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
April 21, 2007 04:43 PM UTC

Weekend Open Thread

  • 112 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

Statistically, it’s the best thread of the week.

Tweet
Share

Comments

112 thoughts on “Weekend Open Thread”

  1. I usually read a few paragraphs of Garrison Keilor and move on, but not today.  He’s giving advice to R’s, and it is good. Good for Dems to read, too. Page 28 in the Snooze Newz.

    1. “What is a conservative?” by Rick Akin in the Steamboat Pilot:

      “Conservatives are advocates of limited government, free speech, the rule of law and free enterprise. Conservatives are advocates of freedom and defenders of liberty. They advocate economic freedom and low taxes and oppose coercion. Conservatives understand the interrelation between economic freedom and political freedom.

      In other words, eighteenth and nineteenth century “liberals” such as Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Adam Smith would be conservatives under the current terminology. By contrast, modern “liberals” advocate greater governmental controls and more closely resemble the early Americans of the Federalist Party, such as John Adams and Alexander Hamilton.”

      http://www2.steamboa…

      1. My sister reported that the Global Warming Rally held at the Capitol in Austin, Texas had very poor turnout due to an unseasonable cold front that blew in. 

        1. one day, not representative of the trend.  Thats what the alarmists will say.  But have an unusually warm day and that’s iron clad proof of Global Warming!

        2. have thrown such patterns out as proof that there is no global warming.  It sounds like you are just getting a good laugh out of it, which I do. 

          There were a few exchanges between myself and one of the ideologues here, wherein I pointed out that the scientists involved in global warming predicted decades ago that there would be much wider swings of patterns as a result. 

          Well, that was countered with “They just say that to support their opinion after the fact.”

          Sigh. 

          I would think that having GW conferences in August might fall into hot weather…..but with the wider swings, anything is possible.  Austin has a wide annual range as it is, below freezing quite often ot well over a hundred.

        3. It must be because global warming actually makes climates vary wildly.  So, actually, global warming should actually be: ‘Global Really Hot Or Really Cold But You Just Never Know Which You’re Gonna Get Because George Bush And The Neocons (and maybe Chateau Gore) Have So Scarred Mother Gaia So Badly That The Climate Just Isn’t Warming These Days–It’s Cooling Too!’

          But that was just too long so the enviro-cabal ended up just going with ‘global warming.’

              1. Al Franken, The Daily Show, practically every comedian in the country are liberals. Ignorant again… unless you were just trying to be funny, in which case you prove my point.

                1. There are comedians who tried to become conservative comedians, but flopped…Dennis Miller comes to mind. Tou see, to be funny, you have to have a high IQ. Remember when Drew Carey tried to start a conservative comedian association? It closed down after two years for lack of membership.

                  1. But a wide “data base” of knowledge and experience to draw upon. 

                    I had a boss who had a wonderful “dry” sense of humor.  After hearing several people of, er, limited education tell me that they just didn’t get his jokes, my own light bulb went on. One needs to have stored the “key” to that humor that makes it funny. 

                    That’s why con’s humor tends to be bathroom, have a victim, etc. You don’t get many humor keys on Fox or Rush.

                    A pretty broad brush, I know. 

                    1. PJ O’Rourke is funny, or at least used to be (havent read his stuff in a while). But he is not a stand up comedian, and since I am not able to express my saharan dry humor in the written word I am jealous.

          2. The average temperatures of both the atmosphere and the oceans are increasing.  That’s why it is called both GLOBAL and WARMING.

            During this change of increasing temperatures, given locations experience wider temperature swings.

            This theory is, of course, so ludicrous that your beloved US military considering it to be perhaps the greatest threat to our food and economic security, well, they are just nuts, too. 

            You really should request refunds for your degrees.  Obviously, critical thinking vs ideology didn’t make it into your skull. 

              1. He’s given ubiquitous clues about his identity… Teaches in CU Boulder’s PolySci dept, is young, is a married man, hasn’t served in the military like a good chickenhawk… So I decided to check it out. He’s definitely not a professor – he all but admitted it the other day. So I checked out the faculty list of CU’s polysci dept and found only 4 male instructors (as opposed to professors).

                Dobby claimed to have “written” for the Denver Post. Well, a google search did show that one of these instructors was quoted for a few articles last year, but a little more research found that this man was a retired military officer who used to run counterintelligence operations in Central America. Not our Dobby. Oh, and none of these instructors had a byline at the Post either.

                So what can we conclude? That he’s a TA. Maybe he wants to be a professor someday; maybe he’ll achieve that rank. I just have to wonder, if that’s all true, why he chooses not to engage in any sort of intellectual debate here? Why does he feel the need to just simply spout off nonsense? Why doesn’t he support his arguments with any hard data, and why doesn’t he have anything to say when you counter his posts with your own?

                Of course it’s possible that he’s totally lying, and doesn’t have anything to do with CU’s polysci dept, and that he hasn’t even gone to college. After all, on the internet a middle aged FBI agent can be a 12 year old runaway girl, so why can’t a hack pretend to be an informed commentator? It makes as much sense as someone who apparently is an intellectual who turns it off completely and flames on at a political blog.

                    1. No one else so rabid only on MM.  No other posting topic that I can recall. The handle is WAY too close to my real life one, now THAT is upsetting.

                    2. Musty actually has time to blog herself?  What with walking the streets of C.D. 4 (which covers a lot of territory) and saving marriage, I would think her schedule would be quite full.

      2. The philosophies of the parties have changed several times over the centuries, and not always cleanly.  The Republicans after the Civil War were the reformers!  They wanted control of the new, rapidly rising corporations, voting for women, etc.  To read the part platform of, I forget what year, like 1880, you would think it was the Dems. 

      3. conservatives are not, as an ideological entity, true to that credo: The fundamentalist christian wing of the party, which has inordinate sway, is all for government-imposition of a particular religious and moral agenda, and attacks on liberties when those liberties don’t serve that agenda. Examples: 1) States rights are great, unless the state’s laws permit (and have a specified decision-making mechanism for) the terminition of life-support for a patient in a permanent vegatative state, 2) Freedom of religion is great, unless that freedom is interpreted as in any way compromising the Christian monopoly on state-sponsored religious expression, 3) Freedom should not extend to a woman’s freedom to end her own pregnancy. And so on.

        And the philosophy as stated sounds so reasonable, but modern conservativism as a whole, due to the influence of the christian fundamentalists, is far from reasonable: Opposition to embryonic stem cell research, and to the use of embryonic stem cells that are produced and discarded in any case, is just plain stupid.

        I don’t believe that the least government is the best government, but I can respect people who do. I can’t respect an ideology that says that the least goverment is the best government except when we can coopt government to run roughshod over the freedoms of those who disagree with us. Conservativism has quite the ignoble history of adhering to that second philosophy: McCarthyism is the archetypical and most shameful example. “Let’s wave the flag but piss on the Constitution: We believe in freedom of expression, assembly, and so on, unless we disagree with what you’re expressing or why you’re assembling.” And, though McCarthyism is a 50 year-old conservative embarrassment, I certainly detect some of its spirit alive and well in the conservative movement.

        1. Conservatives are so susceptible to the siren song of authoritarianism and tribalism.  I would wager that more conservatives are in favor of the draft than libs. You hardly ever see sports team stickers on cars with Dem stickers.  Us-them is a very powerful emotional tool for the tribalists. 

          We libs have our own contradictions, I’m sure.  I’m just too close to the forest to see those trees. 

          1. I’m a decent sports fan and have liberal friends (one of whom was in such despair over the direction our country was in that he seriously considered emigration) who are big time sports fans, although this guy in particular never wore the shirts or sported stickers on his car. But it’s interesting to see some of the conservative blogging here. There definitely is a sense of team spirit among them that, to me, is just puzzling. Gecko once was confused about “NRA for [John] Salazar” bumper stickers he saw because Salazar “isn’t on our team.” Dobby roots and cheers for any Republican politician and recently was down on some other conservative poster for criticizing a Repub, and said something like “don’t attack your team” in doing so. Even some recent posts from Lauren Bacall seem to indicate that she’s decided to close ranks with the rest of the GOP when debating here.

            Liberals tend to be independent. (Hell, I’ve never even registered as a Dem.) Sure, some will pull the party line and conform to a certain extent, but we’re much more willing to call out crooks and liars on our “team” than conservatives seem to be. During Clinton’s impeachment, an attack that made liberals and Democrats close ranks, you still heard criticism from the liberal wing. But with the much more serious transgressions of the Bush administration, from the entire Iraq War (bad, if not fabricated intelligence, POW abuse, understaffed and poorly armored soldiers and marines, on and on) to the DOJ political firings, almost nary a word is said on the conservative side (at least from the posters here) and the denunciation of critical GOP politicians as RINOs (not so much here, but check out a conservative blog sometime – doesn’t matter how conservative the voting record, asking for Gonzalez’s resignation is something only a RINO would do!). It’s worse to “betray” the team than to try to correct the course the GOP has set for the same sort of irrelevance recently enjoyed by the Democrats.

            While there is a good side to party unity we’re seeing the flip side now that the GOP is firmly in the hands of an inept man who owes his success to his name, his cronies who view the Constitution as a nuisance, and a bunch of theocrats who are exactly as yevrahnevets described above. This is a fortunate thing; they’ve so bungled things that they’ve set the political pendulum swinging back to the left.

            1. Guilty as charged.  I have chastised my fellow Pubs often, here and in the real world. I come in here for political discourse.  To debate and discuss issues and ideas.  There is a wealth of information to be gleaned from posters from all walks of life.  I learn a lot and I like that.  In order to get to the interesting debate and wealth of information, I have to wade through a continual stream of snide comments, harsh criticism, broad brush judgement, and outright ignorant bile spewed on a daily basis directed at both the Party as a whole and individual posters.  I can barely stomach it sometimes, so I do my best to ignore the worst of it and continue to dialogue when things interest me.  I agree with Dobby and Gecko on some issues, and disagree on others, but if you think I’m going to join your dog pile and beat up on them every time they post something I don’t agree with, think again.  You and others are doing a mighty fine job of that all on your own. You criticize me for not taking them to task, but seemingly give a pass to yourself and others for a ridiculous amount of harshness and intolerance. You want less team spirit? Stop the personal attacks and get back to debating ideas and issues.

              2. Dobby earns my ire for being dishonest. He says he’s an instructor but I dare you, him, or anyone to find a single post where he discusses the issues in an intellectual, grown up fashion. Occasional snarkiness is fine, we all do it, but none of his posts are free of it, and even when he attempts to discuss the issues they’re basically just GOP Good, Dems Bad. I expect more from supposed intellectuals.

                I mentioned you here because of your recent reaction to a very reasonable, sound post from Phoenix Rising, someone who has seldom, if ever, been snarky or taken pot shots, and certainly wasn’t in the post to which you replied, “Dems good, GOP bad.”

                You’re right, there sure is a lot of mudslinging from my side. Sir Robin, parsingreality, and others do exhibit that “Dems good, GOP bad” mentality quite a bit. And since liberals outnumber conservatives here I’m sure that’s frustrating. But that doesn’t excuse you from not remembering who is guilty of ad hominem attacks (not me – I charge Dobby with a specific kind of deception) and who paints Republicans with a broad brush (again, not me – I know way too many honorable Republicans and additionally believe in judging individuals, not groups). My issues are with particular posters who represent themselves as something they aren’t. Besides, am I not Gecko’s staunchest liberal supporter? I’ll certainly take him to task for his skewed view of things and factual errors but he commands my respect for being 100% honest, both about his opinions and about the way he represents himself. He won’t post his stuff but then name drop and say he’s a college professor.

                I hardly expect you to join the “dog pile,” and I wasn’t criticizing you for not taking them to task, and I didn’t imply that. I was merely using you, one of the best known Republicans here, to illustrate my point. If that offended you, I apologize.

                1. And I concur that I am quite partisan.  I’ve often also said that the current crop of R’s is not the historical crop, which I suspect LB is part of. 

                  Most of my observations and rants against R’s are supported by data and facts.  Despite asking for similar evidence in many topics of equivalent Dems, I get none.  And if a Dem does un-democratic thing, like K Salazar and probably William Jefferson, I’m right there criticizing.

                  1. Most of my observations and rants against R’s are supported by data and facts.

                    I’ve no doubt about that. But I think it’s important to distinguish between individuals and the party. I agree wholeheartedly that today’s GOP is under the control of fundamentally anti-democratic people, but I wouldn’t go so far as to accuse the anonymous posters here of sharing those sentiments, and I certainly wouldn’t go and say how much I hate any particular poster here for what those in power are doing, even if those posters are on the record for supporting those people. When someone here says something ignorant I show them the facts; they usually don’t reply and so it’s left at that, without name calling.

                    I understand Lauren’s frustration. I’d hate to come here if I were on her side. I myself try to keep above it and take what people say to task rather than the people themselves. Only if the person invites comment about his person will I go that route.

                    1. but not always succeeded.

                      I think I’ve fairly well avoided the basic “You are an asshole” category of responses to Polsters.  Certainly, guilt as charged about Bush and this misadministration.  But I’ve also said that I’d have Bush over for a beer.  I pity him. 

                      It’s like the old line from The Godfather, “This is personal, that’s business,” or similar.  It’s like the lawyers in a courtroom who shred each other and their clients and then ask when tee time is.

                2. but I really don’t get it.  Day in and day out, I read insulting posts from D’s about R’s, sometimes to the party, sometimes to the posters.  And what do you, the Independent have to say?  Chirp chirp chirp.  I post a snarky comment, (Sorry Phoenix, your post was that straw on the camel’s back and all) and you theorize a whole premise, starring the bad old R’s and their “team spirit”.  Yikes.

                  As for Dobby, he’s two years older than my oldest son, and not trying to sound patronizing to him at all, but I admire people in their twenties who have the hutzpa to play the rough and tumble game of political discourse. I had a friend who quit blogging in a Buddhist chat room because the posters were so vicious.  A BUDDHIST CHAT ROOM!  Cracked me up.  Unfortunately, I think anonymous chat rooms cause people to lose their otherwise good manners.

                  Anyway, no hard feelings.  You have a right to think and post what you want, and it gave me the opportunity to vent, so it’s all good. 

                  1. I guess I don’t understand where you’re coming from on the team spirit thing. It was a pretty low temperature sort of observation and you took it like it was nuclear waste. That post to PR wasn’t the only instance I felt like you were closing ranks with others on the GOP side, so I thought you’d make a good example to illustrate my point, being one of the universally respected Repubs here. Ah well, water under the bridge and all that.

                    Whew! I feel a lot better. Can we all have a big hug now?

                  2. I tone it down here. Written word being able to come back and bite you in the ass a lot easier than the spoken, unrecorded word.

                    Of course there is snarkiness and flaming posts and posters. Please do not be so selective as to say that it only comes from dems. And, without rereading Phoenix’s post, one thing reps are good at is closing ranks.

                    Dobson plays the game of “I am going to make a whole bunch of unsubstantiated allegations, pass myself off as a person that is a professor of politics (which, if true would make him the ward churchill of the right), make accusations and insinuations against other posters in an effort to make the seem out of touch, and intellectual bankruptcy and inferiority by refusing to debate issues and resorting to name calling politicians.” If you admire that then you lost a little respect in my eyes. Thats like saying you admire the kids that organized the affirmative action bake sale at CU. Or saying you admire Tom Tancredo for wanting to bomb Mecca. Call me an effete liberal, but I would rather debate policy, as you and I have done many times, than respond to stupid candidate nick-names.

                    Anonymity is nice for creating falses personas and made up biographies. I admire Dave and Phoenix for using their real names or at least admitting them.

              3. I prefer to argue the issues as well, and to just follow reason and evidence wherever they lead. And, Ari, sorry, but I don’t care if Dobby is lying about himself or not: Let him, if he so chooses (and if it indeed is the case). As a 4’7″ hunchback with a few tufts of hair, warts, one glass eye and missing front teeth myself, I can understand the urge to represent yourself in virtual reality as you would like to be rather than as what you are. I’d rather stick to calling people on misrepresentations of the facts we are discussing, and ignore misrepresentations that aren’t really relevant to what we are discussing.

                But, Lauren, there is something that is a relevant issue concerning the two parties, and yet has a touch of what we are trying to avoid in it: While the distribution of unappealing characteristics of individual partisans is probably spread fairly evenly across the two parties, there does seem to me to be more mean-spiritedness in the organized conservative movements than in the organized liberal movements. Things like MacCarthyism, hit lists for abortion doctors (and bombings of abortion clinics), and so on. And on the really radical fringes, the KKK et. al. (aryan nation and white supremicists in general), and the separatists like Timothy McVeigh. The radical left fringe has engaged in violence at times, but even then, it never seemed to have quite the same flavor of frothing hatred underpinning it (and more often than not was targeted at property rather than designed to kill).

                Furthermore, this “mean-spiritedness,” not just verbally toward the political opposition (which is clearly shared by the two parties), but virulently and physically toward numerous groups of “others,” comes out in numerous ways: The quickness to shrug off and justify the mass-murder involved in the foreign invasions we engage in (rather than to feel that, if and when such violence is truly inescabable, to engage in it with a sense of horror at having to do so), the brutality and coarseness of the support for capital punishment (and the denial that anyone is ever innocent, in spite of incontravertable empirical evidence to the contrary), the cavalierness of the mantras in defense of unlimited or excessive access to guns (with barely a nod to the suffering caused by the current reality, and the almost surreal argument that if everyone were armed, what a better world it would be!). The “us v. them” mentality (not “conservative v. liberal,” which is shared by both sides, but all the other incarnations: the “tribalism” Ari mentioned) does indeed seem to be a fundamental cornerstone of modern conservativism.

                I’ll let you tell me to what extent you think this perception is an artifact of my own biases, or to what extent there is some legitimacy to it. I actually shy away from such observations in general, knowing the tricks that the human mind can play on itself once it forms a particular belief-system. But this one is hard to shake.

                Liberals have their own endemic errors: A tendency to think in zero-sum terms when discussing issues of distributive justice (i.e., complaining about how rich the rich are, instead of keeping their focus on how to make the poor less poor, which may have nothing to do with how rich the rich are); a tendency to reinforce our disintegration into squabbling groups (in defense of the correction of the historical injustices -and their current consequences- suffered by each group), rather than to approach our challenges as a systemic unity; a tendancy to reject innovative ideas that rely more on markets than on bureaucracies (even though markets are much more efficient solutions for lots of problems), and so on. But none of these errors is mean-spirited. Often, they are just the opposite: Many are the result of such a commitment to being a kind and gentle (and fair) people that the mere fact that an idea is motivated by a commitment to compassion and fairness can sometimes pre-empt further analysis and scrutiny (and, indeed, that defect is one which many conservatives have identified, such as in the insult “bleeding-heart liberal”).

                So, what say you, my conservative friends? (I would challenge my fellow liberals to be very restrained in how they approach this conversation). What do you think of these observations?

                1. I promise that this will be my final word on Dobby – How he presents himself is important because he is using it to lend legitimacy to his posts. Now that I’ve had months to get used to his brand of sis-boom-bah cheerleading, I couldn’t care less about what he posts. But when he starts to claim the intellectual high ground by implying he’s a published professor, it offends me on two levels; one, that such an accomplished intellectual would choose only to post garbage that would earn him a D- in a freshman level “intro to poly sci” course; and two, that someone who posts such stuff which has no factual support would even try to claim the intellectual high ground in the first place. Again, Gecko and even LIAS don’t do this. And I guess I should add that I’m always offended by people claiming qualifications that they don’t have, even if they’re working toward them. Hell, I want my own business but I won’t call myself a businessman here just to give my posts more weight.

                  So my challenge, Dobby, if you read this, is to start showing us the intellect that earned you a Bachelor’s degree, is presumably helping you earn higher degrees, and has put you on the path to a career in academia. I would welcome such posts and forget all the juvenile stuff you’ve posted before. It would be greatly stimulating and probably even help attract more conservative posters, which I think is a good thing.

                  As far as the original point of this thread (is modern conservatism mean spirited and tribal) I think my original post had all I can contribute.

                  1. I’m sorry, but I can’t dismiss the air of fixation on Dobby that your posts about him contain, IMO.  It seems to be purely an ad hominem attack.  Trying to pin down exactly who he is also seems to violate the spirit of the forum.  No offense – it’s just how it comes across to me.

                    1. to check it out. That’s not my idea of obsession, and writing the facts I found isn’t my idea of ad hominem. My idea of ad hominem is to call Udall “Latte Mark” and “Tofu Boy” – does anyone even know if Udall likes these things, and if so, does it really say anything about his character? Says more about Dobby if you ask me. Pinning down who he is – well, he’s the one implying credentials he doesn’t have. Doesn’t that violate the spirit of the forum as well?

                      But you’ll see that I’m not fixated. As I said, I’ve written my final word about him. I’ll address individual observations such as yours but that’s it.

                    2. For your reply.  Is “Latte Mark” worse than “The Evil Chimp”?

                      I don’t think DDHGLQ has been talking much lately about his occupation or himself.  If he uses it in an argument, you have every right to challenge him, but doing research to try and find out about a poster that rubs you the wrong way doesn’t seem to be “cricket”.

                      No biggie, I’m just telling you how it appears to me, but you already know how out of touch I am, right?

                      🙂

                    3. No, but then again I’m not the one posting that garbage. And yes, Dobby was talking about his occupation recently (okay, I brought it up when he named-dropped a Princeton professor, calling him a “colleague,” but he took me up on it). And honestly, I wouldn’t have bothered if he hadn’t given ubiquitous clues about himself (e.g., saying that he had “written for the Denver Post, being an instructor if not a professor at CU’s poly sci department).

                      Thanks for your reply and feedback. Pols needs more posters like you.

                    4. I’m only being nice because I’m angling for “Poster of the Month” because I heard you get a free Prius.

                    6. What is with the Cheap Trick Rules logo?
                      If you’re talking about the band I agree that their music was good except I can’t say that around my wife.
                      She was good friends with the wife/girlfried of the drummer way back in the late 70’s. Apparently he was a real prick. Liked to beat on her as much as beating on his drums.
                      Another one of those guys that think they are godlike and everyone else is scum. 

                    7. I didn’t know that. Shit, looks like I’ll have to change that.

                      I recently went in to update my profile on the blog, and since I’ve been listening to Cheap Trick a lot lately I thought it would be funny to have as my quote since everyone else has some political saying.

                      Is your wife also from northern Illinois? I know those guys got started in Rockford.

                    8. Michigan originally but I think she met them in Texas when she was in junior college.
                      I grew up about 50 miles east of Rockford but had moved before they became popular.
                      I do know that whenever I mention that band’s name around her I get to once again listen to the story of “that drummer jerk”.
                      Easier to not mention it ya know?

                  2. and have understood all along, where you’re coming from concerning “Dobby.” Your arguments about relevance are valid. Since you’re letting it go, it’s not really about Dobby anymore, but rather about what “rules” we should play by. I say, if someone wants to lend false weight to their opinion by claiming to be a Ph.D., or a prophet, or to be channeling a 2000 years dead Egyptian sage, knock yourself out. If we all agree that we will judge all points of view strictly on the merits of the arguments presented, it makes no difference whether it’s a 2-year-old chimp posting or a recent Nobel Prize Winner. Some of us may find such self-misrepresentation offensive, but it’s okay to be silently offended sometimes. I’m not knocking you, Ari. I’m just suggesting that the more we focus exclusively on ideas, even if we have reason to suspect that some of the posters are bottling their farts and selling them as elixer while posting, the better for this enterprise. I’m sure there are a variety of valid points of view on this matter, and accept that this little virtual culture emerges from the many and is not subject to impositions from any single individual, but, as one of the many contributing to how the culture is defined, I thought it was worth reiterating this particular point of view one more time.

                    1. There is one point I forgot to mention on this thread. Dobby did start out by questioning my “intellectual honesty,” so I felt that he opened himself up to such questioning.

                      I’d love for us to be able to “focus exclusively on ideas” and “judge all points of view strictly on the merits of the arguments presented.” Actually, given the personal nature of Dobby’s questioning, I think I was judging his point of view in precisely that fashion. It’s one thing to give a point of view and let it be judged on its merits, but it’s another thing when some of the posters decide to insert themselves into the debate and claim credentials which by themselves are supposed to make their point stronger. I think you get that.

                      Thank you for your participation and feedback.

                2. You make good points about the history of the conservative movement, I’ll have to mull that one over.  But it’s like the argument about which party is more evil or corrupt. I don’t know and I really don’t really care, I don’t have a scandal chalkboard.  I don’t hang out with Republican crooks or liars, it’s just not my reality.  The R’s I hang with hard working, independent folks who are civic minded, generous community members.  So when I hear people smeared constantly for their party affiliation, I’m thinking of these people. I don’t think Dems are evil because I don’t agree with some of their positions.  I also see this whole “you bad-me good” as being so destructive to the whole political process.  I recall hearing Tim Russert quoting a Senator who said in the “old days” Senators lived in Washington, their kids went to the same schools, R’s and D’s spent time with each other’s families, etc. Then the price of housing sky-rocketed and they began to commute on the weekends. He theorized that the acrimony increased when this happened. He’s probably correct. It’s harder to hate someone you know.  As I’ve said before, I’d like to see less demonizing and more discourse.

                  1. are seldom the ones in office. Look at CD5. There were several “nice guys” running and what happened to them?  It is in the politicians, not in the voter base, where we find the ideologues and corruption that we Dems pick on. 

                    I think that perhaps some of the Dem vitriol is because we played Mr. Nice Guy as we were being run out of town (DC!) before we knew what was happening.  No Dem would say that the long term conservative plan was anything other than effective.  We kept playing the old game, as you suggest in your post, not understanding that our Republican colleagues with kids in the same schools were drinking a new Jekyll/Hyde potion of incivility and a take no prisoners, do not compromise method of business.

                    Another food for thought is that we are just having a good time and feel cocky as we give those neocons a run out of town……

                  2. I appreciate your response. But it’s not exactly on-point (which is very understandable: The point is an elusive one). Let me list the things I’m NOT talking about: the mutual acrimony between members of the two parties, or the personal qualities of randomly selected individuals from either party. I AM talking about the political ideologies themselves. The purpose is not to gain a rhetorical victory of “Us good, them bad,” but rather to understand an aspect of the world in which we live, with the purpose of helping to fulfil our responsibility of helping to make it a better world.

                    Let me use an extreme example, which is in no way meant to draw a comparison of substance to the Republicans, but just to show why the question of the character of the ideology is a relevant question that merits attention: In 1930’S Germany, many good people were loyal Nazi’s. Undoubtedly, those people saw in Nazism a program which offered order in a world in which chaos had come to predominate. In their perfectly reasonable view, the country needed a strong hand to bind people into a nationally coordinated effort, to fix the economic disaster that had gripped Germany, to make the country function again. Some or many of them may even have disassociated themselves, in their own minds, from some aspects of the party’s ideology with which they disagreed. But supporting a party which had within it these “pathologies” did indeed contribute to what turned into a massive crime against humanity.

                    Now, while the Republican party ideology is infintely more benign than the Nazi party ideology, I’m not sure that it doesn’t share a small measure of the same pathology. With that thought in mind, I don’t think it serves the political process to be *so* committed to respectful discourse that this alleged “pathology” is an issue that cannot be politely raised. I don’t enter a discussion seeking to insult anyone, or to pound my chest, or to prove that my ideology is better than your ideology. I enter a discussion because I believe that cautious action based on the combination of compassion and intelligence, and arrived at by discussion with others who either already strive to, or can be motivated to, operate according to the same principal, is the best way for us to contribute to the health and happiness of human beings now and in the future. And to ignore this particular issue, which may in fact be of great significance to the health and happiness of human beings now and in the future, out of a blind application of a good rule (avoid “good guy-bad guy arguments” whenever possible) would not be true to that philosophy.

                    Of course, one could limit themself to each issue in isolation, and argue on one day that invading a sovereign country in a preemptive strike based on falsified intelligence and killing tens of thousands of innocent civilians in the process is a shameful act; and on another day argue that prohibiting stem cell research based on a blind moral proscription, while we produce and destroy millions of stem cells a day (or week) anyway, heartlessly condemns a multitude of people with a multitude of horrible diseases to prolongued suffering; and on another day argue that the legacy of history has indeed left the playing field uneven, and that African Americans and Native Americans, for examples, are disproportionately poor as a result of that legacy of history (a history of violent enslavement and conquest of militarily weaker others), and that we do indeed have an enormous social and moral responsibility to vigorously address that legacy of history (which is a much more subtle and complex challenge than just enforcing laws against current discrimination); and on another day argue….

                    But if there is a pattern to these issues, and to the respective positions of the two parties, and if the pattern is the one I have tentatively identified, then merely arguing each issue in isolation may contribute to the continued ability of many people of fundamentally good will to continue to support an ideology that is not, taken as a whole and on balance, a force for good in the world.

                    I am not trying to contribute to the counterproductive knee-jerk mutual villification that partisans from both sides engage in. But it would, to me, feel intellectually dishonest to avoid arguing this point when reason and evidence seem to present it to me, considering how important it is to our collective future. I think a lot of people would start to move to the left on a lot of issues if they let the combination of reason and compassion guide them, and I feel a social responsibility to continue to argue that position, as respectfully as possible, as convincingly as possible. I think it falls well within the scope of constructive political discourse.

                    1. You are saying that you see the Republican Party as having a pathology that is less, say, compassionate or socially responsible and that having discussions about ideology is important and should not be construed as simple partisan snarkiness.  Am I anywhere in the ballpark?  I think I’m fairly sharp and I want to continue this discussion with you, but I’m more of a CliffNotes kind of gal, so please dumb it d….er, I mean, make it a little more concise:)

                    2. The choice of words is important: I would avoid “socially responsible,” because what that means is too open to interpretation (conservatives would say that invading Iraq, defending the second amendment, opposing abortion, etc., is more socially responsible than the opposing views, and refuting those claims reduces to arguments on an issue-by-issue basis).

                      “Less compassionate toward conscious human beings” might get closer, leaving a qualification for conservative compassion toward clusters of cells and brain-dead adults. My argument is this: Conservative ideology seems to advocate a “tough” stance on a long list of issues. On gun control, the freedom to own a device designed to inflict harm trumps the freedom of others to be safer from the widespread misuse of that device to inflict harm on innocent people. On stem cell research, the rights of a cluster of cells trumps the rights of conscious adults and children suffering from horrible diseases. On issues of economic redistribution or investment in programs designed to diminish economic inequality, the right of the wealthiest to keep their “hard-earned” wealth trumps our duty to the poorest to try to reduce poverty.

                      The list goes on, and I can continue later, but my daughter is on my case right now (she wants me to go to her swim lesson with her, and, as usual, I caved).

                    3. On issues of racism, the conservative ideology is that if we stop discriminating, all is well, and the fact that native americans and african americans still suffer from historical racism by being disproportionately born into poverty is a non-issue. On issues of war and peace, the conservative ideology is “hawkish,” meaning not reluctant to use our military as a tool of our foreign policy, which also means not reluctant to sacrifice tens of thousands of innocent foreigners to our foreign policy on a regular basis. On the issue of school choice, the conservative ideology is willing to permit those who perform well enough to be accepted by better private schools to take their public dollars there, leaving behind the worst performers in financially gutted schools. When it comes to issues of taxation, the conservative ideology opposes taxes on principle, even a slightly accelerated income tax on, say, anything over a million dollars per individual in a household, again protecting the right to excessive wealth over the needs of those who are in extreme poverty.

                      I’m not even saying that none of these positions are reasonable. As I’ve said before, I favor experimenting with school vouchers, and I am critical of direct redistribution programs (but favor massive public investment in community development and early childhood education, for examples, because they help to get at the root of economic injustice). But they all tend to be characterized by a lack of compassion for the less fortunate, whether the domestic poor, or the foreign citizens of regimes we don’t like (and the argument that we are saving those citizens from their horrible dictators rings a bit hollow when those same citizens keep screaming at us, quite loudly, that they themselves feel far more victimized by us than saved by us); whether the young girl saddled with an unwanted pregnancy, or the unfortunate victim of a spinal injury or degenerative disease; whether the continually perpetuated, racially lopsided urban underclass, or the single mother trying to support her kids on a minimum wage job. There’s a “you get what you deserve” or “tough luck” attitude that seems to permeate these positions. “Tough luck” to the poor. “Tough luck” to the citizens of Iraq devastated by a war we whipped up in a moment of intense political hubris. “Tough luck” to the victims of injuries and diseases whose cures are within reach but which violate a blind moral dogma. “Tough luck” to the descendents of those we have conquered and enslaved who continue to suffer from the legacy of those predatory actions. “Tough luck” to those who were born into poverty south of our border who only want to come here and work hard to feed their starving families back home. “Tough luck” to the thousands of species which disappear annually due to another predatory disregard for the natural environment.

                      It is very hard, when you are not an adherent to this ideology, not to notice a pattern.

                      On another thread, Sandman wrote that Republicans have the brains, while liberals are bleeding hearts. As I already said, the notion that liberals are “bleeding hearts” really supports what I am saying here: Liberals are more reluctant to say “tough luck.” But are Republicans truly the ones with the brains?

                      We all know that the “intelligensia” is overwhelmingly liberal: Artists, journalists, scholars all tend to be liberal. People who have chosen to work with, and have had success working with, their imaginations, their intellects, and the processing of information are disproportionately liberals. Why is that? Either liberals disproportionately choose to devote themselves to these activities, or these activities disproportionately turn people into liberals. Obviously, such careers are very dominant in a person’s life: It is what they spend most of their time doing. So, there is a correlation between using our minds with unusual frequency and intensity, and holding a liberal bias!

                      Hitler hated liberals. Stalin hated liberals. American conservatives are not choosing the best of historical company.

                      I bend over backwards to be civil in these debates (and sometimes fail), because I believe that’s the best way for the best ideas to prevail in the marketplace of ideas. It’s not because I feel that both sides of this debate are equally respectable. While I believe that some conservative ideas serve humanity better than some liberal ideas, I also believe that conservativism as a force is anathema to the goals we should all share: Forging a fairer, happier, more peaceful, more fulfilling world for future generations. No narrower value, no political fetish or slogan, no religious doctrine should trump those goals. I believe that liberalism (and its overarching ideology, humanism) stand for these goals, while conservativism is driven by narrower goals that often run counter to these, goals that find ways to justify and accept violence in various forms (war, capital punishment, privately owned guns) instead of being dedicated to the deeper values I have mentioned.

                      It’s not that conservatives are all, or mostly, bad people: People accept ideologies en masse when they see enough others around them accepting those ideologies. How do you think genocides happen? Those are normal people engaging in those atrocities. Personally, I find it almost unfathomable that so many americans are so cavalier about the violence we have inflicted on Iraq. Our domestic discussion is all about our soldiers: We don’t seem to see those people, unfortunate enough to be born within our borders, as human beings (in the army, soldiers refer to the U.S. as “the world,” and talk about going “back to the world,” just one little indication of the esteem in which we hold the rest of the world). And, not surprisingly, hundreds of millions of people around the world hate us for our aggressive, arrogant, contemptuous willingness to sacrifice unlimited innocent others to our capricious choices.

                      It’s as important for people of good will to stand up and say “Enough!” in these circumstances as it was for people in even more attrocious circumstances to do so throughout history and around the world. In the grips of a conservative ideological zeitgeist, America is not the progressive, liberating force its founders imagined it would be, nor is it the benevolent force it still imagines itself to be. And that saddens me beyond words.

                    5. a “draft yevrahnevets” movement for some political office. Where do you live? It’s Lakewood, isn’t it? 😉

                    6. (Disclaimer: I actually AM Yevrahnevets, at a computer away from home, without my password handy. So I just signed up for a second account, using one of the cool monikers I didn’t bother to use the first time).

                      Actually, Ari, it’s unincorporated Littleton (in Jeffco). “If nominated, Hell yeah, I’ll run! If elected, Hell yeah, I’ll rule…, uh, I mean, ‘serve!'”

                    7. is that you are framing each issue through a very narrow “liberal” perspective. I can’t argue that there are no greedy, heartless, war mongers in the conservative movement, but I’m quite certain there is no group that doesn’t have its share of lemons. I could take each point you made and reframe it through the “conservative” prism, in its noblest form of course, and it wouldn’t sound near so heartless and cruel as you’ve presented it. I think there is a way for each person of good will to contribute to each ideology and frankly, my interest in politics is my way of countering the more radical elements in the Party. If those of us in the middle continue to abdicate the power to the fringe, we get what we get. (Or what we have)

                       

                    8. Again, I’m not talking about how many good or bad people there are in each party or who adhere to each ideology, but rather the spirit of the ideology itself. No matter how you frame it, modern conservativism is more militarily hawkish than modern liberalism, even if there are many individual conservatives who are the most peace-loving people imaginable. And most of the justifications I have heard for conservative positions have been of the “war of all against all” variety: National defense trumps international good will; the right to own a gun to kill a potential assailant, the support of capital punishment, and the “pre-emptive strike” foreign policy movemet all are instances of answering violence with violence rather than trying to reduce the amount of violence. Olive branches are not part of the conservative approach. I don’t think these are imaginary artifacts of looking through a liberal prism.

                      But thanks for indulging me. I thought there was a chance that reasonable moderates who claim some conservative allegiance might see what, to me and to many others, is a very glaring reality. I have to believe that it’s possible for this country to become a generous, progressive, enlightened bastion of good will toward humanity once again. The only alternative, for me, is despair, and that is no alternative at all.

              4. Seriously, I would value your take on what I said about ideological mean-spiritedness (as opposed to simply partisan mean-spiritedness, if you get my distinction). If you don’t want to post it here, in order not to feed into the sniping, send it to me at yevrahnevets@yahoo.com.

                As you know, I share your pentient for civil discourse…, usually. But I think I have raised a legitimate question: Is modern conservativism dominated by a mean-spirited attitude? Obviously, many conservatives are not mean-spirited, and many liberals are. That’s not my point. I’m trying to get at something in the ideologies themselves: Is liberalism the ideology of compassion, and conservativism the ideology of “screw you” (unless you’re a fetus or all-but-dead)? There can be many people who value conservative ideas and filter out the pathology (if I am correct about its existence), and there are many people who can spew the rhetoric of compassion and fairness in pursuit of selfish and cynical goals. But is the contrast between the two ideologies, to some extent, definable in these terms?

      4. Although you miss that one of the great break-throughs in ‘Liberal’ Christian belief was the sense that infanticide was morally abhorant; it seems the Liberal to Conservative shift pre-dates the British Enlightenment. 

    1. That Gonzalez is all but out and John Suthers is being considered as a possible replacement.

      Great for John, if it happens, but that wouldn’t leave many common sense Republicans is Sate office.

        1. He’s qualified to be the 5th CD’s representative, so, I think Suthers should step aside, if the rumor about him is true, and let Lamborn have the job.  Lamborn can do more for our country as the Attorney General than he can do for Colorado’s 5th CD. 

            1. Demochick is not a fan of Lamborn and was being sarcastic with her post.

              BTW Demochick, I thought you were going out of town for a while and we were not going to hear from you.  Any new rumors about the 5th?  Given that the election cycle seems to be starting early, I am wondering what the rumors are on Crank and/or Rayburn stepping up to the plate to whack Lamborn next year.

              2. While I do not have any rumors regarding Crank, Rayburn, or others in the 5th CD,  I do, however, have it on good authority that many agree that Lamborn is an embarrassment not only to the 5th CD, but, himself. 

            2. with disproving Dr Dobby’s lame attempt at humor that said liberals have no humor.  It reminded me of a MS magazine cover that had a man asking “Do you know why the feminist movement has no sense of humor?” and a person of the female persuasion replying “No, but if you’ll hum a few bars, I’ll try to fake it.”
              Score one for Demogirl.  Now, if I can only get her to admit that Hillary Clinton is a vastly more credible candidate for president than Barack the-guy-nobody-heard-of-until-last-year, I’ll take her to lunch.

      3. It’ll be Hatch or some other longtimer.  No point in putting a young guy like suthers in there when they will be gone in a year and half.

  5. For those of you who may have missed yesterday’s thread I would like to restate the following statistics (which launched a multitude of comments).

    On November 6, 2002 the Denver Post reported that the Attorney Regulation Counsel initiated investigations into only 432 of the 4,507 formal complaints it received in the year 2000 citing the ABA as it’s source….HALT, a Washington-based legal reform group, produced a 2006 Lawyer Discipline Report Card which concluded the following. “The problem in Colorado is that it has one of the worst investigation rates in the country –it looks into less than 10 percent of the grievances coming in the door,” said HALT.

    The point that nearly everyone missed in their responding comments yesterday is that this is an enormous number of formal complaints annually against attorneys and magistrates in Colorado which allege everything from ethics violations to criminal behavior.  4,500 Coloradoans cannot all be written-off as malcontented litigants.  The reason that the number of complaints filed annually is so high is that this is the direct and proximate result of an entire judicial system that has been granted impunity by Colorado’s Attorney Deregulation Counsel. Corrupt court officials have carte-blanche to do anything that they want regardless of statutory law or the Constitution.

    Once again it is proven that absolute power corrupts absolutely.

    1. . . . one way or another.  However, I’ve believed for a long time that Colorado does a better job dealing with complaints about attorneys than it does with complaints about physicians. 

      For those interested in more detail about how the Colorado complaint system re: attorneys works, here’s the 2006 Annual Report of the Attorney Regulation Counsel:  http://www.colorados…

      It’s difficult to know (other than by reading laws and rules) why certain complaints are accepted and acted on, and other complaints are dismissed.  But there is a range of responses possible including diversion and education. 

      1.   The Annual Report on the Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel (OARC) is produced by John Gleason and is disingengous because, according to many in the system, including past CBA Pres. Ben Aisenberg, Gleason is at the heart of the problem.
          For those interested in more detailabout how the Colorado complaint system *really* works, there is a wealth of information regarding Gleason and his spurious claims (compare what he says his agency does (http://www.knowyourc…) with what his agency actually does (http://www.knowyourc…)).
          So, too, is the self-appraisal of the OARC (http://www.knowyourc…), which was prepared by Eileen Kiernan-Johnson (counsel to Chief Justice Malarkey) and Justices Bender and Coates, both on the Attorney Regulation Committee.
          Of course, Cuervo and Parsing will tell you that we’re not providing both sides of the issue.  Since neither, apparently, have visited our document repository, such a conclusion denies the fact that we’ve posted both the complaints and the responses from the OARC.

    2. I read the Denver Post article you cited.  The title of the article was “Attorney Regulators Dispute Poor Grade.”  The article did not accept as fact the conclusions of HALT as you have.  HALT made its claims; the Office of Attorney Regulation disputed those claims.  The article was about the disagreement between the two. 

      In the article you cited, the Office of Attorney Regulation argues that the reason complaints are higher in Colorado than in other states is that Colorado is one of the few states that has a telephone complaint system, that the Office tracks those phone calls and that makes it easier to lodge a complaint.

      Court officials and the judicial system are not mentioned at all in the article, so I don’t know how you can claim it supports your conclusion that: “The reason that the number of complaints filed annually is so high is that this is the direct and proximate result of an entire judicial system that has been granted impunity by Colorado’s Attorney Deregulation Counsel. Corrupt court officials have carte-blanche to do anything that they want regardless of statutory law or the Constitution.”  There was nothing in the article about “corrupt court officials” or the Colorado judicial system being granted ‘impunity’ by anyone.

      Not all lawyers are crooks or, by definition, unethical people.  Lincoln was a lawyer as were/are many of our country’s admired leaders.

      Here’s the link to the article:
      http://www.knowyourcourts.com/CARC/resources/2002-11-06_article-RE-Colo-ARC.pdf

      1. If you ever do visit the website “knowyourcourts.com” and read the featured formal complaints against attorneys and magistrates that were filed with the Attorney Regulation Counsel and summarily dismissed without investigation, then you would know. 

        I filed a formal complaint with OARC that included a thirteen-page detailed chronology which made specific reference to 350 pages of specific documentary evidence exhibits (primarily court documents).  Said formal complaint indisputably proved that an attorney and magistrate perpetrated fraud, ethics violations, obstruction of justice, and the denial of due process repeatedly in my court case.  The only way that said magistrate and atorney could remain licensed, practicing, and unconvicted of criminal charges today was if said evidence was ignored and an investigation denied by the Deregulation Counsel. 

        I have published my allegations and evidence repeatedly everywhere from various websites to Denver Federal Court and never has anyone threatened to sue me. The other formal complaints displayed on “knowyourcourts.com” were similarly dismissed without investigation.  All of the 4,507 Coloradoans who filed complaints in 2000 cannot be summarily dismissed as disgruntled litigants even by you, an obvious nonbeliever.

        1. Sounds like you had a bad experience with a lawyer, but that does not mean that all lawyers and judges and the entire system is corrupt, incompetent, etc.

          If your problem is with an individual lawyer, you can take action against that lawyer by suing him/her for malpractice.

          Whether the “complaints” filed in Colorado are the similar to yours depends on what’s being counted, and I can’t tell what’s counted and what’s not.  Are phone calls counted as complaints?  From the article you cited, it sounds like they are.  The report card issued by HALT simply does not contain enough information to draw a conclusion.  The article you cite describes a disagreement between HALT and the Office of Attorney Regulation that’s not resolved.

          If you conclude that the system is corrupt, I believe that as a responsible citizen, you need to take action to fix it — change the regulatory system, sue the offenders, boot judges out of office, participate in the judicial nominating committees, sponsor an initiative to limit terms, etc.  None of those things are easy or free.  Simply complaining to a regulatory agency — especially one that you don’t believe will take any action — is not being a responsible citizen, IMHO.  Our system only works when citizens move beyond griping and bear the burden of implementing constructive change.

          Constructive change is not easy, it’s not free, and it often requires assembling coalitions of like-minded citizens to pull it off. It’s a lot of work.

          In my practice, I regularly see folks who complain about their homeowners’ association, their local government officials, the judge who ruled against them, and various others who have wronged them.  Rare, however, are individuals who actually wade into the fray to implement constructive change.  Many want to complain about a wrong, but when confronted with acutally spending money to fix it (in a lawsuit or through political action), they wander away.  Unfortunately, most are content to pull the fire alarm in hopes that “someone” (like the all powerful, all knowing government regulator formerly known as OZ) will magically appear to solve their problem for them.  That “someone” never appears in my experience.

          1. when I work at Morgan Carroll’s office….where I’m due in an hour.

            I would add to you list those who are never satisfied with a remedy.  People who start out caring and concerned wind up walking away because it is a constant emotional drain.

            The squeaking wheel might get the grease, or it might self-destruct even when grease is applied. 

          3. BPilgrim, you made this same comment to me a few days ago regarding the Commission for the Abolition of Judicial Disciline (pun intended).
              We all have different ways to contribute.  Trying to break into the legal community at different levels (getting a J.D., being admitted to the bar, getting onto committes as a lay-person appointee, pushing for a ballot initiative) is one way.  Although you argue that “griping on a Web site,” is not an effective or valid way, I respectfully disagree.  I helped start KnowYourCOURTS.com, along with several others, as a one-stop Web site and “watchdog” group for collecting information that was *never* before available on the internet and getting the “truth” out there.  I was motivated by the fact that my belief, understanding and faith in the purpose and function of what certain regulatory agencies are and do in Colorado was misplaced. Specifically, I had foolishly relied on their Web sites as a source of information about what to expect and where to go to seek remedies for certain situations.  I had been mislead.
              As a document repository, our resource not a gripe site (compare with others, such as http://www.VictimsofLaw.net, http://www.profane-justice.org, http://www.massoutrage.com, http://www.judgewatch.org, http://www.court-house.com, http://www.stanley2002.org etc.) Instead, our contribution to this process for reform is the provision of resources to help citizens, litigants and their attorneys become more informed about practices that were once clandestine. It’s not about individual injustices or cases, per se  –our visitors must conclude for themselves if there was an injustice or not in some particular case, if they decide to spend that amount of time reading through “dreary pages,” as ParsingReality described it.  Those cases are provided merely to substantiate our claims and, in that sense, are examples.  We’re not trying to replicate the entire ICON or File-&-Serve database!
              Now, as the State has taken notice, we expect that our contributions may encourage some agencies to either shut us down or else change practices (or tighten up secrecy, perhaps even through the enactment of statutes making more issues “confidential” and exempt from our Open Records Act).  We hope that whatever changes become of it will be positive.
              When you do a Yahoo search on any of the several areas that we cover (attorney regulation counsel, public access to court records, judicial discpline, divorce industry, child and family investigators, John S. Gleason, etc.), our pages are coming up at or near the top competing with their own sites.  One of the most popular searches that bring folks to our sites, for example, is “Public Access to Court records.”  That tells me that our mission is being fulfilled. We’re even now getting feedback that attorneys are using the site as a resource in preparing cases for their clients.  I can think of no higher compliment.

      2.   Yes, you’re right that Colorado has a telephone intake system.  That system was implemented to eliminate an evidentiary paper trail and reduce the number of complaints by nipping them in the bud ab initio. See http://www.knowyourc… and see http://www.knowyourc….
          This is not a discussion about whether attorneys are a bad group.  We don’t need to debate that.  See Laird Milburn, Professional Reform, 30 Colo.Law. 7 (2001) at 51 (sounding an alarm bell regarding the public’s declining respect for attorneys and citing 1994 ABA survey); see also 2006 Harris InteractiveВ® poll, finding lawyers as the least trusted of the 22 occupations included in the survey.
          However, if I thought that all attorneys were unethical, I wouldn’t be in the legal profession in any capacity.  Attorneys are in a unique position to cause positive change.  With that position comes responsibility and high standards. What we ask for  –and this is a reasonable request– is an attorney regulation system that protects the public, rather than the attorneys.  Am I alone?  Read the survey that the OARC, itself, published: http://www.knowyourc…
          Any argument against an effective (rather than illusory) attorney discipline system, whether an attorney vel non, raises valid questions as to the animus behind that argument.

      3.   Lincoln also warned us about the “imperial judiciary”: “[T]he candid citizen must confess that, if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, . . . the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.” –First Inaugural Address (Mar. 4, 1861), reprinted in Inaugural Addresses of the Presidents of the United States, S. Doc. No. 101-10, p. 139 (1989).
          Nota bene, President Lincoln was one of many fine lawyers, who did not go to law school. Others include Patrick Henry (1736-1799) governor of Virginia; John Jay (1745-1829) first chief justice of the Supreme Court; John Marshall (1755-1835) chief justice of the Supreme Court; Daniel Webster (1782-1852) secretary of State; Stephen A. Douglas (1813-1861) representative, senator from Illinois; Clarence Darrow (1857-1938) defense attorney in Scopes trial of 1925; Benjamin N. Cardozo (1870-1938) justice of the Supreme Court; and Strom Thurmond (1902- ) US senator, governor of South Carolina. 
          Lincoln did have sage advice for legal professionals, which I wish was adopted more universally and, which I suspect you, bPrilgrim, would agree with: “• Discourage litigation. Persuade your neighbor to compromise whenever you can. As a peace-maker, the lawyer has a superior opportunity of being a good man.  There will still be business enough.”

      1. Can you see the sparks between Hillary, Bill, and Gore?  Wow!  Once friends, now dualing.

        Considering that Gore keeps getting number three and sometimes four position in polls of Dems should lay to rest any doubt of his ability to rally the troops – when he isn’t even rallying!  He got as high as #1 one after “Truth” came out.  Obviously riding the wave and no Obama in sight then.  No one has a C.V. that gets close to his, no one.

        He is in the catbird seat.  He could run in the primaries and if he doesn’t do well, drop out.  No big deal.  He could do well and wait and see who the Pubs have annointed, and decide if it would be a cakewalk or a challenging campaign and let the second place Dem get the seal of approval. 

        It’s been pointed out that if you notice that he is losing weight, he has decided to run. 

        1.   Then we shouldn’t expect to see a re-enactment at the convention next year of that cute, little dance that Hillary and Tipper did with one another to Fleetwood Mac’s “Don’t Stop Thinking About Tomorrow” at the ’92 convention right after Bill’s acceptance speech as the balloons dropped.
            Ahhh, memories……..

  7. This pregnant female Marine widow is speaking to all you flag wavers secure in your homes tonight.  Dobby, et al. Right now I hate you.  Sorry, just my emotions reading this.

    http://www.craigslis…

    I’m having the worst damn week of my whole damn life so I’m going to write this while I’m pissed off enough to do it right.

    I am SICK of all this bullshit people are writing about the Iraq war. I am abso-fucking-lutely sick to death of it. What the fuck do most of you know about it? You watch it on TV and read the commentaries in the newspaper or Newsweek or whatever god damn yuppie news rag you subscribe to and think you’re all such fucking experts that you can scream at each other like five year old about whether you’re right or not. Let me tell you something: unless you’ve been there, you don’t know a god damn thing about it. It you haven’t been shot at in that fucking hell hole, SHUT THE FUCK UP!

    How do I dare say this to you moronic war supporters who are “Supporting our Troops” and waving the flag and all that happy horse shit? I’ll tell you why. I’m a Marine and I served my tour in Iraq. My husband, also a Marine, served several. I left the service six months ago because I got pregnant while he was home on leave and three days ago I get a visit from two men in uniform who hand me a letter and tell me my husband died in that fucking festering sand-pit. He should have been home a month ago but they extended his tour and now he’s coming home in a box.

    You fuckers and that god-damn lying sack of shit they call a president are the reason my husband will never see his baby and my kid will never meet his dad.

    And you know what the most fucked up thing about this Iraq shit is? They don’t want us there. They’re not happy we came and they want us out NOW. We fucked up their lives even worse than they already were and they’re pissed off. We didn’t help them and we’re not helping them now. That’s what our soldiers are dying for.

    Oh while I’m good and worked up, the government doesn’t even have the decency to help out the soldiers whos lives they ruined. If you really believe the military and the government had no idea the veterans’ hospitals were so fucked up, you are a god-damn retard. They don’t care about us. We’re disposable. We’re numbers on a page and they’d rather forget we exist so they don’t have to be reminded about the families and lives they ruined while they’re sipping their cocktails at another fund raiser dinner. If they were really concerned about supporting the troops, they’d bring them home so their families wouldn’t have to cry at a graveside and explain to their children why mommy or daddy isn’t coming home. Because you can’t explain it. We’re not fighting for our country, we’re not fighting for the good of Iraq’s people, we’re fighting for Bush’s personal agenda. Patriotism my ass. You know what? My dad served in Vietnam and NOTHING HAS CHANGED.

    So I’m pissed. I’m beyond pissed. And I’m going to go to my husband funeral and recieve that flag and hang it up on the wall for my baby to see when he’s older. But I’m not going to tell him that his father died for the stupidty of the American government. I’m going to tell him that his father was a hero and the best man I ever met and that he loved his country enough to die for it, because that’s all true and nothing will be solved by telling my son that his father was sent to die by people who didn’t care about him at all.

    Fuck you, war supporters, George W. Bush, and all the god damn mother fuckers who made the war possible. I hope you burn in hell.

    1. A relevant quote from another War President that’s making the rounds in the press these days … Not a sound bite, but relevant, nonetheless …

      “Let me first state what I understand to be your position. It is that if it shall become necessary to repel invasion, the President may, without violation of the Constitution, cross the line and invade the territory of another country, and that whether such necessity exists in any given case the President is the sole judge . . .

      Allow the president to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such a purpose – and you allow him to make war at pleasure. …

      If today he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him, ‘I see no probability of the British invading us,’ but he will say to you, ‘Be silent; I see it, if you don’t.’

      The provision of the Constitution giving the war making power to Congress was dictated, as I understand it, by the following reasons: Kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object. This our convention understood to be the most oppressive of all kingly oppressions, and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us. But your view destroys the whole matter, and places our President where kings have always stood.” 

      Abraham Lincoln 1848 letter to his law partner (William Herndon) commenting on Polk’s decision to invade Mexico.

      3. I don’t think Abe would have plunged his country into war just because he thought some raghead wanted to kill his daddy 10 years before; or even, for that matter, to keep the world safe for Halliburton.  Let alone to “pre-empt” some mystical threat that never materialized.

        Lincoln was an honest-to-God war president.  He knew the sacrifices.

        There’s a big difference between then and now.  Last I checked, nobody has actually declared war on Iraq.  We call it a war, but it’s really just something we’re doing to keep the defense contractors busy.  Oil was gonna pay for it, but that didn’t work out.  Now our grandkids can cough up the loot.  In the meantime, just ask the Iraqis how badly they want us there making their country “safe” for democracy.  Democracy?  What’s that?  Safe?  You’re kidding.

        Three-thousand-odd of our sons and daughters died for that.  Oh well, it’s just collateral damage in the overall scheme of things.

        Our kids kicked ass.  They’re the best Goddamned fighting force ever assembled.  They won the war in three weeks.  That’s right, the war is over.  It’s been over for a long time.  Our kids won.  It’s too bad their “superiors” never planned for the “peace” that followed.  We aren’t doing so well with the peace. 

        It would have been nice to have all those kids home by now, without the pine boxes some of them had to be shipped in.

        1. LIncoln served in the Mexican War.  I don’t know if he saw battle, but I’m sure he understood that war is not the glory the warmakers always tell us.

            1. ..I checked, not that I doubted you.  Very embarassing for an ex-history teacher. 

              The Wikipedia entry says that he did not see battle.

    2. While I cannot imagine the horrendous grief and betrayal that you must feel, I do want you to know that the majority of Americans agree (according to all polls) with you that we should get out of Iraq now.  Most also believe that we should never have deployed troops to Iraw in the first place (again according to all polls).

      I have spoken with many people from all over the U.S. who believe, as I do, that 911 and the resultant War in Iraq are the greatest fraud perpetrated upon the American people since the Kennedy assassination and Viet Nam War.  All were fraudulently perpetrated upon us to perpetuate and proliferate the corporate war-machine-for-profit and special (wealthy) interests of friends of the administration.

      That does not in any way, however, diminish the sacrifices or honor of our service men, service women, and their families. May God bless you and your unborn child, and may you be granted justice and peace. Our prayers are with you.

      1. As much as I wanted to respond similarly, once a post makes it to “Best Of”, you can’t.  I’m sure millions will read that post and want to share your – and my – sentiments.

  8. This sounds almost like Gone Zales:

    “He has lost the trust and respect of staff at all levels, provoked a rift among senior managers, developed tense relations with the board, damaged his own credibility on good governance – his flagship issue – and alienated some key shareholders at a time when their support is essential for a successful replenishment of the resources needed to help……”

    It’s actually a letter signed by 42 top former World Bank executives asking another brilliant Bush appointment to resign.

    WORST PRESIDENT EVER!

    1. Oh, really, now.  There was, uh, um…….on the tip of my tongue…..lesseee……wish I paid more attention in history class…

      Pierce?

      No?

      Let me get back to you…..

  9. I mad a post the other day that suggested that the cons are very happy to have overworked citizens because that leads to having no time for civic involvement.

    Well, leave it to TJ to spot this two centuries ago:

    “He added: “I am not among those who fear the people. They, and not the rich, are our dependence for continued freedom. … We must make our election between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude. … [Otherwise], as the people of England are, our people, like them, must come to labor sixteen hours in the twenty-four, … and the sixteenth being insufficient to afford us bread, we must live, as they now do, on oatmeal and potatoes; have no time to think, no means of calling the mismanagers to account; but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow sufferers.”

    I got this from an old Hartmann posting, “Scrooge & Marley, Inc. — The True Conservative Agenda.”  It’s at http://www.commondre…

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

314 readers online now

Newsletter

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