President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Kamala Harris

(R) Donald Trump

80%↑

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) V. Archuleta

98%

2%

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

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Marshall Dawson

95%

5%

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

(R) Jeff Hurd

(D) Adam Frisch

52%↑

48%

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

(R) Lauren Boebert

(D) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(D) River Gassen

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) John Fabbricatore

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen

(R) Sergei Matveyuk

90%

10%

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

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

52%↑

48%↓

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
January 03, 2011 04:47 PM UTC

2011's First Open Thread

  • 145 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

“If we do not find anything pleasant, at least we shall find something new.”

–Voltaire

Tweet
Share

Comments

145 thoughts on “2011’s First Open Thread”

  1. (He’s been dead 100 years now, JO. It’s public domain….)

    Now is the accepted time to make your regular annual good resolutions. Next week you can begin paving hell with them as usual. Yesterday, everybody smoked his last cigar, took his last drink, and swore his last oath. Today, we are a pious and exemplary community. Thirty days from now, we shall have cast our reformation to the winds and gone to cutting our ancient shortcomings considerably shorter than ever.

    We shall also reflect pleasantly upon how we did the same old thing last year about this time. However, go in, community. New Year’s is a harmless annual institution, of no particular use to anybody save as a scapegoat for promiscuous drunks, and friendly calls, and humbug resolutions, and we wish you to enjoy it with a looseness suited to the greatness of the occasion.

    – Letter to Virginia City Territorial Enterprise, Jan. 1863

      1. he’s not eligible for arbitration until next year, and the Rockies have him under contract until 2015. This is the best time to get an extension done, though. If it doesn’t happen before he enters arbitration, it’s probably not in the cards.

        1. Tulo has tied up much of it, and there’s no guarantee that he won’t crash like Helton did (though thankfully he’s younger than Todd was when he got his monster contract IIRC).

          1. but if you look at his actual value versus contract value according Fangraphs.com he was only overpaid about $1.5 million a year during his big extension years. He actually performed extremely well during that time even though the Rockies were terrible.

            It’s always been about how much the Monforts are willing to spend. The percentage of contract Helton’s was only based on the total salary of the team–which was on about the same level as such amazing clubs as the Pirates. With Tulo and their reported offers to Gonzalez, it looks like they’re willing to invest more to try to keep their homegrown stars.

            If you want to talk about terrible ROI on Rockies contracts, the best example is Mike Hampton. Helton is always lumped in with that for some reason, but his numbers (not to mention his outstanding defense at 1st base) were so consistent for so long it’s not really as bad of a deal as it’s made out to be. He may have been somewhat of a salary albatross around the club’s neck for the past two years or so (2010 was certainly dreadful as far as individual offensive performance); he’s probably in, at best, his 2nd to last year in the majors; and his playing time will probably be diminished this year, but he’s still the best Rockies player ever and he deserves every dime he’s made in baseball.

            1. Or was Neagle’s ever worse? Both deals hamstrung the Rockies for a very long time.

              But, much as I love Helton, we’ve needed an upgrade at 1st for several years. (In this business, sentimental loyalty is a killer.) Probably his greatest contributions recently has been in the clubhouse.

              And let’s not be too down on the Monforts. The Rockies are a midmarket-to-smallmarket team, and it will never generate the revenue enjoyed by the Red Sox, Yankees, Mets, or even the Cubs, Dodgers or Phillies. And we need pitching. I love CarGo but we need Ubaldo more. Getting deals for both ain’t going to happen.

              1. is about as close as I can come to paying the Monforts a compliment. You’re right that the Rox are never going to be able to spend like a big market team, but there’s no reason they can’t become a smarter small-market team like the Twins.

                Not sure who’s more valuable between Ubaldo and CarGo because power pitchers have the tendency to blow out their arms, whereas outfielders play forever. Actually, So far CarGo has been more injury-prone than Ubaldo, but you’re right that you probably can’t keep both.

                    3. I’d love to see this confirmed, so far the Prophet and all the other sources are saying “Cargo’s publicist’s twitter account sez….”

      2. have signed Cargo! Yippee! 7 years for 80 mill but they say he could have done better, to the tune of 20 mill more, if he hadn’t really wanted to stay.  Now of course “settling” for a mere 80 mill isn’t an impressive sacrfice in itself (ha!) but a lot of players want the biggest bucks they can possibly get as an ego thing to prove something and it’s nice that Cargo prefers to stick with us than to prove how much he can get.

          1. It’s been a tough year.  We’re pretty broke and worried about finances. Some newly missing loved ones for the holidays. Maybe that’s why the Cargo news was enough to make me feel pretty euphoric. Now I’m going to go watch our Nuggets. Later.

      1. And it’s fun to see them up close when they practice. In the Cubs case, the Mesa stadium only seats around 13,000 people so it’s a small venue. I’m seriously thinking of heading down to see them play the Rockies in March, just to warm my bones a bit.  

        2. and that gave me a lifetime of up close with 13,000 fans, even if it was in a stadium with a 75,000 capacity. I prefer the big crowds and the games that mean something, I guess. (Also, I’m sad that they’re moving to suburban Phoenix. Tuscon is a much more interesting place.)

          1. I like being able to check out baseball players asses up close, while getting drunk and suntanned. Nobody looks better in a uniform than a baseball player. Nobody.  

      2. But it’s the first inkling of spring.  It beats the first robin by a solid month; the first hummingbirds by three months.

        It’s a milestone.  A sign that easier times are ahead.

        I can suppose you can call it spring fever if you want, but I reserve that for the first sun dress of the year.

      3. Real beer.

        Real sunshine.

        Real dogs.

        Real outguessing the manager.

        Real home runs.

        Real smart base running.

        Real talent showing out there.

        Real comradery among fellow fans.

        And all with palm trees peeking over the outfield fence. And the stat-o-meter is still reset at 000. I can’t wait to see the new field. Too bad my sister sold her house four blocks from Cubs field in Scottsdale. Bad timing (for me, at least).

        The proverbial “Next Year” is almost here. Thanks for the reminder, RSB.

    3. tomorrow will be better, Wednesday even better, and every day better and better until it’s here: the home opener. Ah, can Spring now be far behind?

  3. Please don’t forget to take into account the upcoming reduction in sales tax revenue. And this is a good thing, the way to grow the economy is to have people buy more, not less. Anyways, like it or not, sales tax will go down a lot because:

    1. People are spending more on services (not taxed) and less on goods.
    2. Digital sales are increasing (3D printers will soon be common) and it’s very easy to avoid sales tax on digital purchases.
    3. Online sales are ever increasing and again it’s somewhat easy to avoid sales tax on these purchases.
    4. Colorado’s sales tax system is so complex that out of state companies will ignore or avoid it.

    The state can pass a ton of laws about how out of states must comply and digital goods are included. But that doesn’t mean companies will comply. My company gets at least 1 letter a year from a governmental authority outside of Colorado telling us we need to get a sales tax license, collect sales tax, and remit to them. We just throw the letter out.

    1. … the way to grow the economy is to have people buy more, not less.

      Why do otherwise rational people proselytize that extracting, producing, buying, and disposing of more crap is intrinsically good?

      Do rational people really think that infinite growth is possible on a finite world?

      What would it take to get a rational person to entertain the possibility that this fervent adherence to the sacred Catechism of Our Lady of Perpetual Growth does more damage to children than any teachers’ union could ever hope to inflict?

      1. and if capitalism is unsustainable in the long term, it’s for this reason. It’s a point, as far as I know, that no free-market booster has an answer for – it’s one of the points where faith overtakes reason.

      2. Then the only route anyone has figured out toward full employment is for people to make, and others to buy, luxuries. Do we all need an iPhone or Droid? No. But if we all stick to just things that are truly essentials, our present system will spiral into even larger unemployment.

        I don’t think it’s so much infinite growth as expanding what people find as desirable. And the flip side is to reduce the needs such that there are only jobs for a small subset of the population.

        1. … our present system will spiral into even larger unemployment.

          Why focus our efforts tinkering around the edges of our present system?

          Why not work towards something that is actually beneficial for people and the life support systems that people NEED?

          Perhaps we can separate needs from wants and penalize those that produce doodads that merely fulfill marketing-induced wants?

          Then, after we’ve solved this problem (and destroyed teachers’ unions) we can promise to develop rewards for those that efficiently provide for actual needs?

          It seems pretty simple to me.

            2. There is a rational approach to population control based solely on attrition, not replacing the current population at all.

              And it fixes myriad problems, not just productive overcapacity. Maybe we should all just slow down on everything and stop being work-a-holics and shop-a-holics. Then we might get more in balance with the natural sustainable order of things…

              1. As the young people get older, they’re waiting to get married and have children because their drive for a career or because of other choices they make that result in them waiting until they’re older to start families.

                I would say the same thing is probably going to start happening here as well. Most of my friends are in their late 20s and they’re still single because they’re focused on their careers, or because of the changing nature of interpersonal relationships.

                That, and a lot of people simply can’t afford to have kids right now because they’re out of work. When the economy starts turning around, I would expect population growth to start increasing again, but I doubt we’ll see another baby boom for a long, long time.

                2. is I believe we are the only advanced industrialized nation with positive population growth, driven largely by immigration. Other nations around the globe are starting to deal with population stagnation or decline, most notably Japan and Russia. We are bucking that trand, but for how long?

                  And will the developing nations like China, India and Brazil see the benefit of reduced population growth rates or even reductions before they are swamped by the burgeoning populations?

        1. Based on my limited understanding, an “economy” that adheres to a belief in the sacredness of perpetual growth is not founded in the laws that actually govern our existence.

          This seems to be more apparent among those of us whose education is in ecology (i.e., the “economy of nature”) and less apparent to those whose education was in something called “economics.”

          I’m no expert,and I trust that there are always people who know way more than me. But, I’m not always able to discern the wheat from chaff since I do not have any formal training in “economics.”

          I am trying to learn why “growth is intrinsically good” is so obvious to some while I also question whether there is any actual evidence for this claim.

          1. It might or might not ultimately be good, but it certainly seems to me to be at the root of man’s nature.

            You’re being a little vague (and you’re usually not) but I think I understand what you’re trying to say.

            To me, the qualities of capitalism is deeply buried in our DNA, but that it’s not guaranteed that growth, or procreation, or wealth by definition are harmful to the ecology of the planet.

          2. if GDP stayed the same, it would mean declining GDP per capita as population increased.

            2) If GDP/capita stayed the same, it would mean …. well we don’t know for sure because the technological advances of the past century have given us some really cool things that are basically pretty cheap now that we’re past the start up.

            3) With no or even low growth, fractional reserve banking is a lot less fun profitable.

            1. GDP is an index of all economic activity summed up to make any exchange of money equal to “good.”

              So, heart attacks, asthma, oil spills, pipeline explosions, dam failures, war, etc are all things that result in exchanges of money and are therefore “positive” contributions to the GDP.

              But are they positive contributions to human well being?

              Concern about what may or may not happen to the GDP is focusing on what is familiar and easy to measure as opposed to what accurately measures what we are interested in.

              Kind of like insisting that since we know how to administer and score standardized tests, we therefore have the tool we need to fire teachers.

              Satisfying? Maybe if you don’t want to put in the effort of measuring what might actually be relevant and important.

              1. But I was answering a question on the modern American construct of economic progress based on GDP growth.  Not defending it nor advocating for that measure.

      5. Yes, you just have to pick the appropriate dimensions.

        I work for a company with almost 100,000 employees, earning $30-odd billion in revenue.  We don’t dig up anything, cut down anything or move stuff around.

        People download our products off the internet.

        As long as the population grows, GDP needs to at least keep pace to maintain the “standard of living”.

        People will always buy things they want as much as they will buy stuff they need. One man’s junk is another man’s treasure, and who’s to judge?  But buying wasteful physical products will get increasingly expensive (good ol’ Adam Smith’s Invisible Hand).  

        So we just need to advance in the direction of monetizing virtual products (like news via your iPhone instead of Dead Tree Editions) to sustain a growing GDP.

        As society advances, we actually need to get better at producing and consuming more energy, so we need to get better at taking less from non-renewable sources, and more from renewable ones.

        Can we support an infinite population?  Not in our lifetimes, but in a few hundred years, we might have a couple of options — virtual sentient personae, and the standard Sci-Fi solution: off-world colonization. Both requiring massive energy resources.

        Left completely unchecked, the population growth will be ultimately self-limiting, whether via famine, war and disease.

        But back to earthly issues — food, water, air and shelter for a rapidly rising population — we could wind up in our own version of Tokyo, eating Spam, drinking desalinized water and breathing through masks if we aren’t careful.

          1. Both Harry & David are claiming that infinite growth is possible on a finite world … as long as you “pick the appropriate dimensions?”

            Have either of you taken a biology class? If so, did you study unicorn anatomy?

            There are four dimensions appropriate to take into account when considering the needs of living organisms on this planet.

            Which combination of these four allow for infinite growth? Do you have any examples (from this planet)?

            Meanwhile, I’m having trouble believing this claim of yours Harry:

            We don’t dig up anything, cut down anything or move stuff around.

            You mean all these employees work without offices, without desks and chairs, without electronic devices, without electricity? Pretty amazing.  

            1. It depends on your use of the word infinite. I took Harry’s use of it to be used in the real-world context where you look at continuing levels of growth. (Note, if you look at it that way the monkeys never produce even a single paragraph of Shakespeare.)

              First off assume that population will continue to level off, and do so at a number that many find worrisomely high today but will be considered no big deal in 100 years. (I say that because our population today would have been considered impossible 200 years ago.)

              Then you look at what that “infinite” growth delivers to people. It doesn’t necessarily take more resources to get more. Many times it takes less. Software delivered today takes less resources but does more – so growth in deliverable and reduction in resources.

              So yes, I think we’ll so ongoing increases in what human beings get for a long time.

              1. no fancy definition needed. I am asking if you think it is possible for growth in consumption of natural resources can continue indefinitely (forever) on a finite planet.

                I’m not asking about population size. I’m not suggesting what the maximum amount of extraction is possible. I’m not implying that I have any special insight into what is the maximum “sustainable” rate of extraction.

                I think my question is quite straight forward and that the answer is obvious (given the restraints of the laws of physics as we currently understand them).

                Is it possible to consume increasingly greater quantities of natural resources forever (assuming we are forever confined to living on this one planet)?

            2. Yes, Ardy, since software is our product, the majority of raw materials we use is the stuff of pure thought.  The end product is mostly a stream of electrons.  I don’t even think you can order a hardcopy of our manuals.

              Most, if not all of the worldwide employees can work from home (or their smart phone) if they so choose.  Personally, I haven’t been to my office building in nearly a year, and my commute is zero.

              I don’t even have a physical workstation.  It’s a virtual machine dynamically carved out of a blade server somewhere in a data center with billions of times the compute power of the NASA computers that landed our astronauts on the moon, but consuming a fraction of the energy (the power drawn is demand-based — if demand is low, then it is capable of slowing it’s clock rate, shutting down the fans, etc, even hibernating if demand is zero).

              Do we have a zero carbon footprint? Of course not.  But by replacing the consumption of natural resources with electronic/virtual resources, we vastly increase the amount of “space” available to approach infinity in any practical sense of the term.

              1. … the majority of raw materials we use is the stuff of pure thought.

                But even if we pretend that it’s true, it’s completely irrelevant to my question.

                Can growth in consumption of natural resources continue indefinitely in a finite space?

                Arguing that some applications of technology allows for a reduction in the rate of growth of natural resource consumption misses the point.

                1. The issue is one of supporting a larger population via increasing the GDP.  Not “can we feed billions of new mouths by chopping down trees to keep warm, cloth ourselves in buffalo hides and get our food by driving wooly mammoths over cliffs?”

                  Obviously, natural resources are finite — I’m not arguing that.  Just that we need to use less of a natural resource when a virtual resource can take it’s place (powered by renewable sources).

                  We need to ensure that the rate of decline in finite resources is exceeded by the rate of decline in the amount used.  Where we seem to differ is in the belief that economic growth doesn’t, ipso facto, have to suffer.  

                  1. Clearly we seem to be missing each others’ points.

                    And given that my questions followed from David’s claim that

                    … the way to grow the economy is to have people buy more, not less. (emphasis added)

                    I think that you are trying to argue something quite different than what David proposed.

                    Given that people don’t eat or sleep under or clothe themselves with “virtual resources” I am completely unable to understand your point(s), and

                    Given that increasing the production of usable energy from renewable resources still requires an increase in the extraction of non-renewable natural resources, and

                    Given that it does not automatically follow that a reduction in the per capita rate of natural resource consumption leads to a reduction in the absolute rate of natural resource consumption, and

                    Given that the vast majority of the people on the planet will fight to increase their per capita resource consumption to inch closer to the American model, and

                    Given that we are agreed that natural resources are finite,

                    It follows, as obvious, that infinite growth is not possible.

                    I would follow that it is irresponsible, perhaps even dangerously provocative, to promote continued worship at the altar of Our Lady of Perpetual Growth. Even if the altar is virtual.

                    1. Ardy, I think where our views might converge is to the point that it would be irresponsible to continue on our current path of consuming our limited resources with inadequate thought for the consequences to the next generation.

                      Economics doesn’t care if the GDP growth happens because you built 10 million widgets and sold them for $1 or you found one sucker to pay $10 million for just one widget.

                      You and I care if those widgets are made from endangered animals or woods in a smoke-belching factory.  I happen to think shifting from heavy extractive industries (less coal and oil, more wind and solar) to lighter information-driven industries (Google, Facebook, Microsoft, etc) is just part of the adaptation to a lower carbon footprint.

                      My point is that throughout the eons, humanity’s “current” lifestyle has always  been unsustainable in the long run (thus the semi-joke about herding wooly mammoths off cliffs for food).  From Malthus to Club of Rome (hey, weren’t we supposed to be out of oil by the end of the 19th century?), reports of our civilization’s demise have been premature.

                      But will we stop building homes in-situ from lumber someday?  We better.  We’ll start using steel and concrete, or who knows, carbon fiber, pre-formed offsite?

                      We’ll adapt to rising populations with denser housing, more productive farming, recycling of water resources, and the odd catastrophe or pandemic.

                      But as we learn (usually too late) to preserve what we have, the inexorable need to grow our GDP (which is really just the aggregate of all our incomes) will still drive our government and private objectives.

                      That is in our DNA as LB might say.

                      BTW, not in our lifetime, but mining of the moon and asteroids changes the equation substantially regarding the ‘finite’ resource question.  We may be packed in here like sardines, but we’ll have all the 2,000 story highrises you’ll ever need 😉

                    2. I’m not interested in promoting this dystopian vision vs. some other one.

                      But, if we can’t even agree that the laws of physics apply to humans as well as to every other life form on this planet, then there is little possibility that we can even begin to evaluate possible paths forward.

                      On a different, but related topic, let’s not even get into promotion of the GDP as a measure of “goodness.” Promoting continued growth in the GDP is like promoting continuous weight gain in an individual.

                      Early on in the life of an individual, weight gain is something to be celebrated as an indicator of good health. But, at some point, continuous weight gain is seriously detrimental to the well-being of the individual.

                      On the other hand, heart attacks lead to gainful employment of a whole suite of highly skilled people. This contributes positively to the GDP. Is increasing the rate of heart attacks in the population thus an appropriate stimulus for the economy?

                      Instead of continually growing, mature productive adult humans get smarter. Perpetually increasing smartness is something I would promote. But this needs to be measured in some units other than pounds or kilograms.

                      Likewise, GDP has served its purpose. It may be time to consider some other measurement device if we are hooked on promoting “growth” as necessary and intrinsically good.

        2. One man’s junk is another man’s treasure, and who’s to judge?

          We are. We do it all the time. A century ago we judged oil as a resource critical to national security and promoted the appropriateness of government agencies fixing the price of domestically produced oil. The claim was this would reduce waste and increase security (and I’m not arguing with this) but it did mean higher prices for consumers in the U.S.

          (In the 1930’s oil production in OK & TX far outstripped demand and the cost to produce a barrel was much higher than the best market prices. Governors of both OK & TX ordered state militia and/or the National Guard to take control of the oil fields and shut down production until prices went up.)

          So, we can judge which doodads are subsidized and which should be fully paid for by those who consume them. Our form of government allows for this via “elections.” Well that and well paid lobbyists! Yeah, yeah, I’m naive … it’s actually mostly via the lobbying route!

          Oh, and we really need to consume less energy (otherwise we you are arguing for the physical impossibility of infinite growth on a finite planet).

    2. That’s a good corporate citizen. And when they haul you into court for failure to comply, you will have been on the record as saying “we just throw the letter out.”

      I guess it still surprises me to hear you espouse trickle down economics (lower taxes to increase revenues- “And this is a good thing, the way to grow the economy is to have people buy more, not less” as though sales taxes are the cause of our woes)?

      You really are a Reagan Republican, aren’t you?

      1. But what I would like to see is income taxes increased and sales taxes eliminated. Sales taxes are regressive and high overhead. Income taxes are progressive and low overhead.

        As to getting those letters, when I get a request from Italy should I then spend 10K in legal fees to cover the costs of filing there? When instead that money can go toward hiring another person in Colorado?

        I’m not saying don’t tax. I’m saying it needs to be made clear and simple. Complexity, obfuscation, and high overhead benefit no one.

  5. …I’ll have to try and swing it back to humor:

    House Democrats Forced To Move All Their Things Back Into Disgusting Minority Locker Room

    WASHINGTON-Suffering their greatest indignity since losing their majority in the midterm elections, House Democrats were forced this week to move all their personal belongings back into the filthy and dilapidated minority locker room, disgusted representatives confirmed Monday.

    http://www.theonion.com/articl…

  6. The English are feeling the pinch in relation to recent terrorist threats, and have therefore raised their security level from “Miffed” to “Peeved”.  Soon, though, security levels may be raised yet again to “Irritated” or even “A Bit Cross”.  The English have not been “A Bit Cross” since the blitz in 1940, when tea supplies nearly ran out.  Terrorists have been re-categorized from “Tiresome” to “A Bloody Nuisance”.  The last time the British issued a “Bloody Nuisance” warning level was in 1588, when threatened by the Spanish Armada.

    The Scots have raised their threat level from “Pissed Off” to “Let’s get the Bastards”.  They don’t have any other levels.  This is the reason they have been used on the front line of the British army for the last 300 years.

    Italy has increased the alert level from “Shout Loudly and Excitedly” to “Elaborate Military Posturing”.  Two more levels remain: “Ineffective Combat Operations” and “Change Sides”.

    The Germans have increased their alert state from “Disdainful Arrogance” to “Dress in Uniform and Sing Marching Songs”.  They also have two higher levels: “Invade a Neighbor” and “Lose”.

    Belgians, on the other hand, are all on holiday as usual; the only threat they are worried about is NATO pulling out of Brussels .

    The Spanish are all excited to see their new submarines ready to deploy.  These beautifully designed subs have glass bottoms so the new Spanish navy can get a really good look at the old Spanish navy.

    Americans, meanwhile, are carrying out pre-emptive strikes on all of their allies “just in case”.

  7. But Hickenlooper just named Reeves Brown as Director of Department of Local Affairs.

    This is good. Very good.

    Reeves understands the issues that DOLA must deal with and has been successful in managing Club 20 for years. Some may complain about his Republican ties, Reeves has worked with both Democritic and Republican counties and municipalities for many years.

    He will be an outspoken proponent of keeping local severance tax dollars where they belong, at the local level, and will be a strong advocate for rural Colorado – won’t you Reeves?!

              1. I checked your previous posts looking for substance and couldn’t find any, so I may have overstated the “stupidest thing” comment. But it was still pretty fucking stupid anyway.

                1. You have no problem with appointing someone totally biased toward unions to be the head of a government agency that enforces labor law?

                  If not, I understand, but it’s not “stupid” that you feel that way. Just different than me.

                  Do you realize how condescending you sound with that comment?

                  1. I realize in the Right-Wing-O-Verse, appointing paid bitches of Private Industry to Government positions is the perfect way to run a country, but appointing Pro-Union advocates to Gov’t positions are the quickest way to unleash Gog and Magog from their sealed crypts beneath the Earth’s Crust?

                    Can you feel teh crazee pumping thru your veins?

                    1. and one’s ‘To-Do’ list, is A-OK for the GOP, as Mr. Issa so poignantly demonstrates.

                    2. His appointment is a fart in the wind to appointing someone who’s basically a Communist to run Labor.

                      It’s a disaster.  An absolute disaster, and also very un Hick-like.  

                    3. Well, at least you went with Communist instead of douchebag. That’s a step in the right direction, I guess. 🙂

                    4. I would never use that word!

                      🙂

                      And it’s totally inappropriate, I’m sure she’s a fine person, just a Communistic one.

                    5. “Hick HATES Labor unions, just wait and see what happens when he gets into office….”

                      Wait and see indeed…

                    6. I’m totally shocked.  I feel like I just found out my girlfriend was cheating on me.

                      I’m seriously so pissed about this I can’t see straight.  Ugh.

                    7. You should get a grip then. Everything you believe about Hickenlooper viewing the economy as priority #1 can be true, and he can still want a strong advocate for labor running the Dept. of Labor.

                      All this requires is for you to get over your irrational, reflexive, unjustified, cliche-based loathing of unions.

                    8. And I mean this in a non-shitty way, but every ounce of my being can see what incredible damage Labor is doing this country, along with the good things they do.  In particular, public employee unions, whose existence is counterintuitive to successful government, IMO.

                      Did you know 80 cents of every dollar taken in by California goes to State labor?  It’s completely unsustainable.

                      What’s the solution for that?

                    9. …yes, there needs to be a mega-restructuring of State pension plans. And you can hoot all you want about State employees being overpaid, they still took a job with the understanding that they’d get a pension as part of the salary.

                      Is it something like the Fed Employee’s Thrift Savings Plan? I’d like to have an adult conversation about it, but not with someone who shrieks about the Evil of Unions like they’re in a slasher flick…

                    10. so what? if the majority of the services California delivers require labor (meaning human toil) to deliver them, that that sounds about right. Unless you have some infatile futuristic fantasty that roads get built by robots I don’t really know what your complain is here.

                      I am fairly certain that in most labor intensive industries in the developed world that you’ll find similar expense ratios, things like construction, ship building, etc. These things don’t happen by magic.

                  2. I would expect to have a strong advocate for labor. that’s what the department is supposed to represent. It’s not the Chamber of Commerce. I find it shocking that anyone would think there should be anything other than a strong unionist or equivalently strong pro-labor advocate runnign that department frankly. Labor needs as strong a seat at the table as any other interest group, especially as business interests will be more than well represented already.

      2. he can advocate all he wants but it won’t be his venue. I’m pleased since he understands the oil and gas taxing revenue streams. Previous directors had to learn the complexities from scratch and local governments were hurt because of it.

              1. I’ve never met the CoPoster Ms. Bacall, but her wit and moderation always appealed to me. Plus she once said I was the nicest person on this blog, and when a lady says that it shows she has great taste of character.

                The real Lauren Bacall is awesome and beautiful and one of my favorite old time Hollywood actresses.

                So, naturally, I’m much warmer to someone named Lauren Bacall, than I would, say, to someone named after a stodgy, dry, dead Greek philosopher. 🙂

  8. It looks like following the conservative cut everything to the bone model may not work that well after all. From TPM

    This month the state’s part-time legislature goes back into session, and the state is starting at potentially a $25 billion deficit on a two-year budget of around $95 billion. That’s enormous. And there’s not much fat to cut. The whole budget is basically education and healthcare spending. Cutting everything else wouldn’t do the trick. And though raising this kind of money would be easy on an economy of $1.2 trillion, the new GOP mega-majority in Congress is firmly against raising any revenue.

      1. It looks like they have all their Somalian bases covered, actually.

        The whole budget is basically education and healthcare spending.

        Two things liberals have ruined and made unsustainable, even in Texas.  Bravo!

        1. Or, the wonders of 0% state income tax at work. It’s amazing how all of that revenue is just pouring in since tax cuts create an increase in revenue.

          1. Washington state has zero state income tax and I’ve seen charts showing that the resulting sales taxes make it one of the most regressive states in the union as far as the burden on the poor goes.

        2. So the GOP being firmly in charge all decade is the liberals’ fault?

          The dangers of being dogmatic, LB, is that they lead you to say kind of stupid things sometimes.

            2. what are we talking about? Texas? Or Austin?

              My recollection is that Texas has had a ‘pub in the Governor’s mansion since 1994 and GOP majorities in both chambers for about as long – especially after their notorious gerrymandering earlier this decade. Plenty of time to take care of education and health spending.

              Go ahead. Show us how it’s still the liberals’ fault. I’m begging you.

              1. And you know it.

                🙂

                When were the laws enacted that buried Texas with Medicaid and Education expenses?

                I do seem to remember a Johnson character who went on to wage a completely ineffective and expensive “war on poverty”.

                1. On that note…

                  So the poor elected GOP officials just couldn’t change the law? After being in power for how long? Maybe teabaggers in that state ought to ask them why they’ve been pulling their puds for the past ten years.

                  1. A lot of that going on down there.

                    Did you hear about the longhorn that moved to Norman,OK?

                    It raised the IQ in both States.

                    B’dump CH!  Thank you, thank you!

                    1. In the meantime, I’ll take Texas GOP inaction on this as more signs that they don’t actually care about reforming that stuff as they do about talking about it for the sake of votes.

    4. There go all the textbooks they rewrote. And the idiots that rewrote them. Wait. Texas? Education? I’m surprised there’s anything there to cut.  

      1. I already find there’s far, far too many Texans for my taste everytime I visit in Mexico.

        Why ruin an otherwise beautiful country with a bunch of dumb yahoos?

        (I say let’s just build a wall around the whole fucking place, post cameras every ten yards on the wall, and broadcast it on TNT as this Universe’s largest cage match. — last man or woman standing gets a brisket.)

        1. Just think of the possibilities!  The state of Chihuahua, not exactly a top tourism destination, could annex Texas and then pass a whole bunch of state level anti-gringo legislation like spanish-only-everything, literacy tests, Mexican history tests, etc.  

          They could have idividualized citizenship requirements for especially odious people.  For example, they could make Tom DeLay do a Mariachi-meets-Dancing-With-The-Stars mashup and post it on YouTube, then read the user comments out loud (translating to Spanish as he goes) to a stadium full of migrant workers and unemployed people.

          The U.S. and Mexico would probably both be cool with building a fence around Texihuahua.

  9. I was trying to figure out what other states we might throw in and Oklahoma was the first one to come to mind.  I wouldn’t mind giving them Kansas too.

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

1,005 readers online now

Newsletter

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