Open Line Friday!

38
  by: Colorado Pols Fri August 17, 2012 at 3:45 PM MDT

“We make the mistake of thinking that if we have an (R) by the name that we’re all on the same team. We’re not.”

–Rush Limbaugh, Wednesday


Full story: Open Line Friday!

38 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. parsingreality says:
    Fri August 17, 2012 at 4:11 PM MDT

    Amtrak.  Yes, the much beleaguered Amtrak.  OK, it’s just the Boston-NY-Washington run, but nevertheless.

    It seems that over the last decade with air travel being a huge hassle on such short runs, the Acela shuttle service is operating at capacity. This service is profitable, $200M on an income of $500M!  

    Amtrak has an expensive plan to upgrade rolling stock, bridges, and the road.  And who might be against that?  Of course!  Republicans, who want to privatize it now that you, the taxpayer, have made it successful.  They want to suck the blood out of the successful part of Amtrak and leave the subsidized part cuz they can’t make money on it.  And let’s not forget that Amtrak was created because those wascally wail woads didn’t want to haul people anymore. “Wait! We can make money doing that?”

    “Private profits, public risk.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08…

    Oh, and Good Morning from sunny Whitaker Bayou.

  2. taterheaptom says:
    Fri August 17, 2012 at 4:46 PM MDT

    #GOP #Colorado #luvs #Socialism #PublicWorks #Govt #Spending #Tax #Subsidies #Pork bit.ly/PyfDeC #DeltaCounty #COpols #COpolitics #CO

    @ScotTiptonDog  

    • taterheaptom says:
      Fri August 17, 2012 at 4:52 PM MDT

      Socialists Exposed HERE

      Approval of Paonia Project and numerous other dam projects were passed in large part due to Wayne Aspinall, a career politician and 24-year House member who chaired the House Interior Committee for more than a decade beginning in 1959. Aspinall, who made the passage of water storage projects in western Colorado the center of his career, pushed those projects, which also includes the Glen Canyon, Flaming Gorge, Blue Mesa and Morrow Point dams, among others, to completion, despite harsh opposition from environmentalists and others.

  3. SSG_Dan says:
    Fri August 17, 2012 at 5:01 PM MDT

    Thirty-eight soldiers killed themselves in July, the worst month for suicides since the Army began releasing figures in 2009, according to Pentagon officials.

    If soldiers continue to take their lives at the current rate, the Army will lose about 200 active-duty troops this year, a number that is significantly higher than any year in the past decade.

    “Suicide is the toughest enemy I have faced in my 37 years in the Army,” Gen. Lloyd J. Austin III, who is leading the Army’s effort to deal with the problem, said in a written statement. “That said, I do believe suicide is preventable.”

    In July there were 26 active-duty suicides and 12 suicides among National Guardsmen and reservists who were not serving in uniform at the time of their deaths. The combined 38 Army suicides is twice the number of troops killed in Afghanistan this month.

    The Marine Corps had eight suicides in July, the highest monthly number so far this year, according to the Associated Press.

    The losses are a significant blow to senior Army officials who had been hoping that the reduced rate of combat deployments and a series of initiatives to improve mental health care would result in a drop in the suicide rate, which surpasses levels for a similar civilian demographic.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/…

    If some military vehicle or aircraft was inherently flawed to the point it was killing soldiers whenever it was used, I’m pretty sure both sides of Congress would waste no time setting up a subcommittee to preen and pose for CSPAN while demanding “something be done.”

    But military suicide? The clueless blowhards on the JCS simply shrug their shoulders and make nice soundbites, but refuse to do anything substantial to deal with the problem….

    • dwyer says:
      Fri August 17, 2012 at 6:22 PM MDT

      The US should leave no stone unturned.  

      • SSG_Dan says:
        Fri August 17, 2012 at 7:39 PM MDT

        ….and goes all the way down the chain of command. “Set the example” and show that asking for help from a mental health professional is the same as asking a medic to treat a bullet wound.

        Formalize in regulation that seeking and getting mental health treatment will NOT endanger your career, your security clearance or your standing in the unit.

        For Commanders, they need relief from higher that accurately reporting readiness levels will not end their careers. If a good chunk of your infantry battalion needs treatment for TBI and PTSI, it’s also no different than if you suffered the same amount of casualties to physical wounds. No one would be punished if a unit was below combat effectiveness because 30% of the unit was missing limbs or filled with bullets.

        The tougher one is the warrior ethos – there’s a stigma in admitting to having blisters after a road march. Admitting you can’t sleep because of nightmares, and that you’re self-medicating to keep the demons away is not going to happen in that same climate.  

        The toughest one is on a societal level – if you’re going to “support the troops” that almost means joining up if you want to rattle the war sabre. Less than one half of one percent of the eligible population has enlisted to serve in the military since 9/11 – that .5% is going to war over and over again.

        Until that burden gets reduced, there’s no way to stop them from getting hurt.  

        • AristotleAristotle says:
          Fri August 17, 2012 at 9:33 PM MDT

          That one gets at the heart of it. Mental health issues are still taboo in America, and it wouldn’t surprise me if you told me that there the military has the kind of culture where everyone ignores it (including the ones suffering) or, if acknowledged at all, get told to man up and deal with it. Which, for some reason, does not work.

          • SSG_Dan says:
            Fri August 17, 2012 at 10:22 PM MDT

            ….desegregation of society, then putting females in equal roles in command and staff, and then ended DADT.

            They can AND SHOULD do the same thing with the stigma over mental health.  

          • Barron X says:
            Fri August 17, 2012 at 10:25 PM MDT

            problem is, if they do, they get kicked out and lose their clearance.  

            • SSG_Dan says:
              Fri August 17, 2012 at 11:12 PM MDT

              it’s not just that stigma – if you as an O3 Company Commander were to send in a readiness report (truthfully) saying 30% or more of your soldiers were non-deployable because of PTSI or TBI, you next stop (after being relived) would be as the POL officer in the Motor Hole, as they began your chapter/separation procedures.

              At EAR, senior officers have to lead by example on this.  

              • Barron X says:
                Sat August 18, 2012 at 12:06 AM MDT

                .

                The Army needs to promote a bunch of combat vets who killed innocent children accidentally and developed PTSI as a result to SGM, CSM, Colonel and General officer ranks.

                That’s the clearest way to say that PTSI is not a career-ending stigma.

                That’s the way to send the message that its OK to doubt yourself and your sanity, as long as you seek mental health care.  

  4. dwyer says:
    Fri August 17, 2012 at 6:17 PM MDT

    Here is an analysis of the movement to change the 14th Amendment.  This analysis deals with the impact on defining citizenship.

    http://www.casavaria.com/cafes…

    All the personhood amendments at the state level are designed just to change the state constitution.  

    H.R. 212, the frozen embryo bill, would give the states the right to define life beginning at conception, based on the 14th amendment.

    • dwyer says:
      Fri August 17, 2012 at 6:20 PM MDT

      your 14th amendment conspiracy theory on the whole right wing political movement,

      See above comment and link.

      • DaftPunkDaftPunk says:
        Fri August 17, 2012 at 8:27 PM MDT

        Seriously.

        I think you want to argue that right wingers want to weaken federal purview of equal protection arguments in favor of a property rights perspective.  That meddling federal government can’t tell me how to run my business, housing rental, etc.

        A business owner could refuse blacks because of his freedom to run his business the way he sees fit, absent the federal government telling him what to do.  Screw that equal protection of the laws.

        Personhood seeks the exact opposite.  Everyone, fetuses included, gets equal protection of the laws, just not those pesky anchor babies.  

        Abortion opponents love the unborn.  They don’t give a rat’s ass about federalism or process as long as they can punish those hussies for having sex, and save those precious little babies.

        My view, go ahead and prove me wrong.  Ari’s right, your link shows nothing.  

        • dwyer says:
          Fri August 17, 2012 at 9:03 PM MDT

          I think you want to argue that right wingers want to weaken federal purview of equal protection arguments in favor of a property rights perspective.  That meddling federal government can’t tell me how to run my business, housing rental, etc.

          A business owner could refuse blacks because of his freedom to run his business the way he sees fit, absent the federal government telling him what to do.  Screw that equal protection of the laws.

          The argument that property rights trump the federal government’s right is being made.  It is not now in any

          proposed legislation or pending court case that I know of.  However, it was an argument made in the recent controversy over Chicken-Fil-A. i.e, property owners should be able to decide whom they want to serve and whom they want to hire.  That goes to the heart of the civil rights legislation based on public accommodations.

          Rand Paul, SENATOR from Kentucky, argued that he could not support parts of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 precisely because he supported the rights of private property owners to make those decisions.

          All of the personhood initiatives speak to changing individual state constitutions – asserting that the states have a right to decide this issue, not the federal government.

          In my opinion, the issue of abortion is a wedge issue that is used by both sides to raise campaign money and activate the base.  To focus on just this one issue is to

          lose sight of the broader attempts to change the Constitution by allowing the states to decide who is a person and who is not and allowing the states to decide whom is entitled to “due process.”

          The states rights arguments are precisely the arguments that were made during the 50s and early 60s.

          Personhood seeks the exact opposite.  Everyone, fetuses included, gets equal protection of the laws, just not those pesky anchor babies.

          There are two actions to pay attention to.  Personhood amendments would allow the states to define who is a person and who is not. It is possible that a fetus could be a person in Oklahoma and not a person in Colorado, if SCOUS upheld such constitutional amendments to state constitutions.

          If Congress changed the 14th amendment to say that citizenship would not be automatically conferred on anyone born in the United States….even

          tho certain rights…ie. right to life….could adhere at fertilization, if Congress made that decision and IF SCOUS upheld it.

          This what is being asserted.  I pay attention to what is

          being promoted.

          Finally, the Kane decision that private businesses have a conscience clause that allows them to deny providing employee insurance to cover all kinds of reproductive services has a powerful implication for all kinds of public accommodation and Obamacare, if it is allowed to stand.

          My overwhelming concern is the Constitution of the United States.  

          • DaftPunkDaftPunk says:
            Fri August 17, 2012 at 10:22 PM MDT

            And mine is the real world, where women are harmed by anti-choice laws.

            They exist. Your assault on the constitution is hypothetical.  The women harmed by right wing assaults on reproductive freedom are real.

    • AristotleAristotle says:
      Fri August 17, 2012 at 7:30 PM MDT

      I don’t see an “analysis.” I see an explanation of what the 14th Amendment is, and an allegation that there’s a movement afoot to repeal it, but it doesn’t give even one example of an action taken to achieve this.

      Anyway, I’ve been following your arguments about this for a while and I think the word you mean is “redefine,” not “repeal.” Unless you know of someone introducing an amendment to the Constitution that repeals the 14th, the way the 21st repealed the 18th, then there’s no serious movement trying to repeal the 14th.

      • dwyer says:
        Fri August 17, 2012 at 8:34 PM MDT

        I cited the article to demonstrate that someone else thinks that there is a movement afoot to change or repeal the 14th Amendment.

        I will continue to search for more conclusive proof.  I think this is very important and I welcome the demand to be more precise.

        What is happening right now is “propagating” the idea that Congress has the ability to change the meaning of the due process clause of the 14th Amendment by redefining what “person” means and what “natural born citizen means.”  H.R, 212 uses the 14th amendment to assert that Congress has the right to redefine “person” to begin at fertilization.  As I have argued, the federal legislation is not going anywhere.  It is “frozen” in committee and I predict it will die with this Congress.

        However, the personhood movement is alive and well in  many states.  It asserts the right of the state to define who is a person.  If that states’ right were to be upheld via a complicated election and then appeal process to the Supreme Court, it could negate the “due process” clause of the 14th amendment, by allowing the individual state and not the federal government to decide who gets “equal protection” and who does not.

        And where is this idea being promoted?  On talk radio -the 90% of the public airwaves owned by conservative leaning cooperations.  

        • Phoenix RisingPhoenix Rising says:
          Fri August 17, 2012 at 8:46 PM MDT

          from the same people who think that Congress, the states, or the courts can alter the meaning of the 14th amendment to remove the citizenship of babies born to undocumented immigrants here in the US.  Of course, there’s no real legal basis for it, just a sham argument.

          The danger is that we get a Supreme Court majority that shares this idiotic pseudo-legal rationale.  

  5. Gadfly says:
    Fri August 17, 2012 at 7:38 PM MDT

    Nancy Pelosi is in town next week to raise money but Brandon Shaffer is absent from the list of candidates she is helping.  Why is that?

  6. Fidel's dirt nap says:
    Fri August 17, 2012 at 8:54 PM MDT

    when its about security measures and intrusive surveillance they’re OK with invasion of privacy because, naturally, if you didn’t break the law you’ve got nothing to hide !

    But when its about tax returns its strictly a private affair.

    I didn’t think it was possible, but this woman is starting to look even more arrogant and aloof than her husband.

    We’re not giving you any more tax returns. Fine !  Then don’t expect to win this election.  Deal.

    Keep your fucking precious tax returns, and after November go the fuck away.

  7. SSG_Dan says:
    Sat August 18, 2012 at 12:09 AM MDT

    …please explain away this:


    “We Haven’t Run The Numbers”: The Startling Paul Ryan Admission Getting Little Attention

    Last night, newly ensconced Republican vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan sat down for his first solo interview with Fox News’ Brit Hume and let slip an admission about Mitt Romney’s budget plan — an admission that’s receiving surprisingly little press attention. Asked by Hume when the Romney plan would balance the budget, Ryan said he didn’t know because “we haven’t run the numbers on that specific plan.”

    http://www.alternet.org/hot-ne…

    So, one of the key platforms in the RR campaign is shown to be a combination of bullshit and wishful thinking.

    Comments?  

    • DavidThi808DavidThi808 says:
      Sat August 18, 2012 at 12:26 AM MDT

      Fox asked a really hard question. And Ryan answered honestly.

      Now if only the other media would mention this. You know, like every-time Romney claims he’s going to balance the budget.

    • Phoenix RisingPhoenix Rising says:
      Sat August 18, 2012 at 7:15 AM MDT

      Don’t forget incompetence.

      How is it that Romney hasn’t had someone “run the numbers” on a budget plan yet?  He’s got economic advisers.  He says he has a budget plan.  Perhaps he should suggest that the one sit down with the other, so he and his running mate don’t have to talk out of their ass for the next few months…

  8. Diogenesdemar says:
    Sat August 18, 2012 at 1:30 AM MDT

    Wounded warriors show grit, determination on journey to recovery

    http://photoblog.nbcnews.com/_…

  9. Libertad says:
    Sat August 18, 2012 at 4:27 AM MDT

    Now 8.3% of Coloradans are ‘officially unemployed’, with an effective unemployment rate that tops out in the very high teens.

    Hispanic and black official unemployment are all up significantly too ….. solid double digits. Why does that matter? Well, minorities in Denver already face significant challenges with much lower HS graduation rates …. much lower than the official DPS graduation rate of @50%.

    source Denver Post

    But is any of this surprising? Not when we have Democrat thought leaders such as Maher opining on Obama’s failed policies and administration. It’s really quite racebating and sad commentary on failures caused by a general lack of economic fundamentals.

    Isn’t Obama’s big problem that he does everything half ass? Maybe it’s because he’s only half black. If he was fully black, he would be a better president. There’s a white man in him, holding him back.

    - Bill Maher

    • AristotleAristotle says:
      Sat August 18, 2012 at 4:34 AM MDT

      … it just isn’t. Bill Maher is not any kind of leader to anyone on any part of the left. He’s a comedian. That’s all.

      I know that you guys are so used to taking your cues and philosophies from clowns, but we on the left only laugh at them.

    • parsingreality says:
      Sat August 18, 2012 at 7:05 AM MDT

      Right?

      There are some righties here that deserve serious dialogue and discussion.

      Sorry, you don’t fall into that category.  

  10. DaftPunkDaftPunk says:
    Sat August 18, 2012 at 7:52 AM MDT

    Abortion charges against Kansas Planned Parenthood clinic dropped

    Prosecutors on Friday dropped 32 remaining criminal charges accusing a Planned Parenthood clinic in Kansas of performing late-term abortions, ending the first-ever criminal case against a U.S. Planned Parenthood clinic over abortion.

    The case, brought in 2007 by then-Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline, accused Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri of 107 charges, some of them felonies…

    Kline was a controversial conservative crusader against abortion while in office. A Kansas disciplinary panel for attorneys last October found “ethical misconduct” in the way he prosecuted abortion providers and it recommended suspension of his law license indefinitely.

    Gotta love that past tense, re: Kline

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account


You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.