Also on the bright side: It can be fun to be in the opposition. Not so bright: Women's rights, Jim Crow. But other than that, it is going well. Look at the economy boom . . .
If there is another debate, Biden should memorize a laundry list of Trumps lies and begin saying them until the moderator shuts him off, but hen after the next question continue with the list for as many questions as it takes. Bonus: it shows he still has a good memory.
Allen Schulz: You and I agree that henceforth Biden needs to show (1) Vigor and life; (2) Passion; (3) Reason and rigor. Biden has no margin for more duds.
Watching the debate, my impression is that Trump is loosing his memory, and he believes many of the lies he tells. He clung to the direction someone had given him to bring up illegal aliens every time he opened his mouth. This caused him to not answer some questions, and managed to annoy the female moderator enough that she tried to rein him in, which was too little too late, and just gave another example to all who watched why the man is incapable of doing the President’s job.
Trump, indeed, is incapable, and it is shocking that about one-third of Americans form the Fundamentalist, cult horde behind Trump.
Moreover, Trump is evil. With illegal immigration, there are interlopers who threaten America's security. We should not deny that. But for Trump to say the immigrant "poisons our blood" is an evil act, a very evil act.
That Trumpian act is neo-Fascist.
Being a neo-Fascist alone is enough to disqualify Trump, without even having to face the issue of Trump's obvious incompetence.
See, if he just said he was a neo fascist out loud, admitted and asked people to vote for him on his chosen political platform, we could still have an honest election. Everyone is entitled to an honest stance. It’s the dishonesty, lying and obvious criminal intent to destroy democracy by illegal means that makes him unfit for office. In my opinion.
Catherine Windsor: You and I worry about this Supreme Court. For some reason, the current Court seems to be competing for the Justice Roger Taney award! Sweeping Presidential Immunity! My goodness, the potential is frightful.
Biden needs to show a happy face as did Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Biden must show himself decisive and happy and win hearts.
In the face of a vigorous, winning campaign, in the glad spirit of FDR, in a month it would be, "What debate? I forget! Look at the happy warrior!"
Biden HAS to perform for US. The President OWES it to US; we are his core voters.
The potential of sweeping presidential immunity in Trump’s hands is terrifying, but not so in Biden's hands. Biden will use it to do what he feels is best for the country. And what he does do will be only after discussion with his advisers and a lot of soul-searching. Common sense is in charge in the WH. Just because he can do something doesn’t mean he should do it, meanwhile, Trump is "Damn the torpedoes! Full steam ahead!"
All the Democrats I personally know are already in the "What debate?" column. Not a single one of them questions Biden's fitness to continue in office.
What I see of the "Biden must step down" noise is primarily from the media, and the individuals repeating it were never fully in Biden's camp, most are unaffiliated. I think if Biden utilizes his expanded power he’ll bring many of the wayward democrats back into the fold, and more of the unaffiliated off the fence. I posted a reply last night in another thread what I think he needs to do and why.
I’ve been fighting Trump and Co. since Nov 9, 2016, I’m used to being on a battle footing. We really need the president to use some of his expanded power. Not only will it make the battle ahead easier, but it will pull more voters to his camp. We need overwhelming numbers of voters to turn out in blue states and majorities in red states. That’s where we lost in 2016.
Sharyl Attkisson found 9 whole whoppers that “Corn Pop” told! Last count I heard his opponent was 50! Corn Pop was too busy answering questions and Cult45 could only attack and lie with his time and answered none!
From the choir, I say amen! From the perspective of the 35,000 or so mushy, low-information voters who recognize none of this historic context with these considerations be at all relevant.
Great article Arman . filled with truths and history all in one . I love it . sending it to twitter now , Refuse to call it x lol. keep writing love to try and learn more .
You defend the right to fully practice one’s religion, quoting the great Elinor Roosevelt. But what happens when the religion starts invading the political sphere, leaving behind the spiritual sphere? What happens when religions see themselves as the arbiters on what people MUST BELIEVE and and how they MUST BEHAVE?
We have thousands of years of history to indicate what happens when religions are given power over the people. We have histories with each religion you named. It is a very cruel and bloody history.
Jim Sanders: Of course you raise an excellent point.
This is freedom of conscience.
My value, and certainly the value of Eleanor Roosevelt, was freedom of conscience.
That may well be atheism.
The imposing of Catholic strictures on Abortion is patently a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
I am not aware of a single, non-Christian religion, certainly not atheism, that believes in the extremes pushed by Catholic bishops or Fundamentalist cultists.
The "arbiter" of behavior must NOT be a religion.
The "arbiter" of behavior must be secular law with the goal of: (1) Maximal individual freedom; (2) A practice of no harm to my neighbor; and (3) A system of laws where the safety and dignity of each person is protected.
You and I are in total agreement that no religion whatsoever can, consistent with justice and due process, control the norms of Government.
My state is totally secular and is based upon such secular values as are found, for example, in "The Federalist Papers," the work of the possibly atheist David Hume in his "Treatise of Human Nature," the ethics of the secular Immanuel Kant in his "Kritik der praktischen Vernunft" (Critique of Practical Reason), and, the very secular Harvard Philosopher, John Rawls, "Theory of Justice."
Jim Sanders: Absolutely, you and I share the same secular values and the society must be ruled in a secular system that allows freedom of conscience but enforces as a matter of law secular values.
You and I are not in disagreement and I did not mean to imply that we were.
I was pointing out the bigotry of Donald J. Trump to religious minorities.
Armand, I wasn’t arguing with you I was merely adding my take on some of what you were discussing.
We have all heard the adage “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” IMO all these saying have a grain of truth but are not universal truths.* However, it has been my life’s experience that power corrupts more than it doesn’t.
You had a long career as a government lawyer— if I misunderstood that please correct me and accept my apology. I have been on the other side as an Expert Witness. Why am I an expert witness? Because judges in courts ranging from bankruptcy up to federal courts had said I met the test to be an expert because of education, experience and publication. Here is the rub, I do not believe in experts. For example , let’s say 10 years ago I was an expert in cosmology. Now because of the Webb Telescope, if I’m on the stand now and the opposing attorney questions me about testimony 10 years ago I will have to admit I was wrong. My testimony then was based upon what I believed to be true considering all the information and accepted theories at the time.
*Why am I saying this? Because as you are most likely aware, what one considers to be the truth—including the meaning of the Establishment Clause can be seen differently by people and Supreme Court judges each looking through the lenses of their political beliefs.
Here is one of my beliefs: I believe our legal system is fundamentally flawed, which I can support, at best and is corrupt at worst.
Again, not arguing with your position just pointing out what I see as a major problem in this country as the corruption within the mega-churches, the Catholic and other religions that appear, to me, exist to control the minds of people and to collect tithings.
Jim Sanders: First: EXACTLY. My whole career in the Department of Defense as an attorney from my youth till I retired in 2016 at 68 -- only because I was running out of leave to take my beautiful wife, Nancy (now together 53 years) for specialized medical care. If I hadn't run out of leave, I would have worked until at least 70, maybe a little longer, I am now 76.
You have no need whatsoever to apologize.
Far from it. I am enjoying our dialogue.
You and I see a lot alike. In your further comments, below, you and I read a lot of the same works.
I also conclude, with you, the I know nothing.
I am sure, from your narrative, that you share with me this:
In that I know nothing, that is a source of great joy and fascination. I believe you and I share the same passion for exploring deeper into philosophic and literary issues.
I envy your ability with math. I am good with the humanities, but I am lost with math, unfortunately.
Math opens up quantum physics -- which to me comes close to the meaning of the universe. Oh, if I only could do the math to understand Werner Heisenberg and Erwin Schrödinger.
I love your history as an expert witness. Excellent. Actually, that could be fun!
The Establishment Clause: I am an absolutist on that.
Our Founders were definitely secular and living the philosophy of the Enlightenment Era, the Age of Reason.
Since then, there have been several Fundamentalist waves, one ironically called "The Awakening," which, in my view, darkened the intellectual discourse and content.
I think you are right that our legal system is fundamentally flawed.
And I think a very substantial reason for that is our Country was founded on legal principles supporting enslavement of human beings and building an economy in large part dependent on slave labor.
Moreover, after the Civil War, Reconstruction was not allowed to work. This 76-year-old learned in schools in Southern California during the 1950s, using California approved textbooks, that Reconstruction was implemented by "carpetbaggers" who were some sort of criminal and imposed an inauthentic lifestyle on the South.
Yes. That was California in the 1950s.
I think we know that post-Civil-War the racial regime in America was in large measure dependent on large swaths of the population who believe the African Americans to be an inferior race, ironically at the time that we were to fight in WWII against the Third Reich built on genocidal practice of similar racial absolutism.
Our legal system is weighed down by customs that are so pervasive as to be even sometimes unconsciously passed on.
So, from that standpoint alone, our legal system is flawed.
Not to speak of our history of suppression of labor unions and worker's rights, with an overly protective solicitude for property-ownership -- which, of course, favors the proprietor.
As an old, cynical lawyer I love the exchanges. You argue quite persuasively and I love reading your train of reasoning.
Thank you so very much for our dialogue!
One of my favorite characters was Spock as played by Leonard Nimoy, so in his spirit: "Live Long and Prosper!"
I feel blessed because I has such a strong curiosity and it doesn’t bother me at all finding the more I learn the bigger the universe gets with my ignorance. I’m guessing you are similar.
Jim Sanders: Exactly. That is the wonder of it all. Knowledge opens many new cabinet drawers I did not even know were there, and I never tire of opening and studying each drawer. And each leads to another and yet further and more wonders and fascination.
Short story. I was hired for a case by a Maine Corps JAG Colonel who at the time was in the reserves after many years of active duty. On the other side was The DOD. Once the case became official, the Marines called the Colonel up and sent him to Iraq for a full year where he served as the top JAG officer in the Iraq theater. Coincidence? I’ll never know.
He gets returned to civilian life and the case is on again. We go to court after months of depositions, rulings by the Federal Judge that seemed a little adverse to our case. Before this I was concerned how well I would be able to work with this Colonel as I’m known for unorthodox thinking partly because I have a much stronger math and science background than my opposing experts and I bring analyses to the table do not understand.
The feds brought in all kinds of experts from all over the country to quash us. Turns out we destroyed them and this colonel and I still consider ourselves friends many years later. Some people referred to us as Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. I was Sundance.
I hope this story doesn’t remind of something you were involved in with.
PS. I have read Hume, as well as Descartes, read Kant who was inspired into his prodigious works responding to Hume. I can add Plato, Aristotle, Nietzsche, Sartre, Camus, and many, many more to this list. In addition, I have studied the formations of religions and their influences on much philosophical thought.
I am very much a Humian partially because my degrees are in math and science. Yet, with all my studies of philosophy, science, history I come to the same conclusion as Socrates. That is “I KNOW NOTHING.”
Hit post button accidentally before proofing and Substack will make me wait before I can edit. By using Substack I must give away some of my free will and live within their rules and programming. I wonder what percentage of secular people are on the far right.
George F. Will is not on the "far right," but he is, ahem, very fiscally conservative and doesn't mind big firms or local governments going bankrupt and disrupting the pensions of hardworking people who over stretches of decades built up the firm or the local government. Will condemns these as "legacy" costs.
George F. Will declares himself an atheist.
An idol of the Far Right is Vladimir Putin. Vladimir Putin was high in the organization of the Russian secret police. To advance that far, Putin at least had to profess atheism.
There is a connection, though. Fundamentalists tend very strongly to be "conservative" -- to the right yet of Barry-Goldwater brand Conservatism, and the right-wing movement is populated with Fundamentalists.
If you find a study, I should be interested.
But many civil rights activists have been religious.
I am going to stay out of the area of condemning anyone for her or his lack of any faith or for a particular religion.
Damn Armand. You went to University of Arizona Law School. I’m a Wildcat and Arizona is where I went for both undergrad and years later graduate school. I have worked with many attorneys who went to UofA.
Jim Sanders: Oh, I LOVE the UofA. My dear Nancy graduated there in 1970. I studied law at the UofA 1970-1973. I met Nancy between semesters in the summer of 1971.
I absolutely love the UofA and the people and the beauty of the campus and Pima County.
If there is another debate, Biden should memorize a laundry list of Trumps lies and begin saying them until the moderator shuts him off, but hen after the next question continue with the list for as many questions as it takes. Bonus: it shows he still has a good memory.
Allen Schulz: You and I agree that henceforth Biden needs to show (1) Vigor and life; (2) Passion; (3) Reason and rigor. Biden has no margin for more duds.
Watching the debate, my impression is that Trump is loosing his memory, and he believes many of the lies he tells. He clung to the direction someone had given him to bring up illegal aliens every time he opened his mouth. This caused him to not answer some questions, and managed to annoy the female moderator enough that she tried to rein him in, which was too little too late, and just gave another example to all who watched why the man is incapable of doing the President’s job.
Notes on Useful Beauty: You are right.
Trump, indeed, is incapable, and it is shocking that about one-third of Americans form the Fundamentalist, cult horde behind Trump.
Moreover, Trump is evil. With illegal immigration, there are interlopers who threaten America's security. We should not deny that. But for Trump to say the immigrant "poisons our blood" is an evil act, a very evil act.
That Trumpian act is neo-Fascist.
Being a neo-Fascist alone is enough to disqualify Trump, without even having to face the issue of Trump's obvious incompetence.
See, if he just said he was a neo fascist out loud, admitted and asked people to vote for him on his chosen political platform, we could still have an honest election. Everyone is entitled to an honest stance. It’s the dishonesty, lying and obvious criminal intent to destroy democracy by illegal means that makes him unfit for office. In my opinion.
I’ve been saying that debates are like anything else, it can be a bad day. We all have them, it’s part of being human.
Remember, when debating Romney, President Obama had a really bad debate, but he still defeated Romney.
I’m not worried about the debate, that’s a waste of energy. I’m worried about what other surprises SCOTUS is going to hit us with before the election.
Catherine Windsor: You and I worry about this Supreme Court. For some reason, the current Court seems to be competing for the Justice Roger Taney award! Sweeping Presidential Immunity! My goodness, the potential is frightful.
Biden needs to show a happy face as did Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Biden must show himself decisive and happy and win hearts.
In the face of a vigorous, winning campaign, in the glad spirit of FDR, in a month it would be, "What debate? I forget! Look at the happy warrior!"
Biden HAS to perform for US. The President OWES it to US; we are his core voters.
The potential of sweeping presidential immunity in Trump’s hands is terrifying, but not so in Biden's hands. Biden will use it to do what he feels is best for the country. And what he does do will be only after discussion with his advisers and a lot of soul-searching. Common sense is in charge in the WH. Just because he can do something doesn’t mean he should do it, meanwhile, Trump is "Damn the torpedoes! Full steam ahead!"
All the Democrats I personally know are already in the "What debate?" column. Not a single one of them questions Biden's fitness to continue in office.
What I see of the "Biden must step down" noise is primarily from the media, and the individuals repeating it were never fully in Biden's camp, most are unaffiliated. I think if Biden utilizes his expanded power he’ll bring many of the wayward democrats back into the fold, and more of the unaffiliated off the fence. I posted a reply last night in another thread what I think he needs to do and why.
Catherine Windsor: You have, in my view, the right spirit.
We must engage with all of our might to save our Democracy!
Within lawful means, "By all means necessary!"
Thank you.
I’ve been fighting Trump and Co. since Nov 9, 2016, I’m used to being on a battle footing. We really need the president to use some of his expanded power. Not only will it make the battle ahead easier, but it will pull more voters to his camp. We need overwhelming numbers of voters to turn out in blue states and majorities in red states. That’s where we lost in 2016.
Catherine Windsor: If there have to be expanded Presidential powers, let the be used for the good!
Sharyl Attkisson found 9 whole whoppers that “Corn Pop” told! Last count I heard his opponent was 50! Corn Pop was too busy answering questions and Cult45 could only attack and lie with his time and answered none!
From the choir, I say amen! From the perspective of the 35,000 or so mushy, low-information voters who recognize none of this historic context with these considerations be at all relevant.
Outstanding essay Armand! We needed this shot in the arm! 💙
Susan Niemann: Thank you so much!
Great article Arman . filled with truths and history all in one . I love it . sending it to twitter now , Refuse to call it x lol. keep writing love to try and learn more .
You defend the right to fully practice one’s religion, quoting the great Elinor Roosevelt. But what happens when the religion starts invading the political sphere, leaving behind the spiritual sphere? What happens when religions see themselves as the arbiters on what people MUST BELIEVE and and how they MUST BEHAVE?
We have thousands of years of history to indicate what happens when religions are given power over the people. We have histories with each religion you named. It is a very cruel and bloody history.
Jim Sanders: Of course you raise an excellent point.
This is freedom of conscience.
My value, and certainly the value of Eleanor Roosevelt, was freedom of conscience.
That may well be atheism.
The imposing of Catholic strictures on Abortion is patently a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
I am not aware of a single, non-Christian religion, certainly not atheism, that believes in the extremes pushed by Catholic bishops or Fundamentalist cultists.
The "arbiter" of behavior must NOT be a religion.
The "arbiter" of behavior must be secular law with the goal of: (1) Maximal individual freedom; (2) A practice of no harm to my neighbor; and (3) A system of laws where the safety and dignity of each person is protected.
You and I are in total agreement that no religion whatsoever can, consistent with justice and due process, control the norms of Government.
My state is totally secular and is based upon such secular values as are found, for example, in "The Federalist Papers," the work of the possibly atheist David Hume in his "Treatise of Human Nature," the ethics of the secular Immanuel Kant in his "Kritik der praktischen Vernunft" (Critique of Practical Reason), and, the very secular Harvard Philosopher, John Rawls, "Theory of Justice."
Jim Sanders: Absolutely, you and I share the same secular values and the society must be ruled in a secular system that allows freedom of conscience but enforces as a matter of law secular values.
You and I are not in disagreement and I did not mean to imply that we were.
I was pointing out the bigotry of Donald J. Trump to religious minorities.
Armand, I wasn’t arguing with you I was merely adding my take on some of what you were discussing.
We have all heard the adage “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” IMO all these saying have a grain of truth but are not universal truths.* However, it has been my life’s experience that power corrupts more than it doesn’t.
You had a long career as a government lawyer— if I misunderstood that please correct me and accept my apology. I have been on the other side as an Expert Witness. Why am I an expert witness? Because judges in courts ranging from bankruptcy up to federal courts had said I met the test to be an expert because of education, experience and publication. Here is the rub, I do not believe in experts. For example , let’s say 10 years ago I was an expert in cosmology. Now because of the Webb Telescope, if I’m on the stand now and the opposing attorney questions me about testimony 10 years ago I will have to admit I was wrong. My testimony then was based upon what I believed to be true considering all the information and accepted theories at the time.
*Why am I saying this? Because as you are most likely aware, what one considers to be the truth—including the meaning of the Establishment Clause can be seen differently by people and Supreme Court judges each looking through the lenses of their political beliefs.
Here is one of my beliefs: I believe our legal system is fundamentally flawed, which I can support, at best and is corrupt at worst.
Again, not arguing with your position just pointing out what I see as a major problem in this country as the corruption within the mega-churches, the Catholic and other religions that appear, to me, exist to control the minds of people and to collect tithings.
Jim Sanders: First: EXACTLY. My whole career in the Department of Defense as an attorney from my youth till I retired in 2016 at 68 -- only because I was running out of leave to take my beautiful wife, Nancy (now together 53 years) for specialized medical care. If I hadn't run out of leave, I would have worked until at least 70, maybe a little longer, I am now 76.
You have no need whatsoever to apologize.
Far from it. I am enjoying our dialogue.
You and I see a lot alike. In your further comments, below, you and I read a lot of the same works.
I also conclude, with you, the I know nothing.
I am sure, from your narrative, that you share with me this:
In that I know nothing, that is a source of great joy and fascination. I believe you and I share the same passion for exploring deeper into philosophic and literary issues.
I envy your ability with math. I am good with the humanities, but I am lost with math, unfortunately.
Math opens up quantum physics -- which to me comes close to the meaning of the universe. Oh, if I only could do the math to understand Werner Heisenberg and Erwin Schrödinger.
I love your history as an expert witness. Excellent. Actually, that could be fun!
The Establishment Clause: I am an absolutist on that.
Our Founders were definitely secular and living the philosophy of the Enlightenment Era, the Age of Reason.
Since then, there have been several Fundamentalist waves, one ironically called "The Awakening," which, in my view, darkened the intellectual discourse and content.
I think you are right that our legal system is fundamentally flawed.
And I think a very substantial reason for that is our Country was founded on legal principles supporting enslavement of human beings and building an economy in large part dependent on slave labor.
Moreover, after the Civil War, Reconstruction was not allowed to work. This 76-year-old learned in schools in Southern California during the 1950s, using California approved textbooks, that Reconstruction was implemented by "carpetbaggers" who were some sort of criminal and imposed an inauthentic lifestyle on the South.
Yes. That was California in the 1950s.
I think we know that post-Civil-War the racial regime in America was in large measure dependent on large swaths of the population who believe the African Americans to be an inferior race, ironically at the time that we were to fight in WWII against the Third Reich built on genocidal practice of similar racial absolutism.
Our legal system is weighed down by customs that are so pervasive as to be even sometimes unconsciously passed on.
So, from that standpoint alone, our legal system is flawed.
Not to speak of our history of suppression of labor unions and worker's rights, with an overly protective solicitude for property-ownership -- which, of course, favors the proprietor.
As an old, cynical lawyer I love the exchanges. You argue quite persuasively and I love reading your train of reasoning.
Thank you so very much for our dialogue!
One of my favorite characters was Spock as played by Leonard Nimoy, so in his spirit: "Live Long and Prosper!"
I feel blessed because I has such a strong curiosity and it doesn’t bother me at all finding the more I learn the bigger the universe gets with my ignorance. I’m guessing you are similar.
Jim Sanders: Exactly. That is the wonder of it all. Knowledge opens many new cabinet drawers I did not even know were there, and I never tire of opening and studying each drawer. And each leads to another and yet further and more wonders and fascination.
It is a real joy in life!
Same age but you may be the older and maybe the wiser depending on your birth month 😉♐️♐️♊️
Jim Sanders: I love our dialogue, and will engage at any time.
"Live long and Prosper", my friend!
Short story. I was hired for a case by a Maine Corps JAG Colonel who at the time was in the reserves after many years of active duty. On the other side was The DOD. Once the case became official, the Marines called the Colonel up and sent him to Iraq for a full year where he served as the top JAG officer in the Iraq theater. Coincidence? I’ll never know.
He gets returned to civilian life and the case is on again. We go to court after months of depositions, rulings by the Federal Judge that seemed a little adverse to our case. Before this I was concerned how well I would be able to work with this Colonel as I’m known for unorthodox thinking partly because I have a much stronger math and science background than my opposing experts and I bring analyses to the table do not understand.
The feds brought in all kinds of experts from all over the country to quash us. Turns out we destroyed them and this colonel and I still consider ourselves friends many years later. Some people referred to us as Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. I was Sundance.
I hope this story doesn’t remind of something you were involved in with.
PS. I have read Hume, as well as Descartes, read Kant who was inspired into his prodigious works responding to Hume. I can add Plato, Aristotle, Nietzsche, Sartre, Camus, and many, many more to this list. In addition, I have studied the formations of religions and their influences on much philosophical thought.
I am very much a Humian partially because my degrees are in math and science. Yet, with all my studies of philosophy, science, history I come to the same conclusion as Socrates. That is “I KNOW NOTHING.”
Hit post button accidentally before proofing and Substack will make me wait before I can edit. By using Substack I must give away some of my free will and live within their rules and programming. I wonder what percentage of secular people are on the far right.
Jim Sanders: You might be surprised.
George F. Will is not on the "far right," but he is, ahem, very fiscally conservative and doesn't mind big firms or local governments going bankrupt and disrupting the pensions of hardworking people who over stretches of decades built up the firm or the local government. Will condemns these as "legacy" costs.
George F. Will declares himself an atheist.
An idol of the Far Right is Vladimir Putin. Vladimir Putin was high in the organization of the Russian secret police. To advance that far, Putin at least had to profess atheism.
There is a connection, though. Fundamentalists tend very strongly to be "conservative" -- to the right yet of Barry-Goldwater brand Conservatism, and the right-wing movement is populated with Fundamentalists.
If you find a study, I should be interested.
But many civil rights activists have been religious.
I am going to stay out of the area of condemning anyone for her or his lack of any faith or for a particular religion.
Damn Armand. You went to University of Arizona Law School. I’m a Wildcat and Arizona is where I went for both undergrad and years later graduate school. I have worked with many attorneys who went to UofA.
Jim Sanders: Oh, I LOVE the UofA. My dear Nancy graduated there in 1970. I studied law at the UofA 1970-1973. I met Nancy between semesters in the summer of 1971.
I absolutely love the UofA and the people and the beauty of the campus and Pima County.
We are discovering more in common.