Arizona and the Ethics of Travel Writing
by Jules Older
Travel writers aren't famous ethicists. If we aren't cavorting on some pristine beach in the Caribbean, we’re scarfing down lamb chops at some snooty restaurant in San Francisco.
But every once in awhile, we get to flex our moral muscles. And I've just come from my workout at the Ethics Gym.
I started pumping iron when Arizona’s governor signed what the papers are calling “the most restrictive immigration bill in the country” and which I’m calling, “the Up against the wall, Brownie!” law.
And heading for her signature is a second bill. This one will require American presidential candidates to prove — to the Arizona Secretary of State — that they were born in the USA. So, come next election, President Obama could be kept off the ballot in Arizona, since nothing will ever convince the hardcore that he’s not a Commie-Muslim from Kenya.
The papers call this the “birther” bill. I call it the “Klan in cowboy boots” bill.
Most of my friends agree that the law and the bill are nasty, bigoted and more in keeping with the spirit of 1910 than 2010. But since my friends don’t live in Arizona, they think there's not much they can do about it.
Oh, but I can. I'm a travel writer.
My travel-journo wife and I recently posted a YouTube video on Arizona's Sonoran Desert.
We recently published a feature article on Arizona's Sonoran Desert.
We planned to do more on Arizona.
But since Arizona's governor signed the anti-Latino bill into law, we ain't gonna write no more, no more.
Let’s be clear — we don't demand perfection. We don't wholly agree with the politics and practices of any place, including the places we've lived. But we will not support the supporters of injustice, of bigotry, of fanaticism’s lies.
We wouldn't write about South Africa under apartheid. We won't write about Burma under its monk-murdering colonels.
And now, we won't help send visitors to Arizona. Not while it’s a state that would ban the President from the ballot unless he convinces some Arizona apparatchik that he's actually born in the USA, a state that requires dark-skinned citizens show documents proving they belong here.
We ain't gonna write no more… and we just pulled our YouTube video. Now, pass me that damned lamb chop.
Jules Older lives and writes in San Francisco.
38 Comments | Jules Older | Email Article | Share Article | Print Article | Permalink tagged Arizona 
Reader Comments (38)
Count me in on this travel writing boycott!
I know that there are lots of very good people in Arizona that count of travel and tourism to make a living. And I know this choosing not to promote their state will cause pain. But until there is pain there will be no change, as we saw with the state's failure to recognize Martin Luther King Day for so long.
We seldom have an opportunity to stand up for what we believe. Thank you for reminding us that we all can do something.
Count us in! No mentions of Arizona in any travel articles we write. Why would we send our readers to a place where they will be haraassed?
While driving thru AZ recently, this bill was under discussion and not yet voted upon. I came home with three Arizona stories, one of which I was crafting for this site. To my shock, the bill passed. The fun AZ travel story went into the "Later-If Ever" file on a disk stored in a dark closet.
If we can boycott nations, boycotting Arizona should be a cinch.
I might have to wait for fresh tomatoes grown in my non-AZ region, but it's worth it.
I live in Tucson, Arizona, and I hate the law. And I support the boycotts in general. But there's something smug about the positions expressed above. What you're talking about pulling or not writing are the fluff pieces, the superficial stories. Travel writing contains multitudes. If you really want to change things, why not write about people and places that might be affected by the law -- Mexican restaurants? The shopping centers that Mexican Americans frequent? Not writing about something is easy. Writing about it in a meaningful way -- that's a lot tougher.
Here,Here, Edie Jarolim. Things don't get changed by silence. They change by exploring and explaining.
...and, on the other hand, media on both the right and left wonder if boycotts will hurt the working (service and ag industry) immigrants they seek to help!? Rather than emotionally overreact to vague hysteria about what might happen as either a knee-jerk jerk or a patriotic burrito (that's an asshole wrapped in a flag), wait and see how this law is implemented and challenge infractions on a closely-watched case-by-case basis. Between the costs to the state, legally and otherwise, and the issue it brings up; this is one to watch. Where does freedom reside on an arc between constitutionality and economics?
In depth travel articles help people understand the culture, the politics, or the impact of travel on that location and give us expanded insight and appreciation for the great diversity in this world. I love this site because writers share the experience of the travel, not just the destinations. I understand Jules Older's plea for boycott, but Edie Jarolim makes a sound case for travel writers helping us understand the impact of this draconian law on the lives of the people of Arizona, and I would add, the world view of the people who support the law, as well as the impact of the seemingly unstoppable invasion of huge numbers of illegal immigrants and the rapid increase in border-crossing drug warfare .
The law signing instantly brought this very divisive issue to the forefront of American politics. Should travel writers let all of the discussions be generated by political writers, breaking news announcers, or TV pundits? I don't think so, and I think a blanket "boycott Arizona" would not help travelers or the general American public increase their understanding of this situation.
Travel writers have a unique vision that allows observation and reporting in a way that helps bring understanding. I hope it would be applied here.
I love taking a stand -- it makes me feel good and gives that often false sense that I have some kind of power. That said, I have to say that I agree with Edie. The law and bill mentioned absolutely stink but that's not going to make me stop writing about a state that I find beautiful and troubling. A state is more than it's politics. It holds stories about people trying to save endangered California Condors and others thinking the deep thoughts as they climb into the Grand Canyon. It holds amazing stories about Hopis and Navajos. And stories about cactus wrens. My stories aren't going to send or not send anyone to the state of Arizona. But they just might get people to look beyond the political construct of state for a moment.
Let's be clear. This is a travel site; in fact, my favorite travel site. Everything on it is about travel.
In my article, I identified myself as a travel writer. Its first words are "Travel writers."
So, it should be clear that when I say, "We ain't gonna write no more, no more," I'm talking about TRAVEL writing. Right?
I'd write about apartheid. I'd write about Burmese dictators. I'd write about cactus wrens. What I will not do — what a growing number of travel writers will not do — is help draw visitors (and face it; drawing visitors is what travel pages are all about) to a state with a clear and prolonged history of official bigotry.
Examples? The now-hastily modified Up Against the Wall law. The proposed Klan in Cowboy Boots bill. The Won't Honor Dr. King statute. The We Don't Think President Obama's Ready for an Honorary Doctorate decision.
All out of Arizona.
Speaking of the King issue, it was reversed when (Choose one):
1. Arizona legislators realized the error of their ways
2. Boycotts cost the state millions until they changed their ways.
The argument against boycotts is that they harm the innocent. In this case, the innocent, including innocent Arizona politicians who are horrified by the new law, are calling for a boycott.
In my article, I never used the B-word. What I said, and what I still say, is this:
"We won't help send visitors to Arizona. Not while it’s a state that would ban the President from the ballot unless he convinces some Arizona apparatchik that he's actually born in the USA, a state that requires dark-skinned citizens show documents proving they belong here."
That's my story, and I'm stickin' to it.
One more thing. Here's a prediction. If fewer travelers spend money in Arizona, if fewer conventions convene there, if fewer words about the beauties of the state appear in print, we'll see another reversal. And we'll all be better off for it.
I'm Jules Older, and I approved this message.
Unless and until one has actually read the bill and is not relying on hearsay and third hand opinion, one should avoid writing about something about which one knows nothing. There were those who wrote sensationally and without accurate information in the latter part of the 19th century. They were known as yellow journalists. A writer's factual itegrity is as important as what they write else they compromise their credibility. When one is fully familiar with facts and there is a moral high ground, then it is time to mount the hustings and do battle.
Hey, Jules. You really have a dialogue going here. EXACTLY what we hoped for.
Your life REALLY is a trip, and we're here for the ride with you.
A big thanks to Jules and our readers for joining the conversation.
Here's a link to the text of the Arizona bill. Need someone smarter than me to read this bill and post here the section that promotes racial profiling.
http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/04/16/AzSB1070.pdf
Here's a tip - officer has to have a reason to stop someone, and if that person has ANY form of identification (a driver's license for example) the bill specifically states that is prima facie evidence of being in the state legally.
'Cruisemon,' this isn't aimed at you. Or at anyone else who's responded. Opening minds, opening discussion is what writing's all about.
That said, when somebody tries to look up Cruisemon or any other anon contributor, here's what they'll see:
"This item was posted by an anonymous author, meaning that he or she does not have a personal account with this website."
I'm all in favor of the secret ballot. I'm all opposed to anonymous comments, whether about a San Francisco restaurant or Arizona politics. I believe the cloak of anonymity is a shroud that stifles civility and rationality, on the Web and in America.
Remember: Not aimed at Cruisemon, who has been both civil and rational.
So I make this plea: From now on, here and elsewhere, sign your opinions with your real name. I pledge to do the same.
That's why I say, "I'm Jules Older, and I approved this message."
Jules -- I view everything I do as travel writing so when I'm writing about a cactus wren it's about a bird that exists in a particular place, which allows me to give a sense of the place, which might make someone want to have a similar experience, which means they might have to go to the place.I've described.
How do other people define travel writing?
And I do agree with you that boycotts can be enormously powerful.
best,
Rachel
So why exactly are people upset? Is it because there is the potential of racial profiling? i understand that concern but not the anger towards Arizona.
Let's look at this economically. Millions are being spent on social services (like health care) for people who don't contribute far less to an economy than legal citizens. While many cry "racism" there are legitimate economic concerns here. When a time has come in this country to buckle down, people are ripping Arizona for taking an economic stance on people who are clearly violating the law and are here illegally. Why should a group of people who are WRONG be defended?
Let me give an example. I grew up a a smaller town in which 1 out of every 10 people had my last name. Let's say a number of people in my town were known as being thieves and for being lazy. And let's say a number of thefts started to take place. If an officer came up to me and saw my last name, would it be fair of him to at least question me? What if I was college educated and had a good job, is it fair? If I am stopped and answer his question and then move on, what rights of mine were violated? Should I get mad at the officer who had reasonable suspicion based on my name or should I be mad at the people who have made it hard for me.
Yes, there is the POTENTIAL for racism and racial profiling. However, there is some evidence there to say that many illegals that are here are of a different race. If someone is stopped and questioned, they show their proof, and move on, what rights were violated? If I matched the description of someone who committed a murder and I was questioned, should I get mad and sue or be thankful that they are trying to help out?
As a travel writer, I am going to write about things that interest people and myself. I am not going to hold it against the Grand Canyon, Phoenix, Tucson, or any other areas in Arizona because of what is happening in politics. While I have been quite opinionated here, I reserve that opinion when I write because people can make up their own minds on what they want to go and where they want to go. I'm not going to go out of my way to write something about Arizona now but I am also not going to hold it against them either.
I love living in California for the diversity of the people here. It's one of the greatest assets to this state. Heck, my sister-in-law is Peruvian and my bother-n-law is black. My family is quite diverse! However, there are many more ways to look at this besides social and racial reasons.
Jeremy--
A long time ago several of their neighbors noticed that my great-grandparents were violating the law and turned them in. So on August 23, 1942, the SS knocked on their door, seized them and their property and "transported" them to the Theresienstadt concentration camp, where they died. All perfectly "legal."
No doubt you'd approve of that--they were breaking the law by being Jewish. Hey, they probably looked Jewish to boot, no profiling there.
I'm not sure that boycotting Arizona is the best answer here, but at least Jules is taking a stand on principle. You? It's embarrassing that you claim to be in the same profession as me-
Eric Lucas
No Eric, what many of you are doing is just looking at this from one point of view. My only point here was to show that there was more than one way to look at this and that being a travel writer doesn't mean you punish the beautiful things that are in Arizona just because of the politics. Many people in Arizona disagree with this? Is it fair to punish them or these great places because you don't agree with the politics? No. Widen your perspective and your view and realize that there are many other ways to look at this besides your own. That's my point. You can agree with the law or not - I don't care. I am not defending or promoting it but just giving a different perspective.
And to compare our country and the United States to Nazi Germany is is extreme and gross exaggeration. No one is being punished for being a particular race, just whether they are here legally. Heck, I have two better suggestions for dealing with this. For one, make sure that people are selected randomly (regardless of race) for id checks (like sobriety checkpoints) to limit racial profiling. Second, come down harder on business who hire illegals rather than calling out a specific race.
Writing about travel is much more than the politics of a state. For example, there were MANY people who wrote about the beautiful places and culture of Eastern Europe like Croatia, the Czech Republic, and other places even though the doors were closed and the politics and government were ruled by communism. Promoting travel and the different aspects of it is not confined to a country or state's politics.
It can be quite embarrassing to me to see people so close minded and biased that they can't see beyond their own point of view or how writing about travel, people, cultures, and places is so much bigger than politics or government.
Jeremy,
You seem to be good at viewing things in a broader perspective. Try this one on: You're a legal Mexican immigrant. You're stopped three times in one day by policemen who require you to show your I.D. Of course, you're off the hook, because you're legal. But how does this change your life? Perhaps you decide not to attend public functions, maybe you try to stay home more, because of the overall hassle and interruption of your life. Maybe the stress of it causes you to develop ulcers or begin to hate white people in positions of authority. Is this how we want to treat people of Mexican ancestry? How would you feel?
You mention that people should be selected randomly. Fair of you, but this isn't how it's being done. Haven't you been paying attention to the news? The state has been profiling people based on the color of their skin, and making arrests of large numbers of people. This is what is so wrong.
And the difference between writing about places that were behind the Iron Curtain vs. writing about Arizona? There's no way a totalitarian government would change its ways just because some people objected. Yet, if enough of us stand up for what's right in Arizona, the state will feel the effects economically and may well change.
I agree with the original poster, that it's time to give Arizona a chance to feel the impact of its choices.
Leslie
Yes, Leslie. I have been paying attention. I actually wrote about this and the ban that San Fran put on official travel. There was a lot of debate on my article about this. However, as a travel writer, I wanted to report what was out there and let people decide how they feel. I know what the news is and I was just showing you that there are different ways this could be dealt with. I was saying that to show that I agree people have a valid point on the racial profiling issue and that I don't dismiss the issue. To show my support for yours (and others') points of view, I stated ways that this could be handled differently.
As for your Mexican immigrant example, I will say a couple of things. For one, it's another gross exaggeration. Police in Arizona are not going to up there staff to make sure every Latino is stopped every time they are seen on the street. Will this person be stopped? It's quite possible but three times a day? Gross exaggeration of reality is how extremism on both sides develops.
Is it a hassle? Sure, it is. Are they losing rights or being imprisoned by doing this? No. There are situations in our lives every day where we are inconvenienced by the government. We now have to wait in long security lines, take off our shoes, give up our drinks, and pay more money because of the actions of a few terrorists.
Isn't it always the ones who are doing things correctly in life the ones that are most inconvenienced? This is true in many aspects of life across all races. I am sure you can think of many examples. I am sure the Arizona politicians aren't trying to be blatantly racist but our country has a history of people of all races and social classes being inconvenienced by the actions of a few. It's a lesson we have learned since the beginning of childhood. It is fair or always right?
So let me ask this - rather than criticizing the decision that was made, how about offer other solutions on how to handle this? I did.
Jeremy -
Let's see -- everyone having to remove their shoes and jackets to go through a security line vs. only those with brown skin having to prove their citizenship. See a difference here?
That's my point.
Leslie
Leslie, are there not many people here illegally with brown skin (as well as black and white as well)? People who are doing it correctly are suffering for the incorrect choices of a few. Why get angry at trying to enforce something the law instead of getting mad at those who are doing the wrong? We don't get mad at laws we have because of people who steal. In this case, race happens to be a factor here and so that is what everyone is jumping on. That's what has people so upset - the racial aspect, not what is wrong. I understand the sensitivity of the issue but Arizona is choosing to address the legality and economics of this issue. And unfortunately, in doing so the factor of race can't be ignored.
My point is that we are ALL inconvenienced in life. Yep, it sucks. Yes, you have a valid point. So tell me how to address the problem? Do you have other solutions to this? Is anyone's right being violated here?
Jeremy --
Since you've asked for my opinion on solutions to this problem, I'll offer them:
1) Arizona could drop their racist law--in reality they'll probably be forced to, anyway, by the federal government; and 2) the federal government could implement an orderly guest-worker program to offer legal identification and legitimacy to those who come here for the jobs Americans don't want to do.
Leslie
willful ignorance (uncountable)
(idiomatic, law) 1. A bad faith decision to avoid becoming informed about something so as to avoid having to make undesirable decisions that such information might prompt. 2. the state and practice of ignoring any evidence that appears to contradict one's preconceived notions.
IMHO, to defend Arizona's so-called immigration law as anything other than official bigotry requires willful ignorance. You have to be willing to tuck these inconvenient truths out of awareness:
The proposed Birther Law that, to be fair, makes any presidential candidate, regardless of race, prove he wasn't born in Kenya.
The Won't Honor MLK position. Under President Reagan, the federal holiday honoring Dr. King was first celebrated in 1986. Only after enormous outside pressure, including the loss of a Super Bowl, did Arizona accept the holiday. How many years later was that?
The We Don't Think He's Ready for an Honorary Doctorate decision. Just last year, Arizona State University declined to give their commencement speaker an honorary degree. Why? "Because his body of achievements, at this time, does not fit within that criteria."
His achievements at that time included two best-selling books, editorship of the Harvard Law Review, Oh, and becoming the first African American President of the United States of America.
So. You can argue the details of one law — one hastily revised law — in comfort. But only if you keep yourself in a state of willful ignorance.
I'm Jules Older, and I approved this message.
I only have a problem with the first paragraph, where the author implies that "...cavorting on some pristine beach in the Caribbean [or] scarfing down lamb chops at some snooty restaurant in San Francisco" are somehow unethical. I'd like to have that explained.
We seem to have strayed far from the original point that I made -- ie., what travel writing is -- into arguing the merits of the law. Yes, Jules, this is a travel site, but as I and others such as Rachel Dickinson said, travel writing contains multitudes. You seem to be defining it very narrowly as pieces that promote a destination, such as the pretty pictures of the Sonoran desert on YouTube that you pulled. Big ethical stand.
As I noted early on, I hate the law. And I don't think the comparison to the Holocaust is exaggerated; my parents, who were refugees from it (and whose parents perished in the camps), would have been appalled by a law that singled out a group of people. My family members were considered "illegal" in Vienna too.
One more point. It's easy to not write about Arizona when you don't live here. So you took a press trip, had a good time, and then decided to take an ethical stance. Pobrecito. When you live in Arizona and write primarily about subjects close to home, as I do, it has a far larger impact on your livelihood to not write about it. I've done my share of puff pieces and welcome the challenge of trying to write about my state in a more meaningful fashion than I sometimes do. But not writing about Arizona at all is not an option for me as it is for those writers who don't live here.
Leslie: I'm curious about where you got the information about "only those with brown skin having to prove their citizenship" and "the state has been profiling and making arrests of large numbers of people?"
I live in Tucson, and even in this town which was Spanish nearly longer than it has been American, and is populated by a large number of Hispanics/Latinos, that just is not happening.
Vera
One common response to the new, to the discomforting, is to attack the source. It's not ideal — better to confront the issues, and if they're meaningful, change your position.
When Edie says, "there's something smug about the positions expressed above;" when she defines work as "fluff pieces, superficial stories;" and when she writes sarcastically, "Big ethical stand," that's attacking rather than confronting and changing.
Doesn't mean she's not a nice person — these are tough choices, especially, "when you live in Arizona," as she does.
But ethics means tough choices. To give up any subject in hard times costs travel writers dearly. When it's your bread & butter, as in Edie's case, the cost is even higher. Nobody wants to do it.
Some of us feel we should.
And we're not alone. Southern Blacks faced death for voter rights, not income loss. Miners who strike for better wages and safer mines pay a much heaver price than do writers. The mayors of Arizona cities who are suing their own state over the law risk a weightier outcome. The Arizona congressman calling for a boycott of his state may pay dearly at the next election. So could the sheriff who said the law wastes his officers' time.
I'd ask Edie, as I ask all travel writers, consider the issue. If, for you, it's worth the sacrifice, take action. Do it in your own way, but do it.
Peace.
jules
I apologize for the sarcasm, Jules. And I wasn't denigrating anyone's work; it's my work too. We seem to agree on the issue itself, but suspect we're never going to agree on a meaningful stance against it. All I'm saying is that silence does not seem like a good option for writers because it's difficult to know what absence means.
Peace,
Edie
I'm stunned at these comments. After dealing with this issue on the front lines for AZ's tourism industry for two weeks and trying to educate people about the importance of tourism and what it means to our citizens and our economy, I thought the one group of people who would understand this point would be the people in my own profession - tourism promotion/travel writing.
Again, as journalists, I'm suprised to see the rhetoric that's being thrown around from the "random stops" to Nazi relations. Really? Let me ask the professional travel writers on this site: when you write about visiting other countries, do you tell people that they don't have to worry about carrying around identification such as passports or birth certificates and do you write that they should feel oppressed or appalled if they're ever asked to show their id in those foreign countries? I'd bet the answer to that is no. We all know, as professional travelers, that keeping your passport protected and close is the number one priority when traveling abroad.
Fact: an ammendment to 1070 was made that now says "one must be detained or arrested" for a seperate unlawful offense prior to being questioned on citizenship. So, random legal citizens won't be stopped multiple times per day for being "brown". This clearly target CRIMINALS who are illegally in our country. This is also CURRENT Federal legislation that is simply being enforced on a state level. In other words - this legislation is being enforced nationally in all of your home states. To listen to some of these comments about police harrassment implies that the police force is made up of a bunch of thugs who have nothing better to do than harrass innocent people?! I have several friends who are police officers and they're all being painted as "racists".
Please don't get me wrong, I am not a fan of this legislation. I'm basically indifferent as I don't think it will make a big difference in the problems our state faces and all it's doing is painting our state in a negative light. I'd much rather see some immigration reform on a federal level.
However, I just wanted to provide some FACTS that I would assume my journalist colleagues would want prior to making professional decisions and grandiose statements. Also, back to Edie's point, travel writing is supposed to be about learning and creating understandings about other destinations. It's not all just about birdwatching and reviewing the latest restaurant.
A clever and open-minded travel writer will do just as Edie says and will find an opportunity in this situation to promote cultural diversity and understanding. This is where our profession can really make a difference and, in the right hands, has the potential to heal a divided nation.
You're right - for many (if not most) "Travel Writing" is seen as a frivolous profession of journalists who like free trips. This is not the time for us to light our torches and jump on the bandwagon. Let's instead rise to the challenge of uniting our tourism industry like only we (you) can do and raise the profile and importance our beloved profession - Travel Writing. The reason travel sections exist in newspapers and magazines is becuase people want a BREAK from politics. Let's not get caught up in the hype of the national media. Take a pause and you'll see that, like every destination, the people in our tourism industry are warm and welcoming and need your support now more than ever!
Just a point of clarification on the law itself - no one can be randomly stopped and asked for their ID. You have to already be stopped for breaking the law. As journalists, I'd encourage you to do your research first.
Thanks, Edie. None of this is easy.
Krisjar, people here are saying who they are. Please join us in that.
Jules Older
I think you're delusional and wrong. Since you don't actually live in Arizona, you really don't have a good grip on the situation there. Stick to California's myriad of problems instead.
Again, I ask folks to stand behind their opinions by saying who they are. Edie does. Vera does. joseph does. i do.
What I don't do is respond to anonymous posts, whether they agree with me or diagnose me as delusional.
And remember... When the focus turns to the delusions of the writer rather than the issues said writer writes about, it's usually a sign that there's an absence of counter-argument.
I'm Jules Older, and I approved of this message.
I wrote a blog post about Arizona shortly after this ugly bill became law, but I wrote about the boycott: (http://travel-babel.blogspot.com/search?q=Arizona), which, BTW, I support. The Grand Canyon will survive a boycott, and so will ancient pueblos. Mary Jo pointed out that Arizona refused to recognize MLK's Birthday. I would add that it cost Phoenix the Super Bowl.
Senator John McCain opposed the holiday before he supported it (the very type of flipflop for which the Republicans skewered John Kerry),. It was, in the end, McCain whochanged his mind and persuaded President Reagan, still a conservative icon, to sign theMLK holiday into law.
I am very sorry if the boycott in the short term harms low-wage hospitality industry workers or mom-and-pop businesses in tourist towns. But I'm guessing that only if the big hotels, resorts and chain restaurants feel the pinch will this law have a chance of being overturned.
Claire Walter writes, "I'm guessing that only if the big hotels, resorts and chain restaurants feel the pinch will this law have a chance of being overturned."
This just in: THEY ARE.
Here's what Hotwire said this very morn:
Price Drop
Hotel rates in Phoenix have dropped.
Jules Older
For those who still maintain Arizona's so-called immigration bill is really about crime-fighting, check out http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2010/06/04/MNR51DPCVM.DTL
Here's how it opens...
It's one of the safest parts of America, and it's getting safer.
It's the U.S.-Mexico border, and even as politicians say more federal troops are needed to fight rising violence, government data show it actually isn't so dangerous after all.
The top four big U.S. cities with the lowest rates of violent crime are all in border states: San Diego, Phoenix and El Paso and Austin, Texas, according to a new FBI report. And an in-house Customs and Border Protection report shows that Border Patrol agents face far less danger than street cops in most U.S. cities.
generic viagra
duray-I kind of feel like the same person except more time has gone by.I hate to say that I feel like an adult now. I have to admit I wish I was still 18 , After all , even through the time while I was representing taht wild kid ,I really wasn't.I was just living my life . I was just not making movies at the time.-Leonardo --buy replica YSL Sandals