Tuesday Open Thread

“They say motivation doesn’t last. Well, neither does bathing. That’s why we recommend it daily.”

–Zig Ziglar, motivational speaker, died 11/28/12

ProgressiveCowgirl

About ProgressiveCowgirl

Colorado native, young professional, progressive cowgirl. 4-term FPE (aka masochist).

30 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. ProgressiveCowgirlProgressiveCowgirl says:

    So I thought I’d post the open thread. G’morning.

  2. Libertad says:

    The looming showdown over gun legislation in the General Assembly is creating new opportunities for lobbyists at the Colorado Capitol.

    Two Denver lobbyists, Josh Hanfling and R.D. Sewald, both Democrats, are working for Magpul Industries Corp., a company based in Erie, that makes high-capacity magazines, which some lawmakers are talking about banning.

    Sewald was a senior adviser to Gov. John Hickenlooper and worked for him when he was Denver’s mayor. Hanfling is the former head of Qube Visual, a sign and graphics company, and a former Democratic candidate for the state House.

    Read more: Gun battle in Colorado legislature bringing new clients for lobbyists – The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/news

    Read The Denver Post’s Terms of Use of its content: http://www.denverpost.com/term

  3. DavidThi808DavidThi808 says:

    White House petition to remove Carmen Ortiz has passed the goal requiring a response from the White House. This doesn’t mean she’s out (although I think that should be strongly considered). But it does mean the White House has to speak to the central issue here – federal prosecutors using their power to bring disproportionate penalties against people.

    I’m glad it wasn’t this bad back in the 60′s – otherwise Jobs & Woz would be in prison for making free long distance calls instead of creating Apple Computer. Almost all the great ones are people who color outside the lines.

    • Jobs and Woz would have been in more trouble; after all, their mentor was tossed in jail for telephone fraud.

      • DavidThi808DavidThi808 says:

        Ends up in prison instead of creating amazing new items? My industry is full of a lot of very smart people. But there are a few that are so incredibly beyond most of us that there at a totally different level. To lose one of them is a sin.

        As to the crime committed – the company that was “stolen” from stated that they were not pressing charges and wanted all charges to be dropped. And the information “stolen” was openly available to pretty much anyone who wanted access through various schools.

        To threaten someone in that case with 35 years in prison – that was totally overboard.

        Really good article about it at http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/15/

        • of just about anyone in prison, or anyone convicted of a felony. It is sometimes the justification for not making financial ethics laws more stringent, and in the end it was the reason we didn’t let the banks and AIG go bankrupt – their value to society. Could that have gone a different route? Yes. Would a number of us cheered it on had it gone that route? Yes.

          Aaron Swartz committed theft on a relatively grand scale, more or less. And he did it twice, knowing exactly what he was doing. Why? Because he believed that the contracts negotiated for serving the data he copied were onerous to the public. There are many ways to resolve that question; he chose acts that breached those contracts and the law as a matter of civil disobedience.

          Was the prosecution harsh? I’d say ‘yes’, because like him I believe that certain things (like publicly funded research and public court cases) should be available to the public. But in the end the results come down to this: you breaks the law and you takes your chances. Swartz was a repeat offender; if I were him I wouldn’t expect leniency from an investigation.

  4. MADCO says:

    can’t help but wonder why and specifically to wonder if they read the 14th Amendment.

    Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

    Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

    Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

    Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

  5. DaftPunkDaftPunk says:

    NOT!!!

    Arrests of and Forced Interventions on

    Pregnant Women in the United States,

    1973-2005: Implications for Women’s

    Legal Status and Public Health

    Lynn M. Paltrow

    National Advocates for Pregnant Women

    Jeanne Flavin

    Fordham University

    Here:

    Ah, Fordham that bastion of radical feminist pro-choce ideology…

    Yet, since 1973, many states have passed feticide measures and laws restricting access to safe abortion care that, like so-called “personhood” measures, encourage state actors to treat eggs, embryos, and fetuses as if they are legally separate from the pregnant woman. We found that these laws have been used as the basis for a disturbing range of punitive state actions in every region of the country and against women of every race, though disproportionately against women in the South, low-income women and African-American women.  

    Women have been arrested while still pregnant, taken straight from the hospital in handcuffs, and sometimes shackled around the waist and at the ankles. Pregnant women have been held under house arrest and incarcerated in jails and prisons. Pregnant women have been held in locked psychiatric wards, as well as in hospitals and in drug treatment programs under 24-hour guard. They have been forced to undergo intimate medical exams and blood transfusions over their religious objections. Women have been forced to submit to cesarean surgery. They have been arrested shortly after giving birth while dressed only in hospital gowns. And, despite claims by some anti-choice activists that women themselves will not be arrested if abortion is re-criminalized, women who have ended their pregnancies and had abortions are already being arrested.  

    Consider the following:

    A woman in Utah gave birth to twins. When one was stillborn, she was arrested and charged with criminal homicide based on the claim that her decision to delay cesarean surgery was the cause of the stillbirth.

    After a hearing that lasted less than a day, a court issued an order requiring a critically-ill pregnant woman in Washington, D.C. to undergo cesarean surgery over her objections. Neither she nor her baby survived.

    A judge in Ohio kept a woman imprisoned to prevent her from having an abortion.

    A woman in Oregon who did not comply with a doctor’s recommendation to have additional testing for gestational diabetes was subjected to involuntary civil commitment. During her detention, the additional testing was never performed.

    A Louisiana woman was charged with murder and spent approximately a year in jail before her counsel was able to show that what was deemed a murder of a fetus or newborn was actually a miscarriage that resulted from medication given to her by a health care provider.

    In Texas, a pregnant woman who sometimes smoked marijuana to ease nausea and boost her appetite gave birth to healthy twins.  She was arrested for delivery of a controlled substance to a minor.

    A doctor in Wisconsin had concerns about a woman’s plans to have her birth attended by a midwife. As a result, a civil court order of protective custody for the woman’s fetus was obtained. The order authorized the sheriff’s department to take the woman into custody, transport her to a hospital, and subject her to involuntary testing and medical treatment.

    http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/

    These examples are why the fight against elevating fertilized eggs, embryos, and fetuses to the same legal status as the women in whom they reside is best focused on the effects of these laws on real people, not on which interpretation of scripture is best codified into state law.

  6. rocco says:

    But 157 pinkos voted for it.

    Mick Mulvaney, the goober CR from S.C., introduced the amendment.

    Mulvaney actually profited from Federal Disaster Relief funds PERSONALLY post Katrina.

    He actually admitted he was made whole by the Federal funds after his own home was swamped, but said on MSNBC today “things have changed. We can’t dole out this money like candy ANY MORE”.

    What a shit stain this guy is. There are over 20 pinko held seats in the New England area. I’m thinking the redlegs just gave the Democratic Party control of the House come ’14.  

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.