Phoenix is now a sprawling metropolis where, scientists say, progress and growth have created nothing but problems for those prone to allergies:
* The widespread use of irrigation has resulted in a 10-month growing season, bad news for those who suffer from pollen and grass allergies.
* Transplanted residents who imported non-native plants have increased the variety of flora that can trigger allergic reactions. The top local offenders, mulberry and olive trees, are not indigenous.
There are more factors and a strange twist but I think that I have sufficiently supported my primary assertion regarding importation of plants and increased irrigation. I just knew this and have for a long, long time based upon where I have lived and other life experiences which you and others continue to mock on a regular basis. I only found this after you called me full of shit and felt the need to defend myself once again.
We can also talk about what irrigation has done to Palm Springs and periods of insanely high humidity as a result ...
April 28, 2015 at 8:51 PM MST - Updated July 9 at 2:57 PMOne of the reasons you moved to Arizona might've been to get away from your allergies from out east. While Arizona doesn't have an abundance of tree and grass pollen, it has plenty of ragweed and dust, two very common allergens.
So, where does Tucson rank among the "worst cities for allergies" list? I found a study from
www.healthline.comin 2014. Both used data from the Asthma & Allergy Foundation of America, and both shared 7 of the top 10 cities.
The list was based on
1. Pollen scores
2. Number of board certified allergists per 10,000 patients
3. Number of allergy medications used per patient
...
Tree pollen and mold are major culprits for allergies in the Southeast. Ragweed and dust are potent enough in Arizona to still put Tucson and Phoenix in the top 100...
...72.) Phoenix, AZ 73.) Tucson, AZ
Although Tucson is listed as #73, every year can be different. We've had an incredibly warm and a wetter than normal winter, which contributes to a worse allergy season for Tucson in 2015.
Copyright 2015. Tucson News Now. All Rights Reserved.
Same thing happened to California in the late 60's and early 70's.
Now it is Texas' turn.
People who move away from the things they don't like always end up changing their new places into what they left ...
In Arizona, new arrivals from the East brought their favorite plants with them and turned it into a pollen filled sinus nightmare. In particular, Scottsdale. Back in the day there was a commercial for Dristan that had the tag line, send your sinuses to Arizona, with Dristan
.
Ummm...Your story doesn't jibe with the commercial.
The ad implies that Dristan gets rid of the symptoms of clogged sinuses, as if they were as clear of irritation when you were in Arizona.
Arizona in the ad is not "a pollen filled sinus nightmare." It's a sinus paradise.
How the importation of some plants from the Northeast would be enough to overwhelm the desert-like conditions of much of Arizona is beyond me.
So I call BS.
Fun ad though.
I don't wish to call you any names. The commercial is from 1960. Arizona was a sinus paradise back then. The migration that began in the 1980's is what changed the flora in certain parts of Arizona into a pollen nightmare that continues today, decades later with these plants now well established. I forgot to add Prescott as another favorite place of easterners.
I guess you've never heard of irrigation. These non native plants and trees just need a different mix of soil and some regular watering in order to survive in residential areas, cities and some valleys in general in the Arizonan environment. Arizona is very windy at times along with a monsoon season. The blooming that follows the monsoon season blows the pollen far distances. No it is not the whole state, but the whole state used to be a relatively pollen free environment. Now like many areas, some have more of the types of plants that cause allergies than other areas. Arizona has now succumbed only because of a migration.
But whatever. You're becoming just like r_p.
The point remains the same ... People who move away from the things they don't like always end up changing their new places into what they left ...
Same thing happened to California in the late 60's and early 70's.
Now it is Texas' turn.
People who move away from the things they don't like always end up changing their new places into what they left ...
In Arizona, new arrivals from the East brought their favorite plants with them and turned it into a pollen filled sinus nightmare. In particular, Scottsdale. Back in the day there was a commercial for Dristan that had the tag line, send your sinuses to Arizona, with Dristan
.
Ummm...Your story doesn't jibe with the commercial.
The ad implies that Dristan gets rid of the symptoms of clogged sinuses, as if they were as clear of irritation when you were in Arizona.
Arizona in the ad is not "a pollen filled sinus nightmare." It's a sinus paradise.
How the importation of some plants from the Northeast would be enough to overwhelm the desert-like conditions of much of Arizona is beyond me.
Now ask how many of them moved here from some other state. Story of our damned lives down here.
Same thing happened to California in the late 60's and early 70's.
Now it is Texas' turn.
People who move away from the things they don't like always end up changing their new places into what they left ...
In Arizona, new arrivals from the East brought their favorite plants with them and turned it into a pollen filled sinus nightmare. In particular, Scottsdale. Back in the day there was a commercial for Dristan that had the tag line, send your sinuses to Arizona, with Dristan
That was several years ago actually; partially a product of Republican rule through gerrymandering. Voting and registration-wise the state is about 50/50 Republican/Democratic yet the NC General Assembly has 10 Republicans and 3 Democrats.
I am glad we're having this discussion. It's really important to me.
The bolded bits of your reply are what I'd like to address. You are absolutely right, we should respect each other. We should respect each other's right to protest injustices (peacefully).
Why should anyone respect you (the general you) if you are not going to respect them? That's been my point all along. Respect is a two-way street. People of color are actively disrespected on a daily basis. Maybe not directly by the folks who want him to stand, but in myriad ways subtle and not-so-subtle.
Colin Kaepernick is trying to bring attention to that fact. He feels the obligation to use the public platform to air his grievances. In a measured, quiet way. No yelling, no threats, no rock throwing.
I never agreed with sitting on the bench. But kneeling is a different matter. The action itself, separate from this discussion, indicates respect and deference. The fact Colin and Nate talked, and agreed upon kneeling, indicates there is room for discussion. Give a little, get a little, but above all respect each other. Would that the rest of us were as thoughtful as those men.
c.
Absolutely, I think that's more or less the discussion I think is more appropriate then simply saying the anti-protestors are racist. More to the point, they dont understand the racism that still exists and/or the hangover still being felt from the centuries of prior abuse.
Please don't. I'm seriously not attacking you or accusing you of anything here. You have a different view, but I'm trying to see why.
So if Kaepernick himself says the protest is about race. But others complain that the protest is disrespectful of the flag and/or the military. How can we question those complaining and call attention to the fact that there were military personnel involved in crafting the protest to be specifically flag respectful? You say it is tribalism. Okay, but the tribalism mentioned was about respect for traditions and institutions. I believe that they took steps to respect those institutions and traditions, but still tried to get their message out. So what is left in this tribalism? Is it simply left/right? D/R? City/country? If that's where we are, without even factoring race, then it's probably time to get the blue tape out and start making a line in the country. Your* side / our side. Hope it goes better this time.
*-larger your, ect. Edit:
trying to expand a bit: To a degree, I'm sure you are correct that racism isn't the root of the anti-protest protest for a lot of people. So for those people, what is the root beyond tribalism? And is there a way to minimize or overcome that tribal reaction? I do have friends who are in the anti-Nike/Kaepernick camp that I don't see as inherently racist, but they are vehemently anti-Nike now. So how can a conversation be had? Nike didn't mention race in their ad, just support of Kaepernick's actions.
I didnt get the sense of being attacked, but thanks anyway. As for the last part, I dont really know, but it's a big issue. the answer is probably something along the lines of going back and remembering those kindergarten lessons of respecting each other. It probably has something to do with one of those videos Miami posted somewhere about tribalism. It's also about recognizing there are differences, or these spaces between all of us, that can never be reconciled or passed through. Does it make a man less of a friend, brother, uncle, father if he believes all should stand, and i don't?
As for those non-racists protesting the protestor, is it for them about protecting something sacred. perhaps their message should be, its ok if you dont respect the flag or country the way i do, but at least respect me and stand. I dont think that's a good or right answer, but just speculating on what they may think.
I am glad we're having this discussion. It's really important to me.
The bolded bits of your reply are what I'd like to address. You are absolutely right, we should respect each other. We should respect each other's right to protest injustices (peacefully).
Why should anyone respect you (the general you) if you are not going to respect them? That's been my point all along. Respect is a two-way street. People of color are actively disrespected on a daily basis. Maybe not directly by the folks who want him to stand, but in myriad ways subtle and not-so-subtle.
Colin Kaepernick is trying to bring attention to that fact. He feels the obligation to use the public platform to air his grievances. In a measured, quiet way. No yelling, no threats, no rock throwing.
I never agreed with sitting on the bench. But kneeling is a different matter. The action itself, separate from this discussion, indicates respect and deference. The fact Colin and Nate talked, and agreed upon kneeling, indicates there is room for discussion. Give a little, get a little, but above all respect each other. Would that the rest of us were as thoughtful as those men.
Please don't. I'm seriously not attacking you or accusing you of anything here. You have a different view, but I'm trying to see why.
So if Kaepernick himself says the protest is about race. But others complain that the protest is disrespectful of the flag and/or the military. How can we question those complaining and call attention to the fact that there were military personnel involved in crafting the protest to be specifically flag respectful? You say it is tribalism. Okay, but the tribalism mentioned was about respect for traditions and institutions. I believe that they took steps to respect those institutions and traditions, but still tried to get their message out. So what is left in this tribalism? Is it simply left/right? D/R? City/country? If that's where we are, without even factoring race, then it's probably time to get the blue tape out and start making a line in the country. Your* side / our side. Hope it goes better this time.
*-larger your, ect. Edit:
trying to expand a bit: To a degree, I'm sure you are correct that racism isn't the root of the anti-protest protest for a lot of people. So for those people, what is the root beyond tribalism? And is there a way to minimize or overcome that tribal reaction? I do have friends who are in the anti-Nike/Kaepernick camp that I don't see as inherently racist, but they are vehemently anti-Nike now. So how can a conversation be had? Nike didn't mention race in their ad, just support of Kaepernick's actions.
I didnt get the sense of being attacked, but thanks anyway.
As for the last part, I dont really know, but it's a big issue. the answer is probably something along the lines of going back and remembering those kindergarten lessons of respecting each other. It probably has something to do with one of those videos Miami posted somewhere about tribalism. It's also about recognizing there are differences, or these spaces between all of us, that can never be reconciled or passed through. Does it make a man less of a friend, brother, uncle, father if he believes all should stand, and i don't?
As for those non-racists protesting the protestor, is it for them about protecting something sacred. perhaps their message should be, its ok if you dont respect the flag or country the way i do, but at least respect me and stand. I dont think that's a good or right answer, but just speculating on what they may think.
Note my earlier comment on the contents of the anthem for USA vs. Canada. Theirs is about their land rising up and their duty to it and love for it. Ours is about a symbol of something that matters only because we can see it amid the chaos of war. I think we would be better off with more patriotism and less symbolism. A stretch goal would include respect for fellow human beings and less war and killing and stuff.
Why do people say they fought and died for the flag? The flag, or the Republic for Which it Stands? Similarly, Kaepernick's protest isn't with the banner itself, but again, with the Republic for Which it Stands. They fought and died for his right to air his grievances. To stop him protesting means they fought and died in vain. Seems like an 8th-Grade civics lesson to me, but maybe it's still over some heads.
Yep.
Note my earlier comment on the contents of the anthem for USA vs. Canada. Theirs is about their land rising up and their duty to it and love for it. Ours is about a symbol of something that matters only because we can see it amid the chaos of war. I think we would be better off with more patriotism and less symbolism. A stretch goal would include respect for fellow human beings and less war and killing and stuff.
Why do people say they fought and died for the flag? The flag, or the Republic for Which it Stands? Similarly, Kaepernick's protest isn't with the banner itself, but again, with the Republic for Which it Stands. They fought and died for his right to air his grievances. To stop him protesting means they fought and died in vain. Seems like an 8th-Grade civics lesson to me, but maybe it's still over some heads.
