U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(R) Somebody

80%

20%

(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
July 24, 2005 08:00 AM UTC

Take THAT: More Publicity!

  • 43 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

A group calling itself “Stop Tancredo” has organized a rally for Monday to oppose Congressman and Presidential aspirant Tom Tancredo. From their Stop Tancredo website:

For too long Tom Tancredo has embarrassed Colorado and exploited fears around the country. Join this broad coalition of people to tell the rest of the world that Tancredo does not represent our state, our values, or our interests. Join us in telling Tancredo “enough is enough!” Join us as we stand up for Colorado and stand against Tancredo.

Don’t forget: “And join us to give Tom Tancredo more free publicity,” because that’s all you’re doing. Tancredo has turned himself into a sideshow act with his anti-immigration rhetoric and “bomb Mecca” statements, because the more extreme he gets the less people take him seriously. His immigration proposals are silly (Evict all illegal immigrants? How? With whose budget?) and instead of being the voice of this issue – which he has been for years – he’s devolving into a ranting and rambling lunatic. He says crazy things like “bomb Mecca” in order to get attention…which is exactly what the Stop Tancredo protestors have decided to help him do.

Protesting Tom Tancredo is like protesting Ward Churchill. In the end, all you’re doing is making their voices louder (and in the case of Churchill, much, much richer). You can’t recall Tancredo, so what’s the point? If you want to really hurt him, find a candidate to oppose him and start raising money for them. Shaking your fists on the West Steps of the State Capitol is not only a terrible cliche, it’s pointless.

Comments

43 thoughts on “Take THAT: More Publicity!

  1. I believe that you will see the Republicans pick up a few more seats before the liberals come to understand that whinning is ineffectiive and pointless.
    The crying game aint nothing but an old movie.

  2. It’s interesting to see how wanting to protect the borders of our country from terrorists has become an “extreme” view. It is good policy not anti immigration. Tancredo could have chosen different words regarding an appropriate response to major devestation inflicted by terrorists in the US. It seems that the interviewer focused on Mecca not Tancredo. The left has been mobilized by his comments but if you ask most Americans what an appropriate response to a nuclear attack on Denver should be, “Nuke Em” comes to mind. The left is soft on terrorism and comments like Tancredo’s are red meat for them to exagerate and try to undermine thoughtful efforts to secure our borders and homeland. Whining is all the left seems to be able to do these days. They are bankrupt on policy and ideas. Just a thought…

  3. Though contemporary protests in general are often just small semi-masturbatory motivational speaking events, right now only journalists and politicians have significant power to ostracize.  Letting the slacktivists get in on the act could play a small part in undermining the spectator politics whose motto is “Apathy uber alles!”

    Nuking civilian centers will soon be back in the news with the sixtieth anniversary of the first atomic bombings.  I’m wondering how many people will connect them to Tancredo’s blunder.

  4. I’d be real curious to see what miniscule percentage of the protestors are actually residents of the 6th CD. If they’re not, all the protesting in the world will have no effect on TT. As one who actually gets to vote for or against TT, despite his sometimes less than carefully considered comments, he still has my support, and I suspect, the majority of the only people who really matter – the voters of the 6th CD.

  5. Hey Rich where is Bin Laden?  Liberals want to go after the people responsible for terrorism, something that Tancredo and the Bush administration have little concept of.  People like Rich are the same people that didn’t think about winning the peace in Iraq or what would actually happen if we decided to “take out” mecca.  What we would feel good for about three seconds and then what…HUH Rich then what.  Maybe you should keep your deep thoughts to yourself until you can fully think of a comprehensive plan to win the war on terrorism…maybe starting with Bin Laden.

  6. I just went by the “rally” and it was a joke. There were more reporters + Tancredo supporters  there than anti-Tom people. There speaking lineup was a complete joke, and they spent more time talking about immigration and Tancredo’s mental health than his actual “bomb Mecca” remarks. It was just another pathetic showing from a pathetically organized Democrat party.

  7. What did you expect?  Those folks couldn’t draw a crowd even if they were offering free beer and lap dances.

    Even funnier is the Be the Change gang.  They say they expect 5,000 people at their workshop this Saturday at the JeffCo Fairgrounds.  The Colorado AFL-CIO homepage (www.coaflcio.org) has the info.  Of course, they show the Celebrate of Democracy event taking place at the Douglas Co. Fairgrounds – making it even harder to get 5,000 people out (to the JeffCo Fairgrounds) to listen to some earnest do-gooder prattle on about “Campaign Communications – Getting the Word Out”….and of course how could you hope to get 5,000 to give up a Saturday unless you also promise to have Andrew Romanoff, Morgan Carroll and Ken Gordon wonk-it-up at a workshop on Referendum C & D. According to the promotional material, registration starts at 7am and festivities end at 8pm, unless you want to stay for the cocktail reception with the speakers.  Just what you need, a twelve hour wonk fest!  Best of all, it only costs you $50 for the whole day. 

    It would seem that Mike Miles intends to kill off his few remaining supporters with boredom. Five thousand people are going to pay up to $50 to spend all day and a good part of the evening at the JeffCo Fairgrounds?  Sure they are.

  8. Marshall: We will get Bin Laden if he is in fact alive. Fighting the war on terror is multi-dimensional not just a fixation on one terrorist. Are you suggesting that we should stop all our other efforts and just focus on the capture of Bin Laden? Is that your plan to “win the peace”? Do you actually think you can get these terrorists to like us? Peace through strength still applies. We are fighting a comprehensive war and winning. Part of the plan is to secure the borders which Tancredo is trying to bring to light. We are vulnerable at our borders and the administration has been reluctant to put resources there. Not sure why but it is changing due to Tancredo’s efforts. Keep my deep thoughts to myself? Then who would you rant at? Just a deep thought…

  9. Rich:  I want Bin Laden because he orchestrated an attack that killed over 3,000 Americans.  We should pay extra special attention to getting him for that alone.  But it has been nearly 4 years and we don’t even know the fate of Bin Laden.  We should have gone after him and taken out Al Quaeda in late 2001 and early 2002.  Before anything else.  But that is not what Bush did.

  10. “Fighting the war on terror is multi-dimensional “

    and unfortunately for us Bush Co decided to fight an unarmed country with no ties to terror, oops! Meanwhile Iran is close to getting nukes and killing American soldiers in Iraq.

    Bush promised to find Bin Laden and hold him responsible, now he says that he doesn’t think about  Bin Laden very much… isn’t that convenient. Of course the war on terror is multi-faceted, but that’s no excuse for how incompetently it has been handled.

    Coincidentally I just returned from a trip to New York and posted some thoughts on my trip to Ground Zero
    http://yellowdogdems.blogspot.com/2005/07/just-returned-from-trip-to-nyc.html

  11. I’d love to amplify Tom Tancredo and his platform.  He represents the best of the Republican party. Myopic, ignorant, xenophobic, divisive – he is the consummate modern Republican politician.  I say give him a bigger microphone.  He is obviously well-liked by many posters here.  Let’s increase the public awareness of his causes and encourage his run for the Presidency!

  12. Rich,
    I must disagree.  It is exactly this type of retoric that spans these fundamentalists and reactionary characteristics.  Indeed, the creation of a discussion about “objectives” in a armaggeddon scenario contest sounds a lot like going to war over mis-interpreted WMD and then murderering hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis for other political reasons.  I suggest, that the comment of “Nuk’em” is a heated response, nothing much different that “hate” related comments against innocent people caught in the middle of a quagmire.  I suggest that you order the video clips of the child who lost her mother and father this last year at a checkpoint in Iraq.  If you had the opportunity, what would you say to the innocent children in Mecca?  Would you get down on your knees, settle their tears, and then explain that Tancredo said it was all justified?  Indeed, explain the justification to go to war over an Administration that seeks to spin the truth, remove a tyrant dictator, increase world oil production, revenge for a President, create democracy for a country without worldwide support because of our President, to a little girl.

    So, if you are continuing in your advocation, of bombing Mecca, then to look in mirror, and ask what Jesus Christ would have said.  Do you think Jesus would have said, “Nuk’em?”  I think not.  I further don’t agree that such talk is Christain, but devilish.

  13. Jesus would pray for those who have not followed the commandment, “Thou Shalt Not Kill.”  He would bomb no one.  And, where did someone assume that after the commandment, “Thou Shalt Not Kill” had a semicolon next to it, allowing us to act in his name for any reason?

    When will the world get it understood …

  14. The anti-Tancredo is so extreme it makes him look moderate.

    Anyone demonizing Tancredo for his campaign for secure borders and against illegal immigration most likely is on the payrolls of large companies and other employers that profit from insecure borders and illegal immigration. By supporting illegal immigration, they show their lack of integrity, and by opposing secure borders, they show their lack of patriotism.

    Bottom line, they look, act and talk like fools, which is to be expected.

  15. Rich – My point about winning the peace in Iraq was about UNINTENTED CONSEQUENCES when you follow the chickenhawks (what was Tancredo’s excuse for missing Vietnam? other priorities? champagne unit?) plan when fighting a war.  We must kill the terrorist but knee jerk reactions will not win the war on terror.  Let me know when Tancredo and the Bush administration come up with a plan that is little more than empty rhetoric?  How does the phrase go?  TALK IS CHEAP

  16. Let me get this straight. The White House got so upset as Newsweek’s (slightly) innacurate article on Quran abuse that Newsweek was running for its life. “They need to do more to reverse the damage,” or something.

    Turns out that they didn’t flush the Qurans, just pissed on them. But that didn’t stop the endless Newsweek trashings by SHEEP LIKE YOU.

    Now, Tancredo casually says that we ought to wipe out Muslim holy sites if Islamist terrorists attack the United States, and you defend him? And the GOP isn’t demanding his head for “inflaming tension” in the Arab world?

    To say nothing of the horrific, racist logic behind his suggestion: it’s like saying that if Mexican immigrants keep killing cops (for example), we should burn the shrine of Our Lady of Guadeloupe to the ground. Or if you hit me, I should go beat up your great-aunt to get even.

    To carry out Tancredo’s suggestion, that is, bombing civilian and religious targets that have no operational relationship to the enemy who attacked you, would be what we used to call before the Bush administration a WAR CRIME.

    But now, thanks to our administration’s equally wicked response to the wickedness of 9/11, and most of all pocket fascists like Don Johnson here, we can gleefully explore the commission of all kinds of crimes like the ones we used to arrest the Serbs and Germans for.

  17. Immigration is a legitimate issue, but it’s not helped by Tancredo’s involvement.  Immigration deserves serious and constructive attention, not the nut-baggery that Tancredo brings to it.

    By the way, Jerusalem is the third holiest site in Islam.  Would is be OK with Tancredo if we nuked Jerusalem? 

    Just asking.

  18. In my United States of America you can piss on whatever books you want to, Irene.  I suppose you want to ban flag burning and stop funding for the NEA as well.

  19. Irene:

    The terrorists are invoking the “holy war”. Religion is the foundation of their actions. Your analogy to the Mexicans doesn’t make sense. We are not racist, we are realist.

    Marshall do you write the talking points for moveon.org or just perpetuate the lies? You guys and your thinking just don’t reflect the facts. It really makes a discussion useless if you can’t look at the facts and form your own opinion. Are you suggesting our elected leaders can’t lead our military if they have not served? You better get used to it moving forward. I don’t believe your guy Hillary served. I guess you won’t be able to support her??

  20. Rich – What lies?  Why don’t you show me the lies?  Why don’t you show me the facts?

    Let me try some –

    Bin Laden still not captured
    Terrorism has gone up
    Our border are in the exact same shape
    And Al Queda is still the enemy not Hillary or move on.

    Neo-cons can’t keep the eye on the target and now we are due to face the consequences.  Maybe a little military service would give Tancredo some perspective before he opens his trap again.

  21. Last Word on Tancredo Comments:

    Anyone heard the attage: “If their is a void, something will fill it?”  Well, if you go around the world looking for a war, I gather you can create it.  It seems to me, that the Conservatives have proven that they love WAR and killing … they just can’t seemingly embrace elements of Truth and Justice with tracking down the criminals who commit these acts of terrorism, without the desire in attacking other innocent people.  Mr. Clarke was absolutely correct about terrorism and he said we need to control our borders too.  And, he said President Bush will create even greater terrorism around the world with his ideas … that is coming true, and I don’t think his former Presidential Advisor, Mr. Clarke, would have been in favor of Tancredo speaking about bombing MECCA.  I don’t think any Christian individual would be on the side of Christian ideals with such “public” suggestions.  Tancredo doesn’t speak for me anymore … even though, I have agreed in his position on protecting our borders.

  22. Yeah, Rich, let’s why Bush called the War on Terror a “crusade.” That’s why we don’t condemn Israel when they kill women and babies, because we’re cool with their religion.

    I suppose I’m anti-Semitic now, even though millions of Israeli citizens agree with me?

    What exactly are you proving, other than your willingness to parrot anything you’re told?

  23. I just have a few observations.  The first is, Tancredo was irresponsible to say what he said, and it would be wrong to bomb Mecca, but…… am I wrong to think there might be a little value in certain of the world’s humans thinking that some Americans, especially peripheral govt types, are themselves prone to a little craziness and bravado?  And that Bush and his state dept are keeping them in line?

    And, am I also wrong in thinking that the best possible circumstance for America with regard to Osama is that his death not be publicly announced, but rather he just kind of fade into oblivion?  No martyrdom for him, just kind of a permanent and impotent lapse into history?  Might that not have more good-for-america-resonance in a more primitive, vendetta-driven culture that prizes vengance but detests weakness?

    Don’t get ahead of yourselves, liberals.  I know that if we got him, Bush would in all likelihood string him up at the White House.  But if you doubt that Bush has even considered a quiet end for Osama and the benefits it might have for America and its security, and if you haven’t considered that yourself, well, that says more about you than it does about Bush.  And by the way, if Bush scored as well on the SATs as he is reported to have, that means he’s smarter than 75 percent of everyone, including liberals.

    And, what is a ‘pocket facist’, irene?  I think you’re the sheep.  Don is the shepherd.

  24. “if Bush scored as well on the SATs as he is reported to have, that means he’s smarter than 75 percent of everyone, including liberals.”

    I’m not sure what this point has to do with anything but since you mentioned it I should point out that the SAT’s are not equivalent to an IQ test so your conclusion is based on an entirely false premise. You may be right, Bush might be smarter than 75% of the population but your evidence does nothing to support that conclusion.

  25. Wow, nothing gets by IQ.  Sounds like you have a little pet issue with IQ, IQ.  And so I assume yours is really super high.  But you are right of course.

    My point, which was really an assertion not ‘evidence’ although next time I will take great pains to spell this out, is that there are a lot of people who keep bagging on Bush and how he’s not doing the job and beating the terrorists and yadda yadda yadda and if only the liberals were in charge and ‘winning the peace’ (for Pete’s sake!!)……. and of those people, more than half are probably not as bright as Bush in the first place, and are not even bright enough to consider, even if only for a single solitary second, that when you are a sitting, second-term president, ANY second-term prez, Dem, Rep, or flipping Whig, that maybe your concern is actually in fact doing what’s right for the country.  And not taking credit for bagging Osama, or “love of WAR and killing” (which is just completely absurd), or “crusade”, or “knee jerk reaction”, or “empty rhetoric” or oil (my favorite).  I guess I’m just tired of people throwing charges around when I have yet to hear one single legitimate issue that could have been handled differently given the same information, not one single issue.  Grow up people.  W defined the war on terror and is single handedly responsible for raising its profile worldwide at a critical, critical juncture in history.  You don’t have to like him, but at the very least you can admit that.  And he also backed it with a loud, loud signal that when push comes to shove (perceived or real), we’ve got the stones to take action, right or wrong.  And guess what?  He’s not trying to take credit for his extremely important contribution, and I doubt he would even admit it if you asked him.  None of which is the point of this thread, but, the charges were flying around, so I’m bitching is all.

  26. Shep – you must be blind/deaf.  There were certainly some Dems out there who could actually read and analyze the intelligence we were getting out of Iraq and would not have pushed the “war” button.  Of course, most Dems probably wouldn’t have looked at Iraq to start with because Al Qaeda wasn’t there.

    “W” defined the war on terror because he happened to be sitting in Florida in rapt attention to “My Pet Goat” while terrorists were flying planes into buildings.  “My Pet Goat” could have defined the war on terror as well as W has, nevermind some other theoretcial President.  9/11 itself defined the war on terror – our initial response was a no-brainer.  However, Iraq was not the enemy; Iraq was W’s pet peeve and the pet project of PNAC – read O’Neill’s book, Clarke’s testimony, or any of a number of other primary sources.

    Sun Tzu reminds us that in war we must hold the morally correct postion and that we must know our enemy.  W headed us over to Iraq, but that was not our enemy.  And because Iraq was not the enemy, we do not hold the moral high ground.  We killed perhaps 100,000 people in Iraq during the initial invasion – many of them innocents – and 12-20,000 more have been killed since then in the instability we created.  All with no justification except the PNAC plan for stability and control of the oil fields (and hence, the US economy).  WMD was a sham; Al-Qaeda ties were a sham.  Might does not make right, and in this case, does not even breed security.

    PS – If only half of the American people are “dumber” than Bush, we got robbed.

  27. Let’s do it this way, Rich, since you seem unwilling to take an imperfect analogy…

    A group of radical Christians begins an organized terror campaign to destroy China’s infrastructure.  Should China’s target be Bethlehem, Jerusalem, and the Vatican?

    No sane person would advocate that.  Why are Tancredo and some people here advocating the same against Islam?  Does anyone here know the underlying principle of Sufism – the spiritual teaching of Islam?

  28. With so many of Phoenix’s musings to choose from, and all of them equally enticing, I pick this one:

    “W” defined the war on terror because he happened to be sitting in Florida in rapt attention to “My Pet Goat” while terrorists were flying planes into buildings.

    Now, Phoenix, having read your posts I can safely assume that you have strong enough command of language to understand that here you infer W should have not been in Florida reading to kids.  Perhaps your preference was for him to step into a phone both, put his “W” cape on, and fly himself to stop those planes just in the nick of time?  This has always been the absolute weakest of all DNC talking points re 9/11, and it’s amusing that you cannot see why, more so given that you throw out Sun Tzu reference after Sun Tzu reference – and since your reference in this case doesn’t really help any coherent argument (Iraq is not the enemy?), it is clear you do this instead to manufacture a little credibility, wisdom, etc.  my advice is, if you want people to take you seriously when it comes to national security, you establish that by taking reasonable positions.  Oh, and when Saddam tried to off HW, did that not register on your ‘enemy’-o-meter?  I think it’s your civic responsibility to call Saddam an enemy for that… the guy liked weapons (esp chemical bio and nuc), and cut checks to suicide bomber families, in case you forgot.  It is the job of our public national security officials to think 10 moves ahead, not 2, as you clearly do.  You sound like a domestic type that reads alot. 

    I would wager that you yourself have never personally faced a circumstance in which you had to realize the importance of projecting strength, much less actually choosing how to go about doing that.  All the Sun Tzu in the world can’t help you get there. And that’s not necessarily because you are female, by the way.  Likewise, filling your head with facts and dare I say it statistics will never get you to where you want to be – for that you’ve got to turn your ideas inside out and upside down.

    “read O’Neill’s book, Clarke’s testimony, or any of a number of other primary sources.”  Clarke has a book too, doesn’t he?  I can never remember.  Thank goodness they have no incentive to slant any information whatsoever.  If they started doing the talk show circuit to shore up their retirement plans with book royalties, well, then I’d be skeptical.

  29. So riddled with holes I can’t cover them all – just like Dubya’s scandal list.  I’ll just cover one point: Saddam supported one and only one terrorist organization (and hasn’t supported any since the early ’90s), and if we went by the standard he set, we’d have to nuke the entire Middle East for being unhappy with the creation of Israel.

    PS – I’m not female.

  30. I stand corrected, Mr. Rising.

    Nevertheless:  “Saddam supported one and only one terrorist organization (and hasn’t supported any since the early ’90s)” 

    You cannot possibly know that, number 1 (I personally think he would have supported any terrorism that got him closer to a larger middle-eastern state with him as dictator).  Number 2, that’s not even the point.  Saddam had to go because he was a real threat to us (demonstrated in the plot to murder a former American leader) via any number of terrorists he could have allied with – and his zany kids even more so in 15 years, which is even further the point.  Period.  No further justification required.  I’m surprised you don’t feel the same way.  Or perhaps you think we should have waited to see if the 1991 Versailles worked, and Saddam would have just meandered on into retirement, playing shuffleboard and perusing the online personals while relaxing in the luxury of his compounds?

    “, and if we went by the standard he set, we’d have to nuke the entire Middle East for being unhappy with the creation of Israel.” 

    What standard was that, and how does Israel have anything to do with it?  As of 9/11/2001, we remove regimes that support terrorism that may now or in the future threaten us.  Period.  That’s a great standard.  That is the policy.  And based on action in Iraq (and not on rhetoric at the State of the Union), Syria and Iran are now on notice and I expect they are being a bit more sly supporting terrorism and doing so in less volume, or will soon be made to – and not just by us.  Wait ten years and see if I’m wrong.

    Now, if you’re interested in the politics rather than security (not sure Sun Tzu would have any opinion on “Dubya’s scandal list”), well, there are a lot better arguments that I’m not about to supply you with.

  31. We haven’t removed the Syrian regime.  Or the Saudi Arabian regime.  Or the Iranian regime.  Or the Yemeni government.  Each of these is more connected to terrorism than was Saddam.  Syria and Iran at least have more developed WMD programs than did Iraq.  Why didn’t we take them out?

    As to your question on Saddam’s support of terrorism – actually, we know quite a bit about Saddam’s terrorist ties.  They didn’t involve Al-Qaeda, and they were pretty exclusively related to the Palestinian conflict with Israel.  I was wrong about the single organization, I will admit (Google is good spot research); however, he was primarily a supporter of the PLF.  Outside of that organization, he provided support to the families of suicide bombers and sanctuary for at least one non-PLF member.  How this directly affects our own national security, I fail to see – it was all directed at Israel.

    As to the assassination attempt, I didn’t respond the first time, but Sy Hersch had an excellent investigative piece back during the Clinton years that showed just how much we knew about that alleged attempt, and how little was based on hard fact.  It’s a long article, but you should read through to the juicy parts, which are towards the end.

    Sun Tzu actually does have something to say about scandal in government.  He also has something to say about incompetent prosecution of war due to the interference of an ignorant civilian government.  We ignore the lessons of past masters at our own peril.

    If your heart is large enough to envelop your adversaries, you can see right through them and avoid their attacks.  And once you envelop them, you will be able to guide them along a path indicated to you by heaven and earth.” — Morehei Ueshiba, founder of Aikido

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

95 readers online now

Newsletter

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