U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(R) Somebody

80%

20%

Governor See Full Big Line
(D) Michael Bennet

(D) Phil Weiser

60%↑

50%↓

Att. General See Full Big Line

(D) M. Dougherty

(D) Jena Griswold

60%↑

40%↑

Sec. of State See Full Big Line
(D) A. Gonzalez

(D) J. Danielson

(R) Sheri Davis
50%

40%

30%
State Treasurer See Full Big Line

(D) Brianna Titone

(D) Jeff Bridges

(R) Kevin Grantham

40%

40%

30%

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) Manny Rutinel

(D) Yadira Caraveo

45%↓

40%↑

30%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
October 31, 2009 03:06 PM UTC

Weekend Open Thread

  • 86 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

“Being ignorant is not so much a shame as being unwilling to learn.”

–Benjamin Franklin

Tweet
Share

Comments

86 thoughts on “Weekend Open Thread”

  1. Colorado Christian University, featuring the three GOP candidates for Governor. Join us on Tuesday, November 3, at 7 p.m. at the CCU Music Center, SW corner of 1st & Garrison, Lakewood.

    Sponsored by the Centennial Institute, former Senate President John Andrews will m

    oderate.

      2. I have no idea where it will go or how it will go but for those of you who said you weren’t aware of the first two head to head forums – now’s your chance.

  3. Again, only  my opinion.  The Post has endorsed the so-called “reform” slate in the DPS school board election.  The election is non-partisan, however, Bennet’s only public sector employment, prior to the Senate, was as Superintendent of DPS.  One can opin, as I certainly shall, that a vote for the reform slate is a vote for Bennet.  The so-called reform slate is heavily financed…we are swamped with literature for one of the endorsed candidates-at-large.  I anticipate a win for that slate. What will be interesting will be to look at the margin of victory and where the strength was.

    also, boyles has been encouraging his followers to vote yes on the prop 100 or 300 or whatever the other issue is.  If it does win, coupled with a win for the so-called “conservatives” in upstate new york….it will be the first indication of the power of the tea parties…and their washington financial backers…

    Laughing Boy, that is your girl in the midst of all of this…..

      1. Bennet was Hickenlooper’s Chief of Staff.  But, his most visible position was that of DPS Superintendent.  Certainly, he had more actual authority at DPS. I did goof.  Thank you for the correction.

        Decisions Bennet made in the Mayor’s OFfice rightly belong to Hickenlooper,   Theoretically, the elected Board of Education has the final say-so at DPS, but they function, IMHO, as a rubber stamp.  So Bennet has been taking bows for “reforming DPS.”…..as time goes on, it is obvious that his  victory lap was premature.   But how that plays out in the 2010 election will be influenced by the outcome of the present election.

        Again, I do stand corrected.

    2. I simply won’t put any of my girls in DPS after grade school.  I can’t.  Saving as much as I can now for a private school, but if I have to cherry pick or take them somewhere else, or home school them, I will.

      Nobody other than the union matters in DPS.  Not the kids, not the teachers.  I’d almost rather starve the system to death and start from scratch than go through yet another ‘reform’ exercise that results in zero.

      2. Hell, as if I would wait for permission.  Look, the teachers union is not instigating all the failed reforms.  That is   coming from outside the individual schools or the district….from so-call advocacy groups and foundations…who have clout with the school board.  See if the at-large candidate endorsed by the union wins…I say no way.

        If I had kids today, and thank god they are all grown, I would move heaven and earth to get them out of DPS, at the beginning.  You can cross district lines and enroll your kids in Jefferson County or Cherry Creek, or Englewood, etc., anyplace where there is space available.  The problem with starting out in DPS is getting out of DPS…you should check out private schools, now…and see what their admission process is – most give preference to kids who are already in their system; most have stiff admission exams.  Right now, there are few if any waiting lists to get into private schools because of the economy, but markets change and if things get better, those schools start running long waiting lists.

        I wish you luck.  the best school in the state is a public school in Jefferson Cty called D’Evelyn….but, you have to live in Jefferson cty to attend because they always have a waiting list…..admittance is by lottery….as is the case with most good public schools….but if you can get your kids in, they get the best education in the state…bar none.

  4. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11…

    “Atlas Shrugged” was published 52 years ago, but in the Obama era, Rand’s angry message is more resonant than ever before. Sales of the book have reportedly spiked. At “tea parties” and other conservative protests, alongside the Obama-as-Joker signs, you will find placards reading “Atlas Shrugs” and “Ayn Rand Was Right.” Not long after the inauguration, as right-wing pundits like Glenn Beck were invoking Rand and issuing warnings of incipient socialism, Representative John Campbell, Republican of California, told a reporter that the prospect of rising taxes and government regulation meant “people are starting to feel like we’re living through the scenario that happened in ‘Atlas Shrugged.’ “

    3. Rand’s particular intellectual contribution, the thing that makes her so popular and so American, is the way she managed to mass market elitism – to convince so many people, especially young people, that they could be geniuses without being in any concrete way distinguished.

      1. It was hard to decide which one to choose, just to let folks here know about the article.

        Like this:

        …”At one point, she stayed inside the apartment, working for 33 days in a row,” Heller writes. She kept going on amphetamines and willpower; the writing, she said, was a “drops-of-water-in-a-desert kind of torture.” Nor would Rand, sooner than any other desert prophet, allow her message to be trifled with. When Bennett Cerf, a head of Random House, begged her to cut Galt’s speech, Rand replied with what Heller calls “a comment that became publishing legend”: “Would you cut the Bible?”…

      2. Benighted college students everywhere–not to mention Rand herself–never picked up on the ironic paradox that Rand’s “model” of individualism and non-conformity was itself an extremely superficial and rigid call for a very specific (and peculiar) kind of conformity.  

        Her stuff always read like some goofball’s attempt to very badly interpret Nietzsche.  

        1. who although a bit crazy was truly brilliant, unlike Rand.

          I am sorry all the Galters didn’t follow up on their pledge to sail off to some faraway land, then maybe we could accomplish something.

    4. We developed as a species because we took care of one another. True collectivism, from each, to each. Individualism meant nothing outside of the context of the survival of the group.  

      Objectivism is a cancer to the human condition.  

      1. is the fact that our minds became the most robust tool for a flexible collectivism yet produced by Nature’s lathe of trial and error. Human languages integrate us into collectives; human consciousness evolves collectively. Individualism is an expression of what the mind does, on the margins, with the enormous wealth of collectively produced cultural material bestowed upon it, in an institutional context which provides it the sustenance and leisure to do so.

        Within that context, individualistic concepts such as “liberty” and “competition” have an important place, both for their intrinsic value (particularly in the case of liberty), and for how they contribute to the robustness of our collective endeavors. But when they become so fetishized that they displace recognition of our fundamental and indispensible collectivist nature, they enter into a realm of rapidly diminishing returns.

        As a college teacher, I used to ask my students how many of them were independent. Then I pointed out that what they identified as independence (earning and paying your own way) was really just a form of interdependence so taken for granted that it had become invisible to them. The degree to which we, as a society, have forgotten this has reached almost pathological proportions.

    1. When she references God or religion it’s always to make fun of the characters who believe.

      I’m surprised the tea bag attendees didn’t care about that.

  6.    Because of her support for Referendum C & D, and her ties to Bill Owens, a RINO who openly collaborated with Andrew Romanoff and Joan Fitz-Gerald, with Jane face the same treatment as Dede got from conservatives?

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11…

      Keep in mind that Tom Tancredo, the Godfather of Colorado Winguts, has already weighed in with his opinion on Jane.

      Keep in mind also that Jane is the handpicked choice of another prominent RINO, John McCain.

  9. ….otherwise know as Windows 7. My post-production studio is almost all Mac, except for one critical PC which I use for encoding. Here is how I feel about the update…

     

    1. May be an accomplishment. But it doesn’t mean it’s better than XP. I have 7 on my laptop but still have XP on my two desktops (which I what I mostly use).

      I haven’t decided yet if I’m going to upgrade.

      1. I started with the 64-bit Vista with Service Pack I in my Dell Studio desktop.  Spent a week in Dell Hell because my RAM failed and I had to re-install everything, but that was a hardware problem, not a problem with VISTA. Really had no big problems with the SP1 version of Vista and still less with the SP2 update.  I won’t try seven until they come out with at least the SP1.  My only real grip is a lot of my old software just won’t run on 64-bit VISTA including some great games that haven’t been remade for 64 bit.  If I had realized the extent of that problem, I might have switched to Mac because it was only the incompatibility of my old software that kept me from going to a mini-Mac.  I do have a Mac power book laptop I got from my brother-in-law and its ok, but I just have very little use for a laptop.  Anybody had any luck using a Microsoft ergonomic keyboard with the Mac?  That’s the other reason I didn’t switch, I have severe RSI and love the Microsoft ergonomic keyboard. I think you can make it work on the Mac if you reprogram a key or two, but would like to hear from someone who tried it.;’

    2. An upgrade at $200 is not high on the list of purchases for my computers. Ubuntu, XP and VISTA SP3, seem to be functioning right now. Also, I’ve not seen or heard about what it does with Office 2007.

       The other day MS sent out the death of MS Office Accounting notice.  

      1. By then, a lot of the bugs are worked out.  I think XP is the NT kernel version of Windows 98SE, a great workhorse eventually outdated by program/kernel incompatibility issues.  XP will be around for many more years, I think.

        My mother’s lappy has Vista and it is right there with that other great MS dud, ME.  A pig of resources, slow even with decent RAM and CPU speed.

        Mostly seems to have just rearranged how you get to many functions, screens, or files and folders.

        Seems to do better on wifi than XP, more reliable connections.

        From what little I’ve read, Windows 7 does seem to correct a lot of the Vista resource problems, it’s a much smaller OS.

        For me, XP for many, many years to come.  

        1. Much of the XP and 2000 is from the IBM OS/2 V4, taken after the MS IBM divorce.  I could help people with both when they experienced problems.  Often MS didn’t even change the names of the routines.

          I was a OS/2 V4 beta tester.  It was one fine O/S, with a great voice recognition system built into the O/S.  The big drawback was a TCP/IP system that confounded everybody to get it to work correctly.  It had a true fault tolerant drive system that almost never needed to be “maintained”.  MS NT and to some extent the current NT drive system is similar, but not identical.

          IBM refused to do the one step that would have made it the dominant O/S, give free systems to college students and pay the gamers to create games for it.  MS did that and became dominant.

          1. I was a senior developer on the Windows 95 team at Microsoft and a couple of you have it wrong up there.

            Virtually nothing from OS/2 went in to Windows. All the OS/2 developers at Microsoft moved over to NT when Microsoft & IBM broke up, but the code bases were totally seperate. NT was created by Dave Cutler and his team that came over from DEC.

            There are two Windows code bases. The first was DOS + Windows 1.0/2.0/3.0/3.1 that then was worked on to become Win95 and then Win98. At that point the “Windows” team was merged into the NT team.

            Microsoft took the Win98 produce and had a new junior team create WinME. So ME came from 98 but was a mess.

            The other code base was the NT product that then evolved to be the server versions Windows 2003 & Windows 2008 and the desktop versions XP, Vista, & Windows 7. This code base took very little from the original Windows code base.

            1. I think NT had its roots in VMS, the old Vax operating system.

              I miss DEC.  I cut my eye teeth on DEC machines, back in the day.  First computer I ever felt comfortable with was a PDP-10 running TOPS-10.

            2. IBM and MS OS/2 V4 and NT were developing as one commercial and the other retail.  It was after the divorce that the OS/2 code started showing up in the MS OS’s, other than NT. I don’t remember the divorce settlement much now that it has been over a decade post breakup. But MS was not to use the IBM OS/2 code for some years later.

              I was beta on a couple of the early MS Windows too, starting with a version called Win286. I have those floppies around somewhere in a box of computer history.

              I also worked on the VAX systems.

              1. I had lunch every day with people who were very senior on all of this. OS/2 and NT were totally seperate development efforts. And when OS/2 ended, that team was split with half going to Windows and half to NT.

              2. I was just a user/nerd getting into the game late, DOS and 3.1.  

                Other than the question of whether OS/2 code did or did not make it into Win 9x or NT, I think we all understand the background here.

                I liked the old 98SE, a guy could fix anything easily, especially starting in DOS, and and for a given machine, it was blazingly fast.  

                I really dislike the NT based OS’s. There is no built in easy way to repair boot sectors, and no, the command functions have NEVER worked for me.  “Can not find NT Loader.”  SHIT! And the proprietary NTFS system, what a joke!  I’ve had more missing files or loss of the MFT than I ever did with FAT.  In fact, NEVER with FAT.  Thank God for GetDAtaBack!  I reset up The Mothership with a new HD a coupla months ago and I put the OS on a bootable, readable FAT32 partition and all my data on an NTFS partition and that is only because of the 128GB Scandisk limitation.

                The one tool that I absolutely adore for working on NT kernel is the Emergency Recovery Disk (ERD)developed by Winternals. You can even delete all the undeletable files that get locked when running NT.  Of course, MS bought Winternals, and you can still download some of the tools, but another hush money assassination.  

                    1. Is wrong with you people?!?!  It’s a beautiful autumn day, temps near 70, sunny and balmy, and you are in here going on about OS and 7 and Vista and SP1 and OSs and What The Fuck?!?

                    4. I have been punished for my smart-assery and started with the cold symptoms about an hour ago.  Karma sux.    

  10. Through the eyes of Mohammad, age 14. The video here http://www.guardian.co.uk/worl… lasts about six minutes.

    After watching it, maybe you can tell me: how is it that we, as a people, spend millions, billions, on some of the things we do.

    Note: the video alludes to Save the Children. Isn’t that what we all should be about? Saving the children?

    1. OK, that was brutal, but I’m not sure why from an evolutionary standpoint we want to “save the children.”  

      Sure, we have greater emotional affinity for kids than adults, but that’s our protective response to raise another reproductive generation.

      We need fewer kids to start with.

      And adults.

      Virtually every problem we face, politically and environmentally, is due to too many people.  

      1. .

        I don’t know if it really accounts for EVERY problem I face, unless you mean that in the sense that, for example,

        my problem with a cranky neighbor is due to the fact that that cranky neighbor lives on the Earth, and if he didn’t, I wouldn’t have a problem with him.  There is 1 too many of him.  

        But if you are saying that there are just too many people generically, or maybe I mean generally,

        that seems to suggest that there ought to be fewer.  

        Going way beyond what you said, I’m assuming you think that some rational set of rules ought to be set up that determines which currently existing people are surplus.  

        Just a guess, but I’m guessing that you are not one of the surplus ?

        .  

        1. That should be obvious, no one has to get into the Soylent Green line.

          Education and economic prosperity reduces the birthrate best of all.

          We need to turn tax structures upside down.  No kids?  Here’ $5,000.  A new kid?  Another $2,000 tax on the 1040.  

          Brutal but motivational.

          1. From carbon ppm in the atmosphere, to energy demand (humans are “energy consuming units!”) water consumption, needing a job, ad nauseum……population is not given enough attention. This is coupled with economic views of growth and consumption. That’ll change.

          2. would only make sense if coupled with a policy you have expressed intense opposition to: Massively liberalized immigration (virtually open borders). In that way, we would discourage both those who live here and those who come from contributing to overpopulation, while maintaining our economic system (including our pension systems) during a transitional phase into an economic system that does not depend on growth for stability. We would also more effectively be addressing the problem, since overpopulation is a global problem to which we only marginally contribute (our relative wealth, and its implications, is far more of a contributing factor than our birth rate): By inviting those with higher fertility rates to come under our umbrella, and then discouraging with tax incentives their continued high rates of reproduction, we would actually be affecting some more robust contributors to overpopulation.

            Of course, there would still be the rest of the world, with over 95% of the world’s population, and far higher fertility rates in those places where the largest numbers are found.

            There’s also the political impossibility of your proposal: There is close to zero will in the United States to tax reproduction, and there would be almost universal violent opposition to it. It’s as useful to suggest that we all make a habit of acting on the basis of the best information available and in our collective rather than individual interests in all decisions that we individually make. That would be great, but suggesting it doesn’t really make it happen.

            A far more effective way for us to address overpopulation would be for us to make a far larger investment in the sustainable development of those countries which contribute most to overpopulation, since, as you said, “education and economic prosperity reduces the birthrate best of all.” By making sure that the development is sustainable rather than following in the footsteps of the already developed nations, we also address the other half of the problem: The rapidly increasing impact of each member of that growing population.

      2. overpopulation and evolution don’t really intersect (at least not in the way you suggested). Evolution is a process of selection at the level of individual organisms, with collective results (over time). Overpopulation is an overburdening of the source of sustenance for a species, and, if you want to get down and dirty into the theoretical universe, facilitates evolution by creating a larger pool to select from, and hotter crucible in which they are selected.

        All of that’s kind of beside the point: I suspect that any solutions we manufacture to overpopulation that aren’t extremely subtle in nature will be far more problematic than the problem they set out to solve.

        Almost all demographic projections have the world population leveling off at between 12 and 25 billion people (roughly twice to four times the current population of Earth). Coupled with probable (and, from the point of view of those who haven’t yet experienced it, desirable) economic development, and concommitant energy and resource consumption and waste production, that certainly appears to be completely unsustainable, according to current knowledge. The challenges are real, and actively contemplating how to face them is a good idea.

        But inhumane solutions (or attitudes) to such problems are very likely to be worse than the problem. The one thing we have going for us is fledgling spark of compassion that might, if we blow on it and nurse it into a flame, truly offer us a much brighter tomorrow. Forsake that, and you’ve forsaken everything.

          1. But it refers to a process of selection at the individual, rather than group, level (though it is controversial, I think that a form of group selection can take place, but that is not what the theory of evolution refers to). Evolution itself, which is the aggregate product of that process of selection, acts on populations and species.

          2. to help correct a popular misconception: Evolution doesn’t involve genetic selection on the basis of what’s good for the species; it involves selection on the basis of what increases individual organisms’ reproductive success. Sometimes, that’s very bad for the species, such as in the case of a particular species of mountain elk, the males of which grew ever larger antlers to prove to the females that they had enough prowess to waste their surplus nutritional intake on producing such antlers, leading to the eventual extinction of that species due to the dysfunctional nature of the males’ excessively large antlers.

              1. The most obvious, to me, is that development driven exclusively by short-term criteria (e.g., reproductive success, or economic growth) can be irrational and self-destructive in the long-run. The reproductive success of the “horny” elk is analogous to commercial success of business enterprises, while the dysfunctionality of the elk’s oversized antlers is analogous to negative externalities such as carbon emissions, other environmental contamination, and natural resource depletion.

                1. Ascribing motives to the actors in evolution and making analogies to human culture are both risky.

                  As in the elk situation above — males don’t choose to grow larger antlers to prove anything. Rather, females choose to mate with males that have particular characters because these characters are linked with traits that have lead to higher survival in the past.

                  Long tail feathers, bright colors, etc are driven by female choice in their mating partners. Sexual selection does not necessarily act on the same characters, nor on the same trends in characters, as natural selection.

                  As for evolutionary analogies with with human culture — this is really shaky and often leads to “support” for otherwise nasty behavior. Think social darwinism.

                  Human behavior can be selected for by forces that don’t seem to work in the evolution of species. For example, social behavior can change via the inheritance of acquired characteristics. This is not how real evolution works.

                  1. but often useful. One doesn’t have to ascribe motives to actors in evolution to analogize to motives, as is often done, even to the point of routinely employing the mathematics of strategic interaction (game theory) in evolutionary and ecological analyses.

                    The error of social darwinism wasn’t descriptive, but normative. It leapt from identifying the descriptive fact that certain technologies and institutions bestow a competitive advantage (and are thus proliferate over time) to aserting that it is normatively good to favor those who employ such technologies and institutions. One does not imply the other, and once divorced from the normative assumption, the descriptive reality is hardly debatable.

                    Cultural evolution and biological evolution are similar in this way: They both involve packets of information that reproduce, compete for reproductive success, occasionally mutate, and thus evolve. The similarities in form and function are striking: In both cases, there are technologies (anatomy) and social institutions (herding, etc.) produced by the process.

                    Yes, you are right, the processes of reproduction are quite different, and so the rate of the respective progressions are quite different. Memes reproduce as rapidly as communication allows, and even accelerates as a result of the development of communications technologies. They also mutate through the application of human thought, rather than at random. But these differences do not undermine the similarities.

                  2. 1) I hope that my disagreements with you aren’t disagreeable. I’m enjoying the exchange.

                    2) I had an epiphane once, that, while the human-centric view is that the results of evolution sort of resemble intentional behaviors (“adaptations”), the more synoptic view is that human consciousness and intentionality resemble evolution (the latter having preceded and produced the former). There’s a wonderful religious analogy that comes with that, sort of reinterpreting some judeo-christian tenets, but I think I better steer clear of that aspect of it. In fact, I don’t consider the resemblance arbitrary or casual: I think human history, and it’s generator, the human mind, are echos of evolution, systemicly (not to say intentionally) produced “in its image.”

                    1. I haven’t considered any of your comments disagreeable in the least. Indeed, I have a feeling that all of my comments were more clarifications.

                      I don’t really think that you intentionally ascribed motives to organisms “hoping” to evolve, but rather that you were using colloquial shorthand.

                      However, this shorthand that is fine among those who have a good understanding of evolution greatly resembles the language used by those that are completely ignorant of the actual scientific version of the theory of evolution (of course, this does not apply to any regulars of CO Pols!).

                      Thus, I was just trying to make a point or two more clear. Plus, I know more about evolution than I do about Colorado politics (which is not to claim that I know much about either).

      3. Yes, human population run amuck is a major cause of a great many of our current problems.

        However, it is not merely numbers (although this is the part of the equation that Americans tend to focus on).

        The other major major major part of our current problems is per capita resource use. (This is the part of the problem the vast majority of the people on earth see as the primary culprit!)

        If we Americans used resources at the same per capita rate as Bangladeshis, or even Chinese, the absolute global population wouldn’t seem to be such a godawfulmess.

        (Of course this is an oversimplification, but then I’m an American and oversimplification is something Americans do very well.)

        1. …we could leave the 52″ plasma screen on all night.

          It’s still all about population.

          Except within weather or politically induced famine zones the earth had plenty of food to feed everyone into the 20th C.  World population was about 3 billion about 1920.  

    2. I dare say, after reading comments attached to my original post, that none of the posters have watched the Guardian video; at least their comments did not address the point of it, which was not about overpopulation.

      The video was about a two-year drought in Kenya that has resulted in the death of the cattle that Mohammad’s family depended on for a living. In a desperate bid to find water in order to grow cash crops, Mohammad, age 14, comes from school every day (his family insists that he attend) and climbs to the bottom of a well that he has dug by hand, first with a shovel, then with a hammer and chisel, and again begins chipping away at the rock at the bottom, hoping to reach the water table.

      I would guess that a mechanical drilling rig could get through that rock in a few hours at most. But for Mohammad it’s a race against starvation; a race run at an agonizingly slow pace.

      With a name like Mohammad, I had to wonder: which is doing more for the USA in eastern Africa, and perhaps elsewhere in the Muslim world: sending XX,000 more troops to Afghanistan, or sending one drilling rig to eastern Kenya for a day?

      As for overpopulation, I’m giving a certain poster the benefit of the doubt, though doubt about what I can’t say. Slowing population growth is an admirable goal, but letting children starve to death is not an acceptable way of going about it. Period. No exceptions.  

  12. And as we all have our own slice of responsibility for allowing the Wall Street greedy Gollums to nearly destroyed our economy, we also have the moral responsibility to take care of those at the bottom of the economic disaster who are suffering most.  

    If we can bail out corporate fat cat executives to the tune of billions on dollars, surely we can each do our part to help those who have lost their homes because of the greed of others.  Please, please, please, find out what you can do, and do it, this month, to ease the suffering of our fellow homeless Americans.

    1. Unemployment benefits and food stamps will prevent riots, perhaps. There will be some pressure to take pay cuts next, or reduced hours at work….furloughs. But don’t expect anything substantively for the middle or lower class….just look at the current watered down health care reform package….which, in fairness, hasn’t yet been finalized and I’m getting mixed messages on.

  13. There. Get you angry?

    Well then, take a deep breath before clicking on the link below, if you want to read the Denver Post’s article about attorney David Lane, who has defended those folks:

    http://www.denverpost.com/ci_1…

    Plenty of people hate him. Lane doesn’t care.

    He sees his work as the highest possible calling – fighting for the U.S. Constitution.

    “The personal issue of ‘do I like a client, do I not like a client,’ is meaningless,” Lane said. “I happen to like Ward Churchill a lot. But I like the First Amendment better than I like anybody. That’s what it’s about.

    “I’ve represented Nazis. I’ve represented communists. I’ve represented atheists. I’ve represented religious fanatics. I’ve represented Satan worshipers, conservatives, Democrats. Even my friends said, ‘You represented Douglas Bruce, and that’s a little too far.’ I represent the Constitution of the United States of America.”

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Gabe Evans
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!

Colorado Pols