CO-04 (Special Election) See Full Big Line

(R) Greg Lopez

(R) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump

80%

20%↓

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

90%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

90%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

(R) Ron Hanks

40%

30%

20%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(R) Deborah Flora

(R) J. Sonnenberg

30%↑

15%↑

10%↓

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Dave Williams

(R) Jeff Crank

50%↓

50%↑

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

90%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) Brittany Pettersen

85%↑

 

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

(R) Janak Joshi

60%↑

35%↓

30%↑

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
March 20, 2015 11:29 PM UTC

Weekend Open Thread

  • 69 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

“It is one thing to praise discipline, and another to submit to it.”

–Miguel de Cervantes

Tweet
Share

Comments

69 thoughts on “Weekend Open Thread”

  1. The final nail in the coffin of Mark Udall’s losing political strategy:

    Rep. Chris Van Hollen, the ranking Democrat on the House Budget Committee, is running for the Senate seat currently occupied by Maryland Sen. Barbara Mikulski. He is also running from his record – as a supporter of the “Simpson-Bowles” plan to cut Social Security and top tax rates, a once-favored economic agenda among Washington insiders and some wealthy private interests.

    That’s a smart move – but Rep. Van Hollen has more ground to cover. As we reported last week, progressive groups like the Progressive Change Campaign Committee and Democracy for America strongly encouraged Rep. Donna Edwards to enter the Senate race. She did – with a video announcement that directly challenged Van Hollen’s support of recommendations named for the leaders of the 2010 White House deficit commission, Republican ex-senator Alan Simpson and Democratic operative Erskine Bowles.

    …

    Van Hollen apparently got the message. This week he endorsed legislation from Rep. John Larson (D-Conn.) that would expand Social Security benefits by removing the payroll tax cap (which currently exempts income above $118,500 per year) for earnings of $400,000 and above.

    “You don’t save Social Security by cutting Social Security,” said Van Hollen, in a striking reversal from his past positions.

    …

    Social Security is clearly a major issue in the Maryland race. What are the national implications?

    1. The debate has shifted.In the insular world of the Beltway, the Simpson-Bowles plan was totemic in the early years of this decade. Support for it was a sign of “seriousness” among those who supported Social Security cuts and its other ideas. Simpson-Bowles’ neoliberal policy prescriptions were popular with the wealthy backers of its self-described “centrist” agenda, as well as with the arbiters of Washington’s self-limiting political debate.Social Security expansion, on the other hand, was considered a “fringe” idea. Even when polls were commissioned showing its popularity, and even after economists demonstrated it was feasible and wise, there were deep-seated resistance to the idea among influential people in politics and the media.

    That’s changed. Social Security cuts no longer hold “bipartisan” appeal – and a growing number of proposals and bills now call for Social Security expansion.

    2. The “Overton window” has moved.The change in the Social Security debate reflects a broader shift. The range of political thought included in the mainstream political debate – for the public, and more recently for political and media insiders – is sometimes described as the “Overton window.” It shifted sharply rightward after the 1980s, as Republicans embraced a more extreme conservative platform and corporate-funded Democrats gained more influence over their party. (Exactly what Udall and Bennet said they wanted to do.)

    The public has been moving the other way, however, especially since the 2008 financial crisis. Voters are increasingly embracing an economically populist agenda, according to a number of polls, and a growing number of politicians are following suit. This shift can be seen in the debate over Social Security, but it is also reflected in public opinion on issues that range from taxation to trade.

    3. The public has a long memory – and needs commitment from its candidates.Rep. Van Hollen’s public advocacy of Simpson-Bowles reached its height in 2012, but he’s being forced to defend himself for it three years later. Three years is a long time in political cycles. When the political mood shifts, the public doesn’t necessarily forget. That’s why it was wise for Rep. Van Hollen to support Social Security expansion. But it’s also why he needs to do more: The public has grown used to seeing politicians express support for a program at election time, only to offer it up for sacrifice later.

    …

    4. Progressive politicians are changing the debate.It is unlikely that Rep. Van Hollen would have shifted his position on Social Security if Rep. Edwards had not challenged him. Edwards represents the American tradition of independently minded progressive leaders – leaders like Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, Reps. Keith Ellison (Minn.) and Raul Grijalva (Ariz.) of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, Sen. Bernie Sanders, Florida Rep. Alan Grayson, Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown, and a number of other courageous officials.

    The political discourse won’t change unless party hierarchies and artificially imposed “consensus thinking” is challenged by leaders such as these. The inverse is also true: Leaders like these can, and do, make a difference.

  2. The final nail in the coffin of Mark Udall’s losing political strategy:

    Rep. Chris Van Hollen, the ranking Democrat on the House Budget Committee, is running for the Senate seat currently occupied by Maryland Sen. Barbara Mikulski. He is also running from his record – as a supporter of the “Simpson-Bowles” plan to cut Social Security and top tax rates, a once-favored economic agenda among Washington insiders and some wealthy private interests.

    That’s a smart move – but Rep. Van Hollen has more ground to cover. As we reported last week, progressive groups like the Progressive Change Campaign Committee and Democracy for America strongly encouraged Rep. Donna Edwards to enter the Senate race. She did – with a video announcement that directly challenged Van Hollen’s support of recommendations named for the leaders of the 2010 White House deficit commission, Republican ex-senator Alan Simpson and Democratic operative Erskine Bowles.

    …

    Van Hollen apparently got the message. This week he endorsed legislation from Rep. John Larson (D-Conn.) that would expand Social Security benefits by removing the payroll tax cap (which currently exempts income above $118,500 per year) for earnings of $400,000 and above.

    “You don’t save Social Security by cutting Social Security,” said Van Hollen, in a striking reversal from his past positions.

    …

    Social Security is clearly a major issue in the Maryland race. What are the national implications?

    1. The debate has shifted.In the insular world of the Beltway, the Simpson-Bowles plan was totemic in the early years of this decade. Support for it was a sign of “seriousness” among those who supported Social Security cuts and its other ideas. Simpson-Bowles’ neoliberal policy prescriptions were popular with the wealthy backers of its self-described “centrist” agenda, as well as with the arbiters of Washington’s self-limiting political debate.Social Security expansion, on the other hand, was considered a “fringe” idea. Even when polls were commissioned showing its popularity, and even after economists demonstrated it was feasible and wise, there were deep-seated resistance to the idea among influential people in politics and the media.

    That’s changed. Social Security cuts no longer hold “bipartisan” appeal – and a growing number of proposals and bills now call for Social Security expansion.

    2. The “Overton window” has moved.The change in the Social Security debate reflects a broader shift. The range of political thought included in the mainstream political debate – for the public, and more recently for political and media insiders – is sometimes described as the “Overton window.” It shifted sharply rightward after the 1980s, as Republicans embraced a more extreme conservative platform and corporate-funded Democrats gained more influence over their party. (Exactly what Udall and Bennet said they wanted to do.)

    The public has been moving the other way, however, especially since the 2008 financial crisis. Voters are increasingly embracing an economically populist agenda, according to a number of polls, and a growing number of politicians are following suit. This shift can be seen in the debate over Social Security, but it is also reflected in public opinion on issues that range from taxation to trade.

    3. The public has a long memory – and needs commitment from its candidates.Rep. Van Hollen’s public advocacy of Simpson-Bowles reached its height in 2012, but he’s being forced to defend himself for it three years later. Three years is a long time in political cycles. When the political mood shifts, the public doesn’t necessarily forget. That’s why it was wise for Rep. Van Hollen to support Social Security expansion. But it’s also why he needs to do more: The public has grown used to seeing politicians express support for a program at election time, only to offer it up for sacrifice later.

    …

    4. Progressive politicians are changing the debate.It is unlikely that Rep. Van Hollen would have shifted his position on Social Security if Rep. Edwards had not challenged him. Edwards represents the American tradition of independently minded progressive leaders – leaders like Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, Reps. Keith Ellison (Minn.) and Raul Grijalva (Ariz.) of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, Sen. Bernie Sanders, Florida Rep. Alan Grayson, Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown, and a number of other courageous officials.

    The political discourse won’t change unless party hierarchies and artificially imposed “consensus thinking” is challenged by leaders such as these. The inverse is also true: Leaders like these can, and do, make a difference.

    1. Simpson-Bowles is a perfect example of how seeking common ground via Republican lite policy is pointless. Number one, the Rs promised no compromise back in 2008 and have been proving we should take them at their word ever since so it hasn’t led to compromise and there’s no reason to believe it will. Second and most important a lite version of completely discredited austerity policy is simply less severe bad policy that will perhaps do a little less damage but certainly won’t have any positive effect. For decades now the results of all austerity programs at every level, here and abroad, are the same.  They don’t result in any economic improvement.  Whatever government shrinking they may achieve, that shrinking not only does not result in a more robust private sector economy, it just makes matters worse for the failed, discredited policy and Simpson-Bowles is not sensible just because it’s a somewhat lighter version of GOTP classic bad policy. It’s still plain old wrong headed bad policy. 

  3. this will cause a stir…

    U.S. sets first major fracking rules on federal lands

    (Reuters) – The Obama administration’s new rules governing fracking on federal lands drew swift criticism from all sides on Friday, with green groups calling the measures “toothless” and the energy industry slamming “unnecessary” regulation of a drilling process that has brought the United States to the cusp of oil and gas self-sufficiency.Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, is a controversial technique that involves pumping water, sand and chemicals into a well to extract oil or gas. The new federal rules include beefed-up measures to protect ground water, one of the main health and safety concerns arising from the drilling process.

    Within minutes of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) proposal being released, the Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA) and Western Energy Alliance filed a lawsuit in a federal court in Wyoming on grounds that the rulemaking was based on “unsubstantiated concerns” over safety.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/20/us-usa-fracking-idUSKBN0MG1Q220150320

    1. When I saw this yesterday, my first thought was ” The O&G people are gonna pitch a fit and fall in it. I see I was right. They’re furious about having to ‘fess up about what’s in that toxic soup they’re pumping into the ground, and I think they’ve just begun to protest. It’ll get louder.

    2. The unsubstantial concerns remark was in response to rules for disclosing chemicals used in fracking on public lands. How would just letting people know what’s being pumped into their land, the people’s land, be detrimental? And don’t the people, the owners of the land, have a right to know? Unless, of course, the stuff is detrimental and they know it. Otherwise they should be happy to disclose and set everyone’s mind at rest, right? Let me save Modster the trouble. Why do libruls hate job?. Benghazi! 

      1. I am pretty well convinced the line in the sand over the “fracking” debate runs right through Colorado…the silence coming from both sides here (unless I’m living in a cave and don’t know it) is deafening.

        There is no other state, I think, that is as wholly owned by O&G as ours. I haven’t been there in a while, but I would bet the first floor of the Capitol is still a warm and cozy place for O&G lobbyists. It would be good to be able to hang out in the cafeteria for a day and see who is talking to whom…I find it distressing there is no movement toward a compromise in the legislature.
        If it goes to the people, it will be politically bloody…and very expensive.

        2,000 ft. Nothing less….

  5. Now here’s a clear indication of a REAL leader, folks:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/21/us/politics/scott-walker-hones-his-image-among-republicans-for-possible-presidential-race.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=second-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=1

    Changing your life-long accent: When completely and shamelessly flip-flopping on all your previously held positions simply isn’t enough!

    I hope Walker the wall-eyed Koch acolyte is the Teabag nominee. Watching him be destroyed will be soul-soothing.

    1. Like Obama changing his accent when he spoke in Selma?

      I hope Walker is the nominee, too.

      Fresh face to run against Hillary “Server” Clinton.

      1. This slimy, Koch-guzzling phoney is the most obvious shape-shifting chameleon since Mittens “This election’s in the bag for me” Romney.

        Just another destined-to-fail, “etch-a-sketch” teabagger.

        1. No, actually Walker would be a big step down from Mittens. I never thought the day would come where I would hold Romney up as someone superior to another candidate but Walker does it. Before becoming governor, wasn’t Walker a local government official. And what did he do before that?

          Say what we will about Romney’s work at Bain Capital and the morality of what he did for a living (i.e., the outsourcing, the restructuring of businesses throwing long-term employees out of work) but at least he had a successful career other than in government.

      1. Then he’s “KochBoy, the Cross-eyed Lyin.'”

        Whatever one calls it, his eyes are totally effed up, and extremely beady, much like a shifty criminal’s — which in fact he is.

        Put one of those weird little mustaches under his nose, he could even rather easily resemble Adolf H. Think about it…

  7. Robert Reich-Not only does automation replace assembly work, it can easily under price health care & educational professionals. Diagnostics on a chip ( already here) online ed.A New model is needed. as innovations of 3-D printers become the Fantasia apprentice of the future.  ( I’m sure there’s is already a second hand robot to do library work, a down on its luck, leaking  fluid, jerky camera eye, with a bad wheel, oh wait its already doing AC’s job!  A new model of wealth redistribution is needed, not coming from the right, as they play budget games with bad math skills, Do they really want to ignore millions of future unemployed or underemployed, regardless of adequate job training.?   Eddie Munster’s  budget is  a trillion dollar fairy tale, asterisked double speak.

    1. automation  … can easily under price health care & educational professionals.

      That isn’t how I interpret Reich’s thought-provoking article. It’s for sure a wake up call to change and adapt our economics to new technologies, but I’m not seeing the collapse of civilization as we know it, unless there is a redistribution of wealth from high tech companies. By the way, is he fricking joking with that? Facebook and Apple and other giants are emphaticlally NOT interested in sharing their wealth. And never will be. They might make strategic donations, as Apple did for schools for years, to create market share – but never more than that.

      What he said was that the “high touch” professions, i.e. health care, education, personal services, will be the “jobs that are left….for the rest of us…” Unfortunately, as he also said, these jobs don’t pay well for the amount of education they require. With the existing student debt model, most “high touch” professionals, will, like me, be paying off their student loans from 20 years ago well into their retirement years.

      Reich also projects that teachers and university professors will be replaced by online courses. Sorry, but online courses require teachers – they just don’t require school buildings. And many self-paced online or computer courses just don’t do the job that in-person instruction can, and people notice that. You just can’t park Junior in front of a terminal and expect him to learn anymore than you can outsource childcare to a TV set. 

      So that(student loan structure) could change. Elizabeth Warren and others are sponsoring bills to change that.

      Reich didn’t really talk about the creative jobs – design, consulting, innovating,writing, arts and sciences. Those have never been a major job field, but those few jobs have had a major impact on American success. There is, if anything, more need for creators and inventors now.

      Technology is not, in and of itself, evil. 3-D printers are capable of churning out cheap housewares, housing, photovoltaic cells, replacement parts, toys, almost anything imaginable. In a way, they do represent the democratization of manufacturing, as home computers and smart phones represent the democratization of information and journalism.

      So I’m saying that I don’t think that the future is quite as bleak as Reich is predicting here.

      If we keep our eyes open and thoughtfully adapt to change, we’ll triumph over dystopia yet.

      1. Nice.. the future has way of showing sooner than expected, as with Mickey’s march of brooms ( I ran from that 50s theatre (showing Fantasia)when I 1st saw the endless sinister brooms carrying water) I felt betrayed by lovable Mickey gone bad at age 4 or 5

        The combination of advanced sensors, voice recognition, artificial intelligence, big data, text-mining, and pattern-recognition algorithms, is generating smart robots capable of quickly learning human actions, and even learning from one another.

        If you think being a “professional” makes your job safe, think again.

        It is said that automation will return some of the manufacturing jobs to America, those tending to the machines..

         As far as online courses, was it MIT or Harvard that put its entire undergrad programs on line? Sure, bugs to be worked out, & college students are motivated differently than today’s mandatory participants in K-12 factory farms of lower Ed.

         I too, was puzzled by the line that some of those made rich would divest  to the masses, reminded me of “only the Billionaires can save Us ” by the Corvair killer Ralph Nader.

        “text-mining, and pattern-recognition algorithms” will encroach upon the legal professions ( starting with paralegals) The dean of CU law has discouraged enrollment.

         World wide, Spain (as only one example) with an overall unemployment rate of 25%, has nearly a 50% rate for their young, many with perfectly fine “brick & mortar” degrees.

         Lastly my reason for bringing to fore is that IMHO, the future will be a whole lot of people with a whole lot nothing to do, and most importantly Rs are the last to be considered for ideas or political control, as their trend is towards cutting food supplements, housing, blaming ( falsely, “entitlement”) as we perhaps wear clothes woven with cheap transistors, monitoring our vitals.  There is an additional undemocratic trend, borne of greed of quarterly rewarding the less than one percent,with stock portfolios, a phenom not taught in schools, Economics, as perhaps there isn’t a career path there, either,  So I ask again, “Mommy, where do Trust Fund babies come from?”

      2. I think we’re facing a giant problem here. I think computers will be better than human doctors in 10 years for diagnosis. Why? Because the human mind cannot be up to date on all medical knowledge, there’s too much. It won’t take much longer until robots can perform surgery better.

        This is going to hold for profession after profession. We’re entering an age of abundance where a constantly decreasing number of workers can provide for everyone. And the creative jobs that will remain – they are actually a very small number of jobs.

        1. Never heard of a computer with healing hands, though, or compassion, or a sense of humor. And for every illness or ailment, there are dozens of conflicting diagnoses and treatment options.

          I’ve seen some amazing things in healthcare – a realtime visual of my own heart, finer and finer resolution on neural activity in the brain. For sure, it helps (most of the time) to have instant access to health records.

          We just have to keep the perspective that computers are tools, to be used by healers.

          1. I love my doctors.  But if I could choose between them and a dispassionate source of complete, up to date information and an alternate source of compassionate touch- it would be an easy choice.

            For real -if we want outcome based, data driven medicine, we may need to find the  touch of  healing hands elsewhere.

            1. For real -if we want outcome based, data driven medicine, w2008e may need to find the touch of healing hands elsewhere.

              To each his/her own. Since the ACA, consumers generally have more options in their healthcare.  “High Tech vs. High Touch” is a false choice….even today, most practitioners use some blend of both. Most doctors will recommend vitamins, diet and lifestyle changes, and some will go further and recommend massage or other “alternative” therapies.

              The National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health surveyed Americans in 2008, and found that 38% of adults use some form of “alternative medicine”, ie. herbs, chiropractic, nutrition, acupuncture, homeopathy, etc.

              Natural grocery stores that stock do-it-yourself alternative remedies are expanding franchises everywhere.

              Sometimes the data supports good outcomes with alternative or “high touch” medicine – sometimes it doesn’t. Data tends to be anecdotal, and there aren’t many honest studies out there.

              I know for myself, without chiropractic and exercise, I could have become dependent on painkillers after a bad back injury years ago.

            2. Cause it’s that’s fucking easy.  And the data’s that good.

              I give people my professional opinion every day and they do what the fuck they want with it.

              It’s like IBM punch cards, really.

        3. Regardless, something will have to found as a way for the majority to make a living.Unless we’re all going to just collect welfare. No amount of training is going to make the majority special or needed  with fewer areas in which human are necessary.

          I would have said years ago that a good family doctor couldn’t be replaced by data banks, no matter how complete and lightening fast but that was when family doctors like mine knew us so well because of years worth of talking to us at length. Mine knew which patients were given to hypochondria, which parents were neurotic worriers over every little thing and which were slow to complain about anything until they absolutely had to. For several decades now the model has been for the doctor to spend as little time per patient as possible to maximize profit for the insurers through the pay per service model. You’re supposed to “serve” as many as possible in as little time s possible. You might see the same doctor for years but the people asking and answering your questions are staff that often turn over rapidly and the doctor, whose time is most costly, barely knows you.

          It got so bad so many years ago that our doctor stopped participating in HMOs and some of the more draconian PPOs entirely because he refused to start treating us all assembly line style. He’s been retired for years now and was a rare bird already 20 years ago. I didn’t know anybody else whose doctor wasn’t handing out anitbiotics like candy over the phone without even an office visit or test back in the 80s. My friends thought he was terrible. All they had to do was call and say “Timmy has a sore throat” and their doctors would put the whole family on antibiotics. Just in case. Turns out mine was the guy who was right to tell us it’s not a bacterial infection. It’s viral and antibiotics won’t help. You shouldn’t take them.

          Of course he lost patients who wanted a doctor who would “do something”, including giving them inappropriate medication, and who would save them the trouble and expense of an office visit and just throw drugs at them “in case”. So, that in mind, with flesh and blood doctors increasingly “automated” I suppose faster, more accurate automation probably is just as good or better than all but a few doctors.

    1. Pcat, usually Pols gets to those spam posts and deletes them pretty quickly. Sometimes they are offensive or illegal. You can always write through the contact us link at the bottom of the page.

  9. With the session closing out sooner then later, and for this bill to included in the fiscal scoring,I’m asking for anyone to take a moment and contact someone in the House. Here is a link. And here is the link to one paragraph bill to remove the penalty for late payment of car registration. It is regressive and yes, it was sponsored by Nevilles. Think of it as a stopped clock being right twice a day. My Dem Senator voted against- emailing that road & bridge fund needed the money.  She also thinks Goldman Sachs is an ideal public private partner ship for funding the Boulder turnpike. She has forgotten how to do her job. The bill is now in the Dem house,  SB-18 needs progressive support, Would be mechanics need to tinker w cars w/o penalty

    thank you, please post if you disagree, weigh in, or if you emailed or called  Dan

    1. In double checking my links(contact your house rep) to the above, I didn’t catch a perhaps offending  header from a immigration reform org. I can only afford a slow slow internet and it slipped past me so here is a dot gov link

      1. “…duly elected majorities…”?  Perhaps, but excessive gerrymandering of Congressional districts to assure Republican Senators and representatives is a concern here.

        “The enemy?”

        Yes – the enemy.  Today’s Republican Party is the enemy of the less well-off, the less well-connected, the less-influential.  When I see a Republican who truly represents his/her constituents, then they’ll get my vote.

        In the meantime – unlike you, AC – I’ll do the research as to who is the best candidate for any office/initiative that’s on the ballot.

        1. Indeed, Samuel,

          From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia…   “Nixon’s Enemies List” is the informal name of what started as a list of President of the United States Richard Nixon’s major political opponents compiled by Charles Colson, written by George T. Bell[1] (assistant to Colson, special counsel to the White House), and sent in memorandum form to John Dean on September 9, 1971. The list was part of a campaign officially known as “Opponents List” and “Political Enemies Project.” The list became public knowledge when Dean mentioned during hearings with the Senate Watergate Committee that a list existed containing those whom the president did not like. Journalist Daniel Schorr, who happened to be on the list…

          Dawn Patrol didn’t invent the POV…the Republicans have considered “the left” to be “the enemy” for decades…..

        1. Looking through “recent comments” I noticed your “Are you really that utterly stupid?” and just had to check, out of curiosity, to see if it was addressed to modster or AC.  I see  my assumption that it must be one of them was a solid one.wink

  11. Pope Francis lunched with gay and transgender inmates. I find this so endearing. And his environmental encyclical will be out soon – he is expected to address climate change, including its causes and remedies. He has proclaimed that 2015 will be a jubilee year of forgiveness and mercy (an idea originating in Judaism).

    Because why not. Revenge, tit-for-tat politics and ratcheting up retaliatory strikes isn’t getting us anywhere, and it won’t ever get us anywhere.

    He predicts that his papacy will be brief. Certainly he’s angered many corporate Christians, with his fearless adherence to the teachings of Jesus about aiding the poor, not being judgmental, and being good stewards of the earth. I hope that he’s wrong about the brevity. I’m still a lapsed pagan, still pro-choice in all matters reproductive, and a religious-mutt Unitarian, but I honor this man. Pope Francis shown below, with street children, in the Phillipines, from BBC news.

    1. We privatized our prisons, David, so we need to keep feeding the system more criminals.  

      Rational policies just get in the way of profits (JOBS!); just ask the Republican (and unfortunately quite a few Democratic) politicians whose campaign funding depends on donations from the war on drugs ecosphere.

      1. Private juvenile facilities have been particularly profitable with judges being recruited to throw the book at every cash cow kid who comes before them.

  14. Here is an interesting perspective on ISIS and what to do about them…

    from the Fiscal Times….

    The Knights Templar Maps a Plan to Fight ISIS and Win By Andrew L. Peek  

    701years ago, on March 18th, the last Grand Master of the Knights Templar was burned at the stake in France. As he died, Jacques de Molay cursed the French king who had betrayed him, and whose own dynasty collapsed fourteen years later. That didn’t help de Molay, whose order was exterminated as a road bump in the path of French power.  

     Today, days after the Iraqi government admitted that its attack on Tikrit has ground to a halt, the death of the Templars offers lessons on how to fight the Islamic State, an entity they would have recognized very well. 

    The only successes against ISIS have come at the hands of expressly ethno-sectarian troops—not states you could identify on a Google map: the Shiite militias and Iranian advisors that accompany the Iraqi army into battle, the Alawi Syrians and their Hezbollah allies, or the Kurds fighting, with a wink, for the Iraqi state. Even the first time ISIS was defeated, in 2007-2008, it was by expressly sectarian Sunni militias in Anbar, not by the Iraqi army. 

    There is no state army winning in the Middle East; nor, really, against radical Islam elsewhere, which has exploded since 2001. The reason lies in the history of the Knights Templars.

    http://finance.yahoo.com/news/knights-templar-maps-plan-fight-130000317.html

    1.  Interesting take- the axis of power beyond geographic statehood.If I understand it correctly. The Kurdish groups seem to be salient- Turkey (NATO member) has long standing disagreements w/ the workers party front, seems to be resolving in the face of current realities.  To me, This new phase began with the masterminding of the massive prison out break in Iraq, 400-500 sprung, along w/ another compliment in Afghanistan a short time later. Both events prior to regime change in Libya. I think those two groups formed the core compliment of today’s IS

  15. Raphael Theodoro Cruz (Tea Party-Calgary) throws his hat in the ring tomorrow! At Liberty University, no less, during a convocation ceremony. I presume this means he has completed his renunciation (or is it denunciation) of his Canadian citizenship.

    1. Are there any reasonable, rational Republicans ready to throw their hats in the ring, or are we/they stuck with Cruz, Paul, and their ilk?

      Jon Huntsman is the only “R” that comes to mind, and he got shut down very early in the 2012 campaign.

      2. Jebby is what passes for reasonable and rational in the GOP today. And for that reason, he won’t be the nominee.  I mean Common Core, immigration reform and a Latina wife…..that’s too much for the Republican Party to swallow.

      1. I’d say something unladylike, but I’m over my quota for this week.

        I’ll just leave it at: I am proud of this President, and of the work I and many others did to get him elected. I wish that he’d been more progressive and less accommodating to the obstructionists from the get-go, but the fact that he has accomplished so much in the face of pure racist and partisan hatred and obstruction is no small legacy.

        My arms are just fine, thanks.

      2. thought I had deleted that comment  Not to be with free wordpress software used here. Oh, I ‘ll stand by it, and add it was the center & right which ran for economic reasons from the failed GWbush to vote in whats his name . I probably did too, while voting against the clown car. Not interested in personality cults, the Tran Pacific Partnership,(NAFTA on steroids) done in secrecy, to be embraced by “bipartisan” corporate fast tracking will be enough dear leader legacy to last a lifetime

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

232 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!