gerrymandered into one district!

Of course, the identification of the “Best 23 Miles of Mexican Food” is a challenge to lesser regions, the likes of which cannot hold a candle to the eateries of the Old Pueblo, but it also is an opportunity for us locals to take a look around and see if we missed something special, or to reconnect with some with some old favorites.

To that end, the foodies at the "Wake Up Tucson!" radio show have joined with Gray Line Tours to create the first ever “Best 23 Miles of Mexican Food! Tour”. The tour starts at El Mercado San Agustin at 5:30 p.m.. The plan is to be done by 9:00 p.m,. The organizers offer three guarantees: 1, You will bring goodies home with you; 2, You will eat amazing food; 3, You will have new places to take your friends the next time someone asks, "Where are going to eat tonight?"

For more information, or to book your reservation, call Gray Line at 622-8811.

In 1998, Arizona voters passed Prop 200 also known as The Clean Elections Act. It established a five member commission that would make rules as to the providing of tax payer money to participating candidates. It reduced limits on contributions to non-participating candidates and private donations to participating candidates. It also administered a “matching funds” program by which a participating candidate would receive extra money to match any private donations to non-participating candidates over a certain amount.

In 2011, as a result of a suit filed by the Goldwater Institute, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the matching funds provision because it violated the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution. It noted that candidates would limit their own campaign activity and funding to avoid supporting their opponents. Individuals who would normally participate in the process by donating to the candidate of their choice realized that, due to the matching funds, that they could not effectively support their candidate.

Last year the Legacy Foundation Action Fund ran ads in several states criticizing the U.S. Conference of Mayors and its president. See the problem? Well, there was none, but since the president was Scott Smith of Mesa, Arizona, and a gubernatorial candidate, the Clean Elections Commission decided that the ads were a campaign donation and fined the group $95,000 for not reporting it to them.

The Secretary of State for Arizona, Michele Reagan, whose responsibility it is to administer elections and all laws pertaining to them, knew that the commission had no authority to regulate independent groups. She ran it by an administrative law judge who agreed and reversed the fine.

The Clean Election Commission in effect said forget you and the judge you rode in on, and is pressing the fine.

So now the Secretary of State has to pursue a legal challenge against the commission. She is being represented by, you guessed it, the Goldwater Institute. Here are some statements from the Goldwater Institute lawyer, Jim Manley, as they appeared of the Secretary’s web site:

(Please, stop with the "it's Mexico's Independence Day." No, it's not. La independencia de México falls on September 16 and the carelessness toward history from some people out there is offensive.)

The digital news media outlet AJ+ created a short video that will be useful for you to learn a little bit (and be intrigued to learn more!) of what went down on May 5, 1862 in the Mexican state of Puebla.  El Día de la Batalla de Puebla, as it is known in Mexico, involves the French occupation in the Latin American country.

Is it too much to ask that Cinco de Mayo celebrations don't involve wearing big ass sombreros, ponchos, a large mustache, or saying the word "andale" repeatedly? Just saying.

Also, as I am sure this celebration breaks through the barriers of political beliefs and negative sentiment toward immigration reform, a great way to truly celebrate this cultural exchange would be to start treating Mexican and other immigrants from across the border better.

KVOA posted a story last night with the headline, "Downtown Businessman Said He Was Threatened by Homeless Camp Founder."

The businessman is Maker House's John Jacobs, and by "homeless camp founder" they refer to John McLane, one of the creators of Safe Park—an advocacy group made up of Tucson's houseless residents.

Read McLane's message below:


McLane is trying to put a forum together—he invited me, too—to discuss the way homelessness is dealt with at a city level, the lack of resources there are for some people, and debate possible long-term solutions to get individuals off the streets. All very relevant, fair and non-offensive conversations to have. 

Apparently, I am in a Hillary Clinton kind of mood today. But it's not all good.

After it was made official that Clinton is running for president, someone on Facebook reminded me of the insensitive comments she made last year on unaccompanied minors from Central America.

I just have a general issue with the one-dimensional "solution," if you can call it that, of "just send them all back," as Clinton said in a June 2014 interview with CNN.

I'll start with this: It's confusing that in many things, like establishing Walmart, Starbucks, the United Fruit Company and other corporations in Guatemala—and funding the overthrow of past presidents (such as Jacobo Árbenz, one of the best presidents my country has ever had, who was ousted in 1954 because he wanted nothing to do with the United Fruit Company)—some U.S. politicians don't have a problem with interfering in Central American business.

But when it comes to interfering in the form of offering positive, valuable, long-term solutions to disturbing issues (such as tens of thousands of children fleeing from the region), a lot of U.S. leaders don't want anything to do with Central America, aside from the old chant of "send them back."

It's a bipartisan collaboration!

The Huffington Post posted a recap of that interview. Her response on the influx of Central American minors wasn't surprising. The Obama administration has also failed to provide any thoughtful, human solution. The "let's send them back and by some miraculous event they will understand to never come back to the United States" is not how things work.

For as long as there continues to be gang violence and poverty corroding Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras (where most of these kids come from), there is going to be an influx of people escaping and heading North—that plus the fake tales that they will get some sort of asylum once on U.S. soil; it's all a very shitty recipe for an even shittier outcome. A lot of them see coming here as their one and only option, and overlook any type of explanation that tells them A. it is a dangerous and expensive trek and B. things here aren't easy for immigrants south of the border anymore.

Here's a section of the Clinton write up:

Gov. Doug Ducey signed three bills into law Wednesday that will continue to make homeless people's lives (really, the lives of anyone who is having a hard time making a living) harder.

Two pieces of legislation involve panhandling and the other prohibits a city or county from forcing contractors to build affordable housing—"Also illegal would be requiring any particular housing units 'be designed for sale or lease to any particular class or group of residents,'"  an article on the Arizona Daily Star by Howard Fischer of the Capitol Media Services said. 

Back to the panhandling issue: these new laws criminalize so-called "aggressive" panhandling (described as begging for money too close to an ATM, repeatedly asking for money or touching someone while asking for money). Area you ready for this one? The other measure makes it a class 3 misdemeanor to "intentionally push a button at a cross walk for the purpose of stopping traffic and asking for money," according to The Associated Press.

Why does the state continue to think that the best way to "get rid" of homelessness is by creating these prohibitions that do absolutely nothing to combat the problem from its roots? Investing in education leads to job creation leads to getting people off the streets. Let's pass legislation that follows that trend and then maybe there won't be "scary" people begging for money or food outside grocery stores, banks, at a stoplight.

Last week, there was a homeless outreach event at Trinity Church on University Boulevard where I met a lot of Tucson's houseless residents. They all had different backgrounds, different reasons for ending up where they are at in their lives at the moment. What most of them have in common is, regardless of their past (felonies, drug addiction, whatever) they're trying to move forward—finish school, find a job, find an apartment they can afford. 

(By the way, a U.S. Rep. Martha McSally representative was there, and he couldn't have looked more bored and "get me the fuck out of here" if he had tried. Homeless advocate Michele Ream brought up the issue of shelters requiring an ID to get a bed, and he didn't even know what she was talking about).

Food stamps, shelters, low-income housing—all of these are crutches while they get off their feet. But, for instance, homeless people with felonies don't get food stamps, so how are they supposed to eat? Yes, Tucson has the Soup Patrol and a lot of other angels doing what the city should be doing, but for the times homeless people aren't able to get that help, well they are going to ask you or myself for a couple bucks. 

At the event I talked about earlier, I met Steve. He's 60 years old and has been homeless for more than a decade, or maybe longer. He said he had lost track of time. He's been on a low-income housing waiting list for more than one year (with this new law, the low-income housing options could drop even more). He's tried making a living with construction gigs, but those always fall through, he says. When we spoke, he said he was going to try to have a friend buy him landscaping equipment. He gets food stamps, but he doesn't get Social Security. He was denied a check even though he is SMI, or has a "serious mental illness," which stems from hardcore, incestuous sexual abuse he endured as a child.

"In a perfect world, I would have a little trailer," he told me. "I'm 60 years old, I feel dirty. It's embarrassing. All I have is my bike and my backpack. I'm a good person, I've just been handed down a pile of shit."

He's trying. He lost his job years ago, lost his home and hasn't been able to see the light, yet. 

So, how can our "leaders" help with all of this? They should take the time to speak to these people. There's something called REALITY, and poverty and homelessness are part of that reality, so deal with it in a useful manner.

One of the first things I noticed about Tucson's food and beverage scene was a somewhat prevailing mentality of not needing or wanting to be recognized. I'd ask folks in the industry around town just how it was that Tucson isn't a bigger deal nationally and at least statewide. That line of questioning was typically met with shrugs and a sentiment that felt a lot like "maybe we don't want to get big."

Whether that's true, it's beginning to look like the issue might lie more in the rest of the state and its modes of culinary recognition. Understandably, you can't expect someone in the biz to care too much about something that ignores their strides time and time again just because driving an hour and a half takes an hour and a half. Although the Arizona Foodist Awards finalists did include at least one Tucson-area nomination for most categories this year, that step in the right direction isn't really enough.

The announcement of the Arizona Culinary Hall of Fame inductees for this year took that step right back by inducting, yet agin, only Phoenix-area food and beverage professionals. I'm not saying Tucson should be recognized as a hand out just to ensure inclusion, but I also find it really irksome that Tucson has been largely ignored by the ACHoF for over a decade (unless you count Sam Fox and his empire of upscale, but casual New American joints). That's to say Phoenix has had better entrants in every category for over a decade essentially and I don't buy it.

After all, can you even keep calling yourself the Arizona Culinary Hall of Fame if you fail to represent anything south of Riggs Road? Is there some sort of legal precedent for this?

That's not to say the inductees this year didn't deserve to be recognized. It's just unfortunately beginning to look more and more like an unbreakable trend where one part of the state gets all of the credit for carrying the culinary torch—and it just isn't true.

Listen up, Phoenix: If you can make the drive to Gilbert to hit up Joe Johnston's restaurants, you're pretty much halfway to Tucson anyway. Overlooking Tucson makes these awards look silly and it's time for a change. If you're still not ready to head south, I suggest calling it the Scottsdale Culinary Hall of Fame since the ACHoF awards come from the Scottsdale Culinary Festival anyway.

And to Tucson: Keep doing what you're doing. It's great and we can just start our own awards if we need to. Best of Tucson is right around the corner, after all.

For now, I leave you all with this: