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 22, 2012 03:45 PM UTC

Tuesday Open Thread

  • 44 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

“Nobody made a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could do only a little.”

–Edmund Burke

Tweet
Share

Comments

44 thoughts on “Tuesday Open Thread”

  1. As widely reported in the last few days the Catholics have pulled out all the stops — effectively they’ve put the Presidency in the cross hairs and demanded a kickback of sorts be made to Obamacare.

    This action follows the recently controversial graduation speech at Georgetown by HHS secretary Sebelius that prompted a wave of uproar within the Catholic community.

    Source http://www.cnsnews.com

    “This lawsuit is about an unprecedented attack by the federal government on one of America’s most cherished freedoms: the freedom to practice one’s religion without government interference,” the archdiocese says on the website. “It is not about whether people have access to certain services; it is about whether the government may force religious institutions and individuals to facilitate and fund services which violate their religious beliefs.”

    The suits filed by the Catholic organizations focus on the regulation that Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius announced last August and finalized in January that requires virtually all health-care plans in the United States to cover sterilizations and all Food and Drug Administration-approved contraceptives, including those that can cause abortions.

    The Catholic Church teaches that sterilization, artificial contraception and abortion are morally wrong and that Catholics should not be involved in them. Thus, the regulation would require faithful Catholics and Catholic organizations to act against their consciences and violate the teachings of their faith.

    Earlier, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops had called the regulation an “unprecedented attack on religious liberty” and asked the Obama administration to rescind it.

    “We have tried negotiation with the Administration and legislation with the Congress–and we’ll keep at it–but there’s still no fix,” Cardinal Dolan, who is also president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops said in a statement released by the conference this morning.

    How will Barrack play his cards, will he cave to the Catholics to assure his retention of the Presidency? Or will he double down and defy the Catholic leaders in an end around strategy to garner 50% of the faithful?

  3. Score One for the Robo-Tutors

    In experiments at six public universities, students assigned randomly to statistics courses that relied heavily on “machine-guided learning” software — with reduced face time with instructors — did just as well, in less time, as their counterparts in traditional, instructor-centric versions of the courses. This largely held true regardless of the race, gender, age, enrollment status and family background of the students.

        1. from putting teachers out of work.  It’s an experiment with mixed results, that at best indicates that some changes might be cautiously made toward new teaching models that still involve live instructors.  But the caution is important.  To quote from the article:


          Some [students] felt as though they had learned less, even if they scored just as well on tests.

          The last thing we need is a higher education system where students are more focused on passing exams and learning less surrounding context.  Is that the case here?  I don’t know, but the measurements of learning were all heavily exam-based.  Add in the fact that students themselves insisted they didn’t learn as much, and that leaves me skeptical.

          1. As with many posts I put up here about teaching, I posted it because I found it interesting, not because I think it is necessarily a useful approach. As you said, they will have to spend a lot more time studying this.

            But software does have a couple of major advantages. First, it has infinite patience so it will work with any student at their speed. Second, it does not have preconceived stereotypes about a student.

            I think eventually we’ll get to the point where software handles a significant part of teaching. And when software does a better job grading essay tests, I don’t think many teachers will be upset.

          2. 1. Less time spent the basics means more time available to cover topics in depth, topics more relevant to the task at hand, and more time to apply that knowledge.

            2. In continuing education, one of the moves is to giving people credit for knowledge they have gained through experience. Proper evaluation allows you to do this, but it rarely ever happens in a classroom setting.

            It’s not the be-all and end-all, and it’s not for everyone, but for many situations the case for computer-based education can be quite compelling.

            1. …which I think is really good, is instead of a shallow look at all of the period they are covering, they pick 5 specific periods and go into that in depth. And the remainder gets very little time.

              The benefit? Instead of the students remembering nothing 2 years later, there generally will remember a reasonable amount from 2 – 3 of the 5 periods they dove into.

              1. When the real goal is to teach students how to think. Create. Mostly think. And then express that thinking and creativty.  Machines suck at that ( no offense).

                If my students remember no facts we covered 2 years later, but they know how to look some up, think aoubt what they found and then express those thoughts- I’m a smashing success.

                1. I don’t see how people can even know where to start looking for information. I agree that thinking creatively (and software can do some amazing things there). But you also need a foundation of knowledge to start from.

                  1. There are lots of things you probably know well enough to look up if you ever need them but perhaps not well enough to repeat from memory in a 30-minute test.

                    1. But MADCO said “remember no facts” and I think that doesn’t work. Who did what in Reconstruction can be looked up. The fact that after the Civil War the North tried to impose equality in the South, was able to do so at the point of a gun, but eventually lost the will to continue and African-Americans lost their rights. It’s important that they understand the major facts around that.

                    3. They need to know how to put on their clothes – so they can go out in public.

                      They probably need to know how to read English.

                      They need to have a sense of what they covered with me – best if they know what they don’t know so they will know to  look it up . ANd they need the tools to look it up – I don’t teach those skills. I stress test those skills.

                      I’d give you some examples – but I fear the results.

                      Someone I believe references the era of slavery in the US.   I don’t remember anything about that, but somehow, there once were slaves in the US. Mostly in the south I think. Then there weren’t. There must have been some kind of ….transition.  When and how did that occur?

                      If your US History teacher got you to think, and express, you are off to the races.  If you memorized every f***ing fact about slavery in the US, but you don’t know how to think, or express whatever thoughts you have – you are a dolt.  If you have to look up the Emancipation Proclamation and the Reconstruction every time – but you can think creatively  and express it,  you are brilliant.

                      I get it – when you program the machine, the machine can only hear your facts.  But even the best programmers are creative, expressive thinkers even if they still have to look up the code for the most  basic commands.  

                    4. If all you remember was some people used to be slaves and something changed, then all your effort looking up goes into just re-learning the basics. You won’t come up with anything new from that.

                      Or to take your programming example, I look stuff up multiple times a day. But I’m generally looking up how to do the details of something, not what are the basics of some system.

                      When I do have to learn something fundamentally new, I’m mediocre at it as I first start learning it. The rule of thumb is 3 – 6 months of intense programming on something new (language, platform, etc) before you’re good at it.

                      Learning to think and be creative are critical. But having a foundation of knowledge and practice using that knowledge are equally key.

                    5. love testing and believe robots and youtube can replace teachers.  

                      Though, I can’t help notice your kids are a big name school, not doing Harvard or MIT on line for free.  If it was about factual knowledge, than getting the facts for free online from Harvard, MIT and others – for free – would seem the move.  Could it be there is something else of value?

                      We know it can’t be the instructors – so it must be the traditional  college experience. Or maybe the credential.   Nah, it’s got to be the facts.

                    6. I know you don’t like me because I think teachers should be evaluated to determine if they are doing a good job. But that is because I understand that quality teachers are the key to a good education.

                    7. I don’t know – I neither like nor not like you.

                      I agree teachers should be evaluated – I know bad teaching  when I experience it.  I know good teaching when I experience that. I know great teaching too.

                      You post a piece about some machine “teaching” stats. Ok – I point out that for stuff that is just kill and drill morize-y stuff, online will compare.  But the machine cannot determine whether the student can think and express those thoughts.   Never mind the quality of thought or expression.

                      I claim you over emphasize the factual- whereas my experience indicates that the facts are a nice means to a different end – creative thought  and expressive ability.  You re-emphasize factual knowledge.  I notice that your personal choice was to  opt for a program that emphasizes creative and skilled thinking, not the equally reputable and free online source.

                      So it can’t just be the facts.  Facts are facts and whether I present them to a classroom full of college kids, or the online source does it- the facts are the same.  Yet you chose a program with a rep for great instructors, even though the online source , which also has great talent, is free. And has the same facts. It  cannot be the facts that attracted you.

                      Now- if we evaluate the instructors with standardized tests of the students – the facts – then we can determine if the teachers are good or not, right?   No – you cannot.

                      My Air Force experience with pilots could be illustrative.  Plenty of pilot candidates wash out every year.  Some of them would have become good or even great pilots – but that’s not the standard for retention.  The standard is based on an attempt to let no bad pilots through, and not keep any bad pilots flying.

                      Do you see the difference?

                      One view says we let no potentially bad pilots fly. The inverse would be to say we don’t get rid of potentially good or even great pilots. The USAF (rightly) picks the former standard.  But I’m not sure we are prepared to commit to the expense and challenge of that for American P-20 education.

                      It helps to recall this – until about 30 or 40 years ago teaching and nursing were just about the only reputable professions open to women.  Assuming – as I do – that the bell curve of talent is gender neutral,  our teacher recruiting and retention required far less than market wages for that talent.  It was a win win for taxpayers and students.  The former got to pay less. The latter got to have really talented teachers.

                      But then we let ’em go to law school. And med school, and engineering and god only knows what all. Hell we even let ’em fly fighter jets and go to combat.  No free ride for taxpayers anymore.

                      We say we still want the talent – and some of us do.  But most districts aren’t serious – or they’d pay for it.

                      Which all comes back to knowing when you have good teachers or not.  I can kill any fact based standardized test – no matter what students I start with.  They’ll memorize the facts. And that makes me a good, retainable teacher, right?

  4. Now I am admittedly a Cory Booker fan so on Sunday when I watched Meet the Press I winced and thought –  Oh, boy.  Booker’s statement on Bain was a sound bite ready for prime time.

    Cory Booker ‘Fit To Be Tied’ After GOP’s ‘I Stand with Cory Booker’ Email

    http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/po…

    Unfortunately, what Booker said is fair game if a little selective in the retelling no matter what he says on Rachel Maddow and in other interviews.

    I’m sure my friends on Pols will be quick to tell me if you disagree.

    1. but he was only thinking of himself and his props when he was on MTP. So, I think he was wrong for that and wrong in what he said. But, he did give our President an opportunity to talk about it in a values kind of way yesterday and that is more important.

    2. In 4 weeks no one will remember what Booker said or when.

      In 4 years, he’ll get a prime time slot at the convention.

      As far as his point- he’s right, all the way around.

      The problem is – as always – it’s a complicated thing, made sound-bitey simple in order to sqawk about it.

      1. Booker’s diss at Obama is wrong ’cause Obama has clearly said he understands investment banking and knows the need but for it but wants to brush back Romney’s Bain background as proof of some kind of competence.

        Political tactic of attacking someone on a supposed strength to turn it around as a seeming weakness.  Romney’s business background, McCain’s military background, Obama on Constitutional law or his community organizing, Kerry on his military service.  Some attacks more belligerent but all with the same intent.  Cory really didn’t help himself or his goals in speaking up.    

        Booker has a bit of an optics problem in this diss.  Cory is beholden to Wall St. to the tune of a quarter billion $s to help with Newark renewal.  He’s pulled in over $500,000 from Bain & other equity firms in campaign contributions since 2002.  Hell, one of his major donors (Julian Robertson) is also one of Mitt’s biggest givers to Romney’s Restore Our Failures Future SuperPac.  

        Booker would have been better off perhaps staying quiet on this because does anyone really truly believes equity firms are hurt by what Obama stumping? Obama has a helluva donor list made up of some of the big money playas in finance so he’s just saying what he can to knock Mittens off his game but behind doors he’s got his hand out just like everyone else in politics.  

            1. suggesting an equivalency there. Obama didn’t really get to know the Wall St. guys right off the bat and thought he could trust some of them to do the right thing.

              Jamie Dimon, a case in point.

              Obama knows “the Banks” and the republican congress have him in a similar position as Mandela was with the DeKlerk government in South Africa. If he gets too rough with them, they will just shut off the money and shut down the government. He has to tread lightly, but I think he may have his footing now and is in a position to put more pressure on the Banks. If he gets a second term, super-rich guys of the country are going to have a bad 4 years. They know that.

               

            1. back room deals and at the root of political scandal. Take a look at this page:

                 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P…

              You can count the # of scandals by administration, or just eyeball the length of the entries, to get a sense of the scope of scandals in previous administrations.

              My bet is that Obama’s entry will be one of the shortest in modern history.

              What is demonstrated in the Suskind book is his naivete, and ability to be controlled. I believe he’s improved, and I believe his second term will be better as a result.

              1. But the end result was we ended up with Wall St still owning the economy & the Senate. And that means they will continue to roll the dice on the economy, taking home billions when they win and leaving us a recession and giant bill when they lose.

                I would prefer the corruption and competence of LBJ over how Obama handled the meltdown.

                    1. 2) Organize.

                      3) Voter Reg- esp in Jeffco and Aurora.

                      4) Find ten friends to do the same.

                      5) repeat.

                    3. ala Stan Garrett..Andrew Romanoff…Buddy Roemer. Until we start electing regular people who aren’t controlled by the money, we get nowhere.

      2. of Bain’s business practices when Romney himself has chosen to run on his business background, very emphatically not on his record as a very moderate Governor, to the dredging up the Rev Wright stuff is not right all around or at all. Booker himself has been all over saying so.

        It is perfectly legit to point out that while Romney is claiming that his business experience makes him the guy who knows how to create jobs, the business he was in was centered on wealth creation, not job creation and that the two are not always the same thing.

        When captains of industry created wealth building stuff, that wealth created lots of jobs. Today’s private equity wealth creators are demonstrably not interested in or good at creating the kind of wealth that does that, the lack of created jobs demonstrating that disconnect.

        Booker’s New Jersey is home to lots of equity firms. That’s where this unwise choice of anology comes from and he has already walked it way back and voiced his strong support for Obama.

        On the plus side, just as Romney’s trying to use Bill Clinton against Obama has backfired, since every time he attempts it is another chance for Clinton to voice support for Obama, now he is facing the same thing with Booker. Romney will  have to drop it as he did his smarmy lionization of Clinton. Booker couldn’t have made that any more clear on the Rachel Maddow show last night.  

      1. And Scotty’s ashes were paid for by another customer–Celestis.  They aren’t on the Dragon capsule, they piggy-backed on the second stage.  The ashes of Gordo Cooper (Mercury-Atlas 9 and Gemini 5) were also on board.

        1. and stepping it closer & closer to Kubrick’s reality.  Instead of Pan-Am we see Virgin Galactic shuttles and instead of US flags we’ll  see Halliburton logos on asteroid drilling rigs  — it’s Manifest Destiny for the Jetsons.

          Glad that I still have something to spark my kids’ imagination when we talk about space & travel & what’s possible.  If we’re lucky I’ll be able to take them down to NM’s spaceport for some future launches rather than have to deal with FL loonies.  I have a close friend & colleague that went to college within viewing distance of the Cape and was lucky enough to witness some of the nighttime shuttle launches.  Lucky basterd …

  6. And on the 9News Facebook page, has this statement:

    “I have never had a more bizarre encounter with a politician than the one I had tonight” – Kyle Clark

    After repeated requests for an interview, Kyle confronted Congressman Mike Coffman tonight about his statements on President Obama. The full, unedited interview tonight on 9NEWS at 9 & 10.

    https://www.facebook.com/ilike…

    THIS might be good….

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

119 readers online now

Newsletter

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