Because forward is ALWAYS the right way to go.
Number of comments: 0 Add comment
April 30th, 2012 by exurbankevin
I love, love, LOVE this idea. Too bad it’s in the deserted ghost town formerly known as MetroCenter mall.
How much is that doggy in the window are not words normally associated with Maricopa County Animal Care and Control (MCACC). All that is about to change as MCACC enters into a partnership with Metrocenter Mall and PetSmart Charities®.
Metrocenter Mall has offered a former pet store space to MCACC free of charge. Christine Cunningham, Metrocenter Mall spokesperson says they are excited for MCACC to move in. “We thought it made sense to showcase animals that need a second chance at a forever home,” she said. “Maricopa County Animal Care and Control has thousands of homeless dogs and cats that need homes. Asking them just made sense to us.”
When PetSmart Charities heard about the mall store, they offered their support. “Our experience with our in-store adoption centers proves that satellite locations provide great visibility for shelter pets and expose them to new potential adopters,” said Susana Della Maddalena, Vice President and Executive Director, PetSmart Charities, Inc. “The mall location will provide Maricopa County Animal Care and Control the opportunity to showcase their adoptable pets to mall visitors and save more lives through adoption,” she added.
I swung by the store last week, and while traffic was ah, sparse, I love the idea and want it to succeed in malls that used to house commercial puppy stores.
There are plenty of pets in shelters who need good homes, and stores like this help them find a home faster. If you live in the northwest valley and are looking for a pet dog or cat, swing by MetroCenter and see what they have. You may just find a friend a for life.
Obama’s hope that Arizona will turn from red to purple and keep him in office for a second term have already been discussed ad nauseum on this blog, but it’s one thing for a paranoid right wing gun nut involved conservative like myself to say he’s got no chance at flipping Arizona, and another for the New York Times to say the same thing.
None of this is to say that Mr. Obama couldn’t win Arizona — he certainly could. Bill Clinton won Arizona in 1996 when he won the election by about eight percentage points nationally. If Mr. Obama won by a similar margin, he’d be at least even-money to pick up the state as well.
But if he does win Arizona it will probably be superfluous, since in all likelihood he’ll already have won states like Ohio, Colorado and Virginia that are closer to the tipping point.
Hey, for all I care, spend your money here, Obama. It pumps up the local economy, and it keeps you from spending that money in states that acutally might make a difference to your campaign.
Plus when you show up with the Secret Service, there’s nary a hooker to be found, making the streets safer for all of us.
And it doesn’t stop there.
“Why don’t you just get a job and go to work like a normal person?”
“I do work. I work at a co-op.”
“A hippie place.”
“It’s not a hippie place. We like to think of ourselves as more alternative.”
“So where do you live?”
“I got three roommates in a house on the north side. It’s kind of a house, but it’s falling apart.”
“‘It’s kind of a house, but it’s falling apart.’ I think that describes your life now, honey.”
Finally, someone in the media is treating hipsters like the self-important creeps they really are.
We are HUGE MST3k fans here at Exurbanleague, so much so that I once donated a kidney to Tom Servo.
So of course I’m going to enjoy this.
And as to the endless “Joel vs. Mike” debate, I’ll say “Trace Beaulieu”. The jokes just weren’t as obscure once he left, so it didn’t matter who delivered them.
Mark Kikorian call out the elephant in the room as, well, an elephant. In the room.
But what’s struck me most over the past few days is how the Left does not even understand the concept of constitutionalism. They virtually all seem to think that “constitutional” means “a policy I like” and “unconstitutional” means “a policy I don’t like,” which is why they are so appalled at the prospect of losing before the Supremes on Obamacare or S.B. 1070. I know this isn’t an original insight, but it’s just amazing how the very idea of a fundamental law that sets limits on what government is permitted to do is so abhorrent — or even incomprehensible — to the Left, and has been since the days of America’s Worst President a century ago.
Never ever, EVER forget that the idea of “self-restraint” or adherence to a calling outside of one’s self-serving goals are concepts as foreign to the professional Left as bathing is to a hippie. In their minds, a rigid adherence to Constitutional Law is aconcept to be consigned to the dustbin of history along with phligiston and aether. We must embrace a “living tree” interpretation of our nationa’s laws, they say, one that is flexible enough to keep the Democrats in power yet rigid enough to lock out the Republicans and their quaint ideas about moral certainty.
Because after all, what is, is right. One cannot be a hypocrite if one has no morals at all.
“Of course, what is going on here is that Obama administration doesn’t want to enforce the immigration laws that Congress has enacted. The essence of its position in the Arizona case is that the federal government has the right to decide not to enforce the law, and if it so decides, then no state has the power, under the Constitution, to do anything that would tend to enforce those federal laws. So if the Obama administration decides that it will gain political advantage by ignoring federal laws against illegal immigration, states like Arizona just have to take the consequences without complaining.”
First, it was the utter debacle that was the Obama administration’s defense of it’s one and only signature piece of legislation, now it’s SB1070’s turn in front of the Supreme Court, and things don’t look good for Democrats.
“What does sovereignty mean if it does not include the ability to defend your borders?” Justice Antonin Scalia asked.
Chief Justice Roberts, writing for four of the justices in the majority, said the state law under review “simply seeks to enforce” a federal ban on hiring illegal workers. “Arizona went the extra mile,” he wrote last year, “in ensuring that its law closely tracks” the federal one.
In an oral argument that ran 20 minutes beyond the scheduled hour, the Justices focused tightly on the actual operation of the four specific provisions of the law at issue, and most of the Court seemed prepared to accept that Arizona police would act in measured ways as they arrest and detain individuals they think might be in the U.S. illegally. And most of the Justices seemed somewhat skeptical that the federal government would have to change its own immigration priorities just because states were becoming more active….
The Court’s three more liberal Justices — Stephen G. Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor — offered what appeared to be a less than enthusiastic support for the federal government’s challenge.
And while our current President probably thinks that schadenfreude is some kind of Bavarian dish made with schnauzer, everyone who cares for America’s sovereignty and the freedom to chose our health care knows that it’s a dish best served cold.
Along with a nice big glass, full of the tears of crying liberals, of course.
“If the federal government can’t keep the President’s bodyguards from drinking and whoring on duty, how likely is it to be able to run anything competently?”
– Glenn Reynolds
“As for our moral, ethical, and intellectual superiors in the Democratic Party who don’t appreciate this one bit, here’s a question:
If you don’t want to talk about dogs, why did you bring up dogs?
Now: Add up the number of days you’ve yammered about Romney’s dog. Take that sum and add 1. Find a calendar, count out that number of days from today, and mark the date. That’s the day I’ll consider not hurting your feelings anymore by bringing up the fact that Obama eats dogs.
Or November 7, 2012. Whichever comes first.”
– Jim Treacher
I don’t normally make such definitive statements about politics because voters have this annoying tendency to vote their minds and not mine, but I have years and years of proven scientific results to back me up here.
What is this science that I speak of, you ask?
If there’s one thing in this universe that’s certain, it’s that (slow) Joe Biden is 100% wrong in everything he says or does. Whatever he says will happen, the opposite acutally happens. It’s gift.
Please, please, PLEASE, Joe: Go make this same speech in all 57 states, that way I know that Mitt and the GOP have this one in the bag.
Oh, and while you’re at it, say that the DBacks have no chance of winning the World Series this year, either.