U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(R) Somebody

80%

20%

Governor See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse

(D) Phil Weiser

(D) Jena Griswold

60%

60%

40%↓

Att. General See Full Big Line

(D) M. Dougherty

(D) Alexis King

(D) Brian Mason

40%

40%

30%

Sec. of State See Full Big Line

(D) George Stern

(D) A. Gonzalez

(R) Sheri Davis

40%

40%

30%

State Treasurer See Full Big Line

(D) Brianna Titone

(R) Kevin Grantham

(D) Jerry DiTullio

60%

30%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

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

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

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

(R) Jeff Hurd*

(D) Somebody

80%

40%

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

(R) Lauren Boebert*

(D) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank*

(D) Somebody

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

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

(R) Gabe Evans*

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(D) Joe Salazar

50%

40%

40%

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
May 23, 2009 03:07 PM UTC

Memorial Day Weekend Open Thread

  • 88 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

Tweet
Share

Comments

88 thoughts on “Memorial Day Weekend Open Thread”

        1. If you think the death penalty could have kept this kid alive, you are wrong.  In places where the death penalty is used regularly, it still doesn’t stop people like this.

          Now, keeping registered sex offenders from being put in positions as caregivers of children?  Yeah, that could have stopped this.  What the hell were people thinking leaving a child in his care?

            1. Whether someone “deserves it” or not isn’t the issue. If it is a policy that does the rest of us more harm than good (by increasing rather than decreasing violent crime rates, by executing a certain number of innocent people through inevitable error, by further alienating the citizenry of other developed nations by remaining inordinately committed to violent policies both at home and abroad) then executing people because we deem that they deserve it is a case of cutting off our nose to spite our face. Whether some or all of those accused of heinous crimes deserve it or not is at best one consideration among many, and not a determinative one.

        2. But juries probably don’t impose it as often as you’d like.

          Since jurors are Real People, I guess that means you’re out of touch with Real People.

          But we already knew that.

    2. and how we design our penal institution in general, are, in order of importance, the effect it has on crime rates and the costs (more generally, “the costs and benefits”). The death penalty is expensive (in various ways), there is no evidence that it reduces the rate of violent crime, and, in fact, there is at least as strong an argument that it may increase the rate of violent crime.

      People advocate for the death penalty from an emotional, retributionist perspective: The person who committed the heinous crime “deserves” to die. Frankly, I don’t particularly disagree with that. Neither do I believe that the state “has no right” to take the life of a convicted murderer [in a democracy, the state has whatever rights the people give it, within the constraints, in our case, of a written constitution. Our constitution requires due process commensurate with the value of the interest (life, liberty, or property) being deprived. There is a whole helluva lot of due process given in capital cases…, except, sometimes, in Texas]. I just don’t think that, on balance, it serves our collective interest.

      One argument made in favor of the death penalty, that would seem at a glance to score at least one legitimate point in its favor, is that at least it gives the victims (the survivors) some relief, and they certainly deserve that, don’t they? Unfortunately, research has shown that it doesn’t give them such relief. It does nothing to assuage their pain, and, in fact, they usually feel a redoubling of that pain as a result of the disappointment that killing the bastard didn’t help them after all.

      Aside from the complete lack of evidence that it deters crime one iota, we have discovered quite vividly that the risk of error is not insignificant. We like to imagine that, because our judicial system is so rights-oriented, and thus sets many guilty people free, that it does not convict innocent people at any substantial rate. This is pure bunk. There are certainly thousands, probably tens of thousands, and possibly hundreds of thousands of innocent people languishing in American prisons. The pro-death-penalty Republican governor of Illinois several years ago (his name slips my mind) suspended all capital convictions following a study that he commissioned which demonstrated the degree to which such error is likely even in capital cases.

      There is also the contribution that the death penalty makes to what I call “the matrix of violence” in American culture. We are a highly violent society; an outlier in comparison to all other developed nations. To put it simply: We are a violent society because we are a violent society. Every policy we implement that advocates violence as the prefered solution to a problem is one more contribution to the matrix of violence which defines us. Millions of people vicarously kill the executed convict, revel in the act, savor the justice of the retribution delivered.

      Just to pre-empt the logical fallacy that is inevitably offered in response to this observation: No, non-violent people are not then induced to kill as a result, and extremely violent people are not prevented from killing by eliminating such state-sanctioned vicarious violence. But there is a real consequence to the choice of whether to institute state-sanctioned vicarious murder: Over a long span of time, it has an effect on the degree to which violent tendencies are culturally bred and reinforced in a population. And it may have a more immediate effect on some few people who are on the cusp, whose blood-lust is ignited just enough by the vicarious pleasure of killing to cause, in a moment of rage, a slightly altered internal balance that results in the violent rather than non-violent choice.

      To those who dismiss my arguments out-of-hand with the transparently fallacious argument that those who want to kill will kill, and those who don’t won’t, so our policies have no effect on murder rates (other than to lock up murders and thus prevent them from murdering): Your argument is absolutely disproven by even just a casual glance at the world. Murder rates vary dramatically from country to country! Modern biological science strongly indicates that there is no significant variation among those countries other than social institutional variation (laws, norms, values, beliefs, etc.). Ipso facto, variation in the social institutional context does, without any doubt whatsoever, cause dramatic variation in rates of violent crime (apparently by causing variation in the rates in which the inclination to commit acts of violence occur).

      By a thorough, well-reasoned analysis, viewing the matter from a variety of angles, the death penalty is simply a very dysfunctional social institution.  

      1. …before I got down far enough to see your name!

        Like me, you just can’t stay away, can you?  Ha ha.  But I’m here a lot less frequently.

        I agree with everything you say.  Everything.

        As I’ve brought up here before, read about “The myth of redemptive violence,” the work of theologian Walter Wink.  It saturates our society and you see it once pointed out.  Virtually every “action” movie is about violence correcting violence.  (And I find it not at all surprising that Mel Gibson so focused on the violence of the crucifixion in his Passion of the Christ movie.)

      2. The death penalty does not deter, and the promise of long prison sentences for serious crimes does not deter.  The only “use” for the death penalty – besides the desire for revenge – is as a bargaining tool for prosecutors, after a crime has been committed.  

    1. I saw in another thread you talking about cutting back here. I’ll miss you. Very best of luck with the contract you were talking about. I’ll keep my fingers crossed for you and send some good thoughts your way.

  4. Things have gotten so busy for me that all I get to do is a fast glance at Pols once in awhile. And that has caused me to post some dumb things because I had not paid attention to previous posts on items.

    So, along with minimal reading will be minimal posting. I don’t want anyone to think I’m mad or upset – work is just very very busy.

    I will still do the interviews as people accept my invite, and I have the time.

    ps – For those wondering, this economy is a bitch. We’re doing ok, no layoffs and we’ve hired a couple of new people. But it’s a lot more work to keep our sales numbers growing. A lot.

    And opportunity makes for more work. We’re presenting to the Treasury Department in D.C. this Thursday. It’s an awesome opportunity. And so the prep work for a ½ hour presentation is significant.

  5. This edition of FRONTLINE will be airing on Channel 12 (Denver) on Monday at 8 p.m. (I think it might be a rebroadcast):

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/…

    As the War in Iraq continues, the first measures of its psychological toll are coming in. A medical study estimates that more than one in seven returning veterans are expected to suffer from major depression, anxiety or post traumatic stress disorder. For those who have survived the fighting, the battle is not over. For some, the return home can be as painful as war itself. FRONTLINE tells the stories of soldiers who have come home haunted by their experiences and asks whether the government is doing enough to help.

    The program can also be viewed at the web site link above.  

    2. ..the problem being the definition of “combat” and those who were “allowed” to be in combat.

      Under the Deserter President, the definition of comabt injury was more narrowly defined every year, so as to keep casualty figures artificially low.

      For Instance, I’ve been working with a kid who’s an Iraqi vet who has PTSD from an IED explosion on his 2nd tour. But the IED only blew up the first vehicle in his convoy, so his injuries were caused by a “traffic accident.” This is currently holding up his claim with the VBA, since there is (according to their math) “no clear combat incident which would result in PTSD.”

      It gets even worse for female SM’s in Iraq – they’re included in combat operations under the Lioness program, which embedded females with Marine and Army combat formations, so they could segregate and search any females encountered in operations.

      (Excellent short film on the subject by the same name – http://www.lionessthefilm.com/)

      Now, since they weren’t ASSIGNED to those combat units (which is not allowed) they also have no cause to have PTSD. Or TBI.

      Step #1 for President Obama and VA Secy Shinseki is to end the Enron Math the Deserter President put into place to hide the cost of war. The VA needs to make PTSD and TBI a presumptive disorder for anyone deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan.

       

      1. So would it be a no-brainer to call PTSD a “presumptive disorder” for these people?  Given the magnitude of carnage and death and heavy fighting in these wars?  

        1. I, too, sort of asked this question when I started working with PTSD vets at the Denver VA hospital as a chaplaincy intern.

          WWII had the almost total support of the whole country.  That helps change what might be a moral failure into approval.

          In WWII and Korea, the troops mostly moved by ship.  That gave a week or two to swap stories with the other soldiers.  That story telling allowed, if not encouraged, untruths to become the remembered truth, to get approval from other men that also perhaps DID heinous things and justify them.

          I’m no expert – although in the 80’s my roommate suffered greatly from it – but it’s not something we can judge whether someone should have gotten it or not.  The only criteria should be display of symptoms.

        2. Active duty personnel are victimized by this, also.  It is an occupational hazard,  I appreciate your observation, pr, to which I will add my own.  I grew up in the military during the 40s and the 50s, the men who won WWII and battled back to the 38th parallel headed the families which constituted practically the only community I knew.  It was a brutal place.  Men were alcoholic and routinely beat up their wives and kids; and  at time, each other. They were ugly, enraged and effective, efficiently killing machines…which is what they had been trained to do.   Personal experience of somone who was relived of command and diagnosed as “paranoid” and ten months later given a top secret command which he executed flawlessly.

          Today, I have to turn off the TV when I see uniformed men and women march in formation, with the families in the bleechers, off to war to the music and the flags.  Makes me sick to my stomach.

          I envy you all who have only a clinical knowledge of PTSD.

          I don’t doubt that war, at times, is an awful necessity.  But the cost in lives includes all those who survive.  And that price should be figured into any calculation.  

        3. First off, if the VA & DoD restore the definition of combat casualty to those used in WWII, Korea or Viet Nam, that would be a huge step toward opening up treatment to those who deserve it.

          Secondly, I guess I should clarify the term presumptive disorder – from the VA:

          “VA presumes that specific disabilities diagnosed in certain veterans were caused by their military service.  VA does this because of the unique circumstances of their military service.  If one of these conditions is diagnosed in a veteran in one of these groups, VA presumes that the circumstances of his/her service caused the condition, and disability compensation can be awarded.”

          So, if you’re assigned, attached or just got dragged along on a patrol thru Fallujah, it should automatically be assumed you meet the “unique circumstance” threshold for treatment and benefits. And that should go for the grunts carrying the rifles and shooting, as well as the female mechanic you drug along to act as a Lioness when you encounter Iraqi females and kids.

          Right now. female combat veterans have to jump thru flaming hoops even to have DoD recognize they were in combat, much less eligible for treatment for the results. If they seek treatment for PTSD, the first record the VA cracks open is the unit deployment – and when it says that female was assigned to the 53rd Transportation Det and not 1st Marine Division, the claim for PTSD is marked DENIED.

      2. .

        A young soldier under my command on a Guardpost in the Korean DMZ –

        no combat there during our 3-month stint in 1980 –

        went loopy while manning a foxhole overnight.

        North Koreans would low-crawl across the Military Demarcation Line to probe our perimeter, sometimes tying notes to our outermost wire, sometimes closer in, and I had given orders to shoot if there was anything even the least bit suspicious.  

        He thought he saw something, and responded by scrunching himself into the smallest possible ball in the bottom of the position, covering his eyes, turning up his smuggled WalkMan, and hoping he would be killed swiftly and painlessly.  

        While a squad from the rotation before us had been killed, they had wandered accidentally across the MDL into a NK minefield.  This guy was in no danger whatsoever.  Guys to his left and to his right would have covered his field of fire if he had failed to engage someone advancing toward him.  But some folks crack under just a small amount of pressure.  

        This kid was useless as an infantryman, but he had volunteered and tried to fulfill the commitment he had made.  I’d like to think he got help from the VA.

        How much more deserving are the soldiers you talk about, Dan.  Caring for them is about the best use that appropriated funds could be put to.  

        .

        1. I am not a clinician, by any means, and have never been in the military. As I said, I was a military brat.  However, it does seem to me what you are describing in this young G.I. is a panic attack, not PTSD.  I am not comfortable with the terms “whacked out” or “crack under pressure.”  The problem he had may have been related to poor training or not feeling supported, or something in his growing up.

          The only reason I mentioned this, is that it is important not to diminish PTSD or the circumstances which provoke it. IMHO.  As his commander, having told this part of the story, you should share what happened to him, the rest of the story.   Was he courtmarshalled? Section 8?  Thank you,

          1. .

            I take it you mean that I’m mixing up PTSD with other stress-related departures from reality.  or sanity.  “Panic attack” sounds right.  

            My guess is that he really didn’t want to join the Army, but was trying to prove something to his father.  What do I know ?

            Of course, I diagnosed Terry Schiavo as being “a little under the weather,” and nearly lost my medical license.  So don’t put too much stock in my opinion.

            …..  

            As far as the rest of that story, I’m afraid I don’t remember what happened to that guy.  I was checking the line one night about 2 or 3 AM and found this soldier curled up in a ball, sobbing, sure he was about to die.  Made a big impression.  

            I remember another soldier mutinying against me, sending him back to the rear under escort, and the battalion commander sending him back to me a couple of days later.  

            I remember weighing maybe 100 claymore mines every morning with a fish scale to make sure nobody had opened them to take out any C-4 (NOT my idea; directed by Division staff.)  I remember the medics mixing diesel in the half-barrels taken out from under the latrines and burning the mixture every morning.  

            I remember one NCO running a card game and taking hundreds of dollars from the soldiers under him.  

            I vaguely remember having the road to the guardpost swept with mine detectors every morning.

            I got some kind of medal for that short assignment, and asked my boss why: it was because nobody got killed while we were there.  Some accomplishment. My first thought was that I really didn’t have much to do with that.  My second thought: a lot of guys must have died up there that we didn’t hear about.

            .

      3. Seems that, for instance, if a guy died back in Germany, well, he wasn’t a death in the Iraq War.  

        Policies like these come from an administration that is dishonest and rotten through and through, just like the head of the mackerel.  GW is and was a lying son of a bitch his whole life and policies like the above are just one “minor” outcome of the stupid American voters that voted for him.  

        Twice.  

      4. Like so many other things the previous Administration did, it will take some time for all the facts regarding Iraq/Afghanistan casualties to become public.  And it is essential that we support and provide treatment for our soldiers in the meantime.  

  6. California.

    Life’s tough when you’ve maxed out the taxing capacity of your citizens and businesses, yet retain the tired policies that that drove you to the spending party.

    1. Watch out for Doug Bruce, he might kick you for being so stupid.

      California is home to the original TABOR, Prop 13. We’re witnessing the fruits of Doug Bruce’s work there now.

      You couldn’t find your ass with both hands and a flashlight.

      1. Like your name.  But that’s nonsense.  California has seen SPENDING grow out of control under Gray Davis and Arnold Schwarzenegger.  The unions and the far left legislature are just unable to control themselves.  Medicaid and welfare spending have been growing at an insane rate.  

        This is 100% a spending problem, not a taxing problem.

        Fortunately, I keep my feathers numbered, for just such an emergency.

        1. California Medicaid spending increased at a rate lower than the national average from 1990 through 2004.

          It may be growing at an insane rate, but it’s less insane than the rest of the nation. And California requires a 2/3 majority in both houses of the legislature to pass a budget. So don’t be too quick to blame the governor, no matter which party.

          And California spends ten times as much on warehousing people in prisons than it does on CalWorks (welfare).

          Prop 13 caused this disaster by slashing and freezing property tax rates, forcing the state to pick up the tab for K-12 education and other county services. It is the single largest portion of the state budget, twice what the state spends on health and human services. Then voters passed Prop 98 (California’s version of our Amendment 23), which only compounded the problem.

          And California has a constitutionally-mandated spending limit. And among the ballot measures in the special election was one to base the limit on inflation plus increase in prior year revenue (a la TABOR) rather than the overall economy, and voters soundly rejected it.

          So you really are full of crap. Really, really full of crap.

          1. Given CA’s run down cities, homeless problem, and illegal immigrant problem, there is no way that their medicate spending is growing at less than the national average.

            1. You push local costs onto the state, you’re gonna pay more state taxes.

              You can take statistics out of context all day and all night to buttress your argument, but that doesn’t make you right.

            1. If you think taxes collected from individuals is the same thing as spending, you’re very full of crap. And if you think the right-wing Tax Foundation’s calculations of “tax burdens” is credible, then you’re overflowing with crap.

              1. Do you have different stats to point to?  I’ve proved my point.  Spending per capita is much higher in CA than in most other states.  Spending is the problem, not a lack of revenues.  California has spent the past couple decades growing government and putting in place spending and regulatory policies that are killing the golden goose.

                It’s a valuable lesson for Colorado lawmakers to learn from.  We should run in exactly the opposite direction — by seeking more freedom, spending constraint, and tax limitations.

                The Tax Foundation has no ax to grind here.  They just publish the figures state by state.

                1. The data set includes per capita taxes paid to the state, not per capita spending by the state.

                  Since you can’t come up with spending from a table of data that includes no information about spending (let alone make conclusions about that spending), your conclusions are based on bullshit.

                  1. Why can’t you realize that CA has maxed out their taxing capacity with policies that haven’t delivered … well if you consider a 60-70% HS graduation rate successful then your Maddow generated thoughts might feel CA has implemented a successful model.

                    CA 2009 Spending/Capita

                    State $3,980.3

                    Local $7,102.7

                    Total $11,083.0

                    —————————–

                    37.5 million souls

                    $420 billion in spending

                    2. Your playmates better get it in gear.  That’s six months to put in place all the redistributive, spend, tax and regulatory policies that make your hearts go pitter-patter.

                      Did you miss that fact that CA voters thumbed down every big gov’t program that Arnold and his Dem controlled legislature could develop?  

                      I imagine your CA policymakers are feeling well … pantsed by the voters, limp member in hand.

      1. $170B in 2000 and $360B in 2009?  And they have a figure for 2010?  Help, this doesn’t make sense.  

        Oh, wait, or we can go to the CA goverment and find out THAT THIS YEAR’S BUDGET IS A DECLINE FROM 2008!  And further, the increases in recent history are right in line with population growth.

        http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/pdf/…

        Republicans: Pulling facts they need outta their asses since Ronald Reagan.

      2. Funny, it looks just like the federal government when it was under fiscally-conservative control.

        And just as meaningless since it’s not adjusted for inflation or population growth.

        Ooh look, another pretty graph with a similar slope (blue line):

      4. Despite the economic slump, despite irresponsible policies that have doubled the state’s debt burden since Arnold Schwarzenegger became governor, California has immense human and financial resources. It should not be in fiscal crisis; it should not be on the verge of cutting essential public services and denying health coverage to almost a million children. But it is – and you have to wonder if California’s political paralysis foreshadows the future of the nation as a whole.

        The seeds of California’s current crisis were planted more than 30 years ago, when voters overwhelmingly passed Proposition 13, a ballot measure that placed the state’s budget in a straitjacket. Property tax rates were capped, and homeowners were shielded from increases in their tax assessments even as the value of their homes rose.

        The result was a tax system that is both inequitable and unstable. It’s inequitable because older homeowners often pay far less property tax than their younger neighbors. It’s unstable because limits on property taxation have forced California to rely more heavily than other states on income taxes, which fall steeply during recessions.

        Call me silly, Libby, but I’m going with the Noble Laureate…

        1. Clearly economic downturns have driven CA spending into the tank.

          CA property taxes are taxed at 1% of cash value…

          What are all of these charges on my property tax bill?

           

          Your property tax bill consists of three separate categories of levies: General Tax Levy, Voter Approved Indebtedness, and Direct/Special Assessments. That portion of the bill labeled General Tax Levy is the only amount controlled by Proposition 13. This tax is limited to a maximum of 1% of the assessed value of your property (the “land” and “improvements”), and can be no more than 2% greater than the previous year’s tax bill. The portion labeled Voter Approved Indebtedness includes taxes levied to repay bonds approved by the voters. This amount varies greatly from county to county depending upon the number of local bond issues approved. Under current law, local general obligation bonds require a two-thirds majority vote to pass.

          The portion of the bill labeled Direct/Special Assessments is now controlled by Proposition 218. Assessments now require a majority “YES” vote of the property owners, with each owner voting the dollar amount of their assessment. Fees charged for the property related services of sewer, water, and refuse collection can be imposed without a vote, but may not be greater than the cost of providing the service

          Twitty, that must be some really good and hairy red bud you smoke up thar in them mountains. Time for you to reload the bong.

          1. But I’m loading up ‘Michael Phelps’ right now.  

            Still I’ll stick with getting my info from those who know what they speak of.  

            And isn’t it past your bed time, or is the sitter letting you stay up late?

          2. THE CALIFORNIA BUDGET IS NOT, REPEAT NOT, THOSE HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS THAT YOU KEEP SHOWING!  It’s right at $1 billion.  Let’s try this one more time: http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/pdf/…  I’m presuming that the CA government knows more about their financing than you or your right wing fantasy buddies.

            What has that chart got to do with Krugman.  Zero, nada, zip-ola.

            What has that chart got to do with anything other than some right wingers doing what they do best, making shit up?

              1. It’s not the bonds outstanding.  Man, prove you wrong about something and you just step over a few feet and come up with some other “fact.”

                And who would pay 3-5% interest in this market, which is what you imply???

                    1. CA 2009 Spending/Capita (State & Local)

                      State $3,980.3

                      Local $7,102.7

                      Total $11,083.0

                      —————————–

                      37.5 million souls

                      $420 billion in spending

                    2. You talk about STATE spending and conveniently add LOCAL. Don’t talk about Arnie, Sacramento and its Dems through this post, and then, on gee, just throw in all the thousands of local governmental bodies.

                      And then you idiotically work backwards from a per capita amount (source?) to the general. IT’S THE OTHER WAY AROUND!!!!!!  I know, I know, it’s hard to grasp that you come up with a per capita by STARTING with the dollars and then dividing by the population.  

                      BTW, I think the estimated population of CA is less than what you claim, more on the order of 34-35 million.  They just passed 33 million about a year ago.

                      You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts, dude.    

                    3. 36,756,666

                      Others might have thought the delta on your number and mine was illegal aliens.

                    4. Also laying down corrected.  Jeez it seems like last week they passed 33 million.

                      If you read the official information, not some right wing site, the budget, per capita, is actually declining a bit.  

  8. I am not suggesting that he be ‘censored’ but the guy is a tool, he writes poorly, he never provides contrary evidence (i.e. cherry-picks one example when nine others suggest the opposite), and is a washed-up has been from a bygone era of CO politics.

    Surely there is a relevant Republican (I think there are still a couple, right?) in the state who can write a column?

    Andrews just makes shit up.  And gets printed. Regularly.  I understand that the dying papers are desperate for content, but John Andrews?  Egads.

    1. It diminishes the Denver Post, and brings into question its credibility as a newspaper, that it would give a soapbox, even in the editorial pages, to someone so completely devoid of any of the traits that might recommend someone as a columnist (e.g., insight or understanding of social or political or economic phenomena, well-reasoned argumentation, factual accuracy, empathetic story-telling, etc.).

  9. To far right Chicago radio talk show host, Mancow, on his way to proving waterboarding is not torture:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…

    And it’s not just that Mancow says it’s definitely torture. He also says he would have confessed to ANYTHING, which makes torture a lousy way of determining ANYTHING factual. No wonder nobody ever provides documented examples of torture saving the day in ticking time bomb situations. They most likely can’t find any except on 24.

    Let’s Remember who we are supposed to be and what our fallen are supposed to have sacrificed for on Memorial Day.  I don’t think it was so that we could exploit a national tragedy and torture people into false testimony  in order to fabricate justifications for a war to advance the agenda of the toxic neocon/Halliburton alliance.

  10. LOL Obama read a veterans day speech instead of a memorial day speech for his weekly address yesterday.  His ignorance is astonishing.  

    2. I agree. It drives me batty.

      Memorial Day is not to recognize veterans.  That’s what – hold on, here – VETERANS Day is for.

      Today is for those who died while wearing the uniform.  They NEVER became veterans, they are dead.

      Yet, the local paper and its letter writers (stupid citizens) used both terms interchangeably.  

  11. The Sunday Denver Post had a follow-up on what happened to the kids who were in the school when Manual closed. Not a pretty picture.  It is in the Denver and the West section. Let me try the link:

    http://www.Denver Post.com     Well hell, that is not a link. One more time.  www.denverpost.com

  12. This is interesting. We went to sign up to be able to bid on State of Nebraska RFPs (they have one coming up for reporting their stimulus funds). And they informed the person on the phone that they did not want foreign companies bidding.

    And by foreign, they mean outside Nebraska.

    Of course, local includes a local reseller of products made anywhere. Basically what they’re telling us is we need to find someone in Nebraska to resell for us.

  13. Memorial Day

    by Gary Corseri / May 23rd, 2009

    I am sick of the voices of heroes!

    They cry from maniacal graves:

    “Why do you hurry and turn away-

    You who are warmed by the sun?

    “Once a year, on a ‘solemn occasion,’

    You come for public mourning.

    Officers offer orisons.

    Politicians ply for votes.

    “And we lie here in the dank cold

    In Earth’s forlorn cathedral

    Year after year recalling

    Gilded words,

    Lips we did not kiss and love,

    Eyes that did not see our eyes,

    And the eyes of enemies we did not know.”

    Shush!

    Be quiet! Be still!

    Under the stones, under the raw sod,

    Worry the worms, worry the casket’s

    Satin, worry the groaning Earth,

    Turning around on its axis,

    Five billion years and counting.

  14. from the News & Observer

    RALEIGH — A state House member accused of drinking before speeding to work and embracing a teenage female page said Thursday he will quit the Republican Party after a three-decade political career after comments by fellow GOP legislators who participated in a probe of his conduct.

    Rep. Cary Allred, R-Alamance, said next week would change his party registration from GOP to unaffiliated after being betrayed by fellow Republicans.

    1. .

      If you follow the link, you find the girl in question found nothing untoward – or sexual – in the hug.  And he had a drink, but was not cited for DUI.

      But you are right about one thing – in dumping the GOP, or any other major party, the guy and his constituents are winners.

      .

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

70 readers online now

Newsletter

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