President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump

80%

20%↓

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

90%

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

(D) Joe Neguse*

90%

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

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

(R) Ron Hanks

40%

30%

20%

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

(R) Lauren Boebert

(R) J. Sonnenberg

(R) Ted Harvey

20%↑

15%↑

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Dave Williams

(R) Jeff Crank

(R) Doug Bruce

20%

20%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

90%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) Brittany Pettersen

85%↑

 

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

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

(R) Janak Joshi

60%↑

40%↑

20%↑

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
November 14, 2011 04:32 PM UTC

Monday Open Thread

  • 101 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

“Hear reason, or she’ll make you feel her.”

–Benjamin Franklin

Comments

101 thoughts on “Monday Open Thread

    1. Here’s another tidbit:

      If you could impress one thing on young people today, what would it be?

      That adults are not all they’re cracked up to be. And most of them are wrong most of the time. This can be quite revelatory for a kid – often launching them on a personal quest of exploration, rather than of Q&A sessions with their parents.

      1. A space elevator puts all of the solar system in reach. What’s so incredibly expensive about going to space is leaving Earth’s gravity well. This reduces that cost to almost nothing.

        But take the most mundane one listed above, a plate that knows what you are eating. Yes teen girls will use it to auto-tweet their meal, which is an incredibly mundane use of technology. But it can also be used to auto-record what you are eating to help you have a balanced meal plan and stick to a reasonable diet. Immediate feedback is gigantic in accomplishing difficult goals. This could help people live healthier lives.

  1. It’s being reported that PA Judge Leslie Dutchcot granted child rapist Sandusky

    unsecured bail — prosecutors sought half-mil & a monitor but judge reduced it to $100k and then made it unsecured. Basically child rapist Sandusky walked in-and-out of the courthouse and has no conditions on release.  

    Even more egregious is that judge Dutchcot  is a volunteer for Sandusky’s charity.  She doesn’t feel it in anyway necessary to recuse herself?  Wow – that’s ugly.

  2. Figure over the next 10 years we’ll get to the point that not only does just about everyone have an eBook (including young children), but what you get in an electronic book will be so far beyond paper that printed books will go away.

    Libraries will still have some utility, providing public access to the Internet for the few that don’t have it and community meeting rooms. But the ROI to society on that will be substantially less than the budgets we presently put into libraries.

    We do still need them today. But looking forward, they are going to go away and we should look at when/how we wind that down and what we do, if anything, to provide the other services that you presently get from a library.

        1. You’re accusing me of being a Luddite when we’re having this conversation on a blog while I type on my laptop? Can they look up Red Herring too?

              1. It’s understanding that much of the technological change we see does make it’s way to everyone, even the poor. In addition, as libraries fall into disuse, I think the tax dollars that go to libraries could better serve the poor elsewhere.

                1. which will presumably trickle down?

                  Look, I know you don’t actively despise the poor, but our political institutions are run by people who do. If funding for libraries gets cut, where else do you think it will go? I think it will go to tax cuts for the rich.

                  Besides, as some have hinted, libraries are not just for poor people. Story time at the library with sxp152 is one of the highlights of the week for us, and the library has plenty of other community activities that wouldn’t be replaced if funding dried up.

                  Besides, I don’t see the libraries becoming irrelevant like CD stores mostly have. Bookstores are still around, for example. I think the reason music went completely online is that it’s easy to hear a bit of a song online and see if you like something. With books it’s the opposite; you really can’t get a sense of how much you like an unknown book unless you can pick it up and browse through it, maybe sit in the store for half an hour reading the first chapter, etc. I think the library is very similar.

                  1. you really can’t get a sense of how much you like an unknown book unless you can pick it up and browse through it, maybe sit in the store for half an hour reading the first chapter, etc.

                    I download the first part for free, read that when I get the time, then buy it if I like it.

                    ps – I have lots of fond memories of the library too, both with my kids and going there myself. But I don’t see it continuing to be viable.

                    1. but you haven’t proposed anything to replace libraries. Are you planning to give away Kindles or whatever to kids in school? And how are people supposed to read books they don’t want to buy? (Like kids who read lots of books, or who need them for reports.)

                      You say people can just buy an e-reader like they buy a TV, but there are two big differences: first, reading is more effort than watching TV, so if they’re equally expensive it will just encourage people to read even less (in the same way that junk food is much cheaper than fresh food). Second, once you buy a TV you in principle have a bunch of content for free, while with all models of e-books I’m aware of you have to pay for each book individually. That also encourages people to read less.

                      Destroying the libraries is a bad idea. Why have you suddenly decided it’s necessary and inevitable, and why have you not spent a few minutes thinking about the consequences?

                    2. And when a change is going to occur, it’s better to plan around it than just let it happen and play catch-up.

                      As I posted below, I think subsidizing eBooks for the poor like we do phone service makes a lot of sense. And we can then set up free lending of titles.

                      There’s a lot of things we can do to mitigate the bad consequences of declining library use. But the sooner we start thinking about it, and figuring our what/when to do it, the better we can address this.

                    3. has certain insights and conclusions that have bearing on this discussion:

                      http://www.energybulletin.net/

                      From the article:

                      I frequently disagree with Sharon, but I do find some points of agreement on this question of the informal economy.  My sense of the likeliest evolution of society in coming decades is that global economic capitalism will persist but that it become more efficient by continuing to become more automated.  Thus it will be able to serve the interests of economic and cultural elites while requiring fewer resources (particularly oil) because it will increasingly not require the services of, or serve the interests of, the masses.  I’ve written on a number of occasions of how I think one of the earliest symptoms of the gradual approach of the “singularity” is the continued lowering of the US male employment/population ratio9

                      This is one of the more insightful articles I’ve read regarding what a prolonged slowdown in the economy might look like.

                      This “singularity” discussion is also worth looking into.

                    4. I would phrase it a bit differently, we’re entering an era where a subset of working age people can produce the goods needed by everyone. And capitalism is not designed to handle that situation. Craigslist eliminated over 100,000 jobs (both selling/printing classified ads and funding news people) and they employ 27 people.

                      This is why I think fixing education is so important. We will eventually figure out jobs to replace those jobs that have gone away. But the new jobs will almost certainly require a college level education, innovative thinking, etc.

            1. I like the Kindle too. E-Books area great.  But they ARE NOT a substitute for public libraries.  I guess (according to some) that means I’m a Luddite…?

            2. in the not-too-distant future, Kindles will cost less than books. And managing a collection of e-books will be cheaper than managing a collection of physical books.

              So why not a library model of checking out Kindles and e-media, rather than warehousing books?

              I don’t think this will work for all books and all media, but it would cover probably over 90% of a library collection.  

                  1. But they still stamp the in/out card in the book. More importantly the books don’t need to have their batteries charged to be read.

                    Like I said above in a response to Dave, if and when it becomes cheaper (or when book publishers stop printing books) then it might be conceivable. But I don’t think the future is as near as we’d like it to be. At the very least, eReader ownership needs to be above 12%.

                    1. One advantage for eBooks in libraries, is that they can’t be lost. And if they’re too late overdue, the “rights” expire, and become available to the next waiting patron.

                      When my kids want to read a popular book, it’s frequently lost or overdue. I just buy it (typically used, online). Once read, I donate it to the library. If they can’t use it, they’ll sell it.

    1. We will not get to a point in the next 10 years where everyone has an eBook, only the middle class or rich will have them. But that’s the only people who matter. Libraries will be shut down not because they are no longer needed, but because middle class people no longer see it in their own interest. “I’ve got mine and devil take the hindmost.”

      For someone who can express this idea much more fully and eloquently than I can:

      Seanan McGuire, Across the Digital Divide

      1. we won’t have to encounter the unwashed.

        I hope libraries don’t go away in my lifetime. Our local library offers reading groups for kids that have very large participation. I love the tangible feeling of a book-book, turning pages, etc.

        1. They are already busily shutting the libraries in Aurora and one of primary reasons I live in Denver rather than Aurora is the library system. Also being centrally located so no matter what job I get it is not terribly far away, but libraries are a big bonus for me. And not just for books, I watch most of my TV shows and movies through checking out discs from the library.

          If it were not around I would make due or do without. Probably a lot of doing without in the case of movies and TV, but I surely appreciate the opportunity.

        1. Television is a terrible analogy of technological pervasiveness. A better example might have been music, where major labels have been thinking about doing away with the compact disc format, which will probably put music stores out of business (using your own example of B&N, I went into one the other day and there isn’t a music section anymore.) If and when book publishers decide to stop printing books, then maybe it will be a smart idea to rethink libraries.

          we will soon approach the point where everyone who wants to read has one.

          No, we won’t, at least not for a very long time. As Matthew’s post showed, there are people who can barely afford used paperbacks now, and certainly rely on libraries for a lot more than internet use. It also said that only 80% of people have access to the internet, which is a requirement for eReaders. So, unless you’re saying that only the middle class and above want to read, then you’re just wrong.

          B&N may stop selling books, but again, it will only be when publishing companies stop using paper as a format for publishing them. You’re trying to impose your upper middle class world view on public libraries. I’m surprised you’re not suggesting getting rid of RTD because why doesn’t everyone just drive their BMWs and Nissan Leafs?

          1. I asked when do we start winding them down. Absolutely we need libraries today. And even when paper books go away, I pointed out there are other services libraries provide.

            But saying nothing’s going to change and leave libraries as they are makes no sense. Paper books are going away. And there are advantages to electronic books, even for the poor.

            As to what level of use we need from eBooks – under 50%

            1. Already kids, for instance, spend too much time ‘interacting’ electronically and not in real life.  In most countries there are public spaces that are used, regularly, by all aspects of the public.  Our nation already lacks that, in large degree.  

              And–in many places–when the ‘wrong’ people show up in the few such that we do have (you know, like homeless people) there is an effort (or at least an outcry) to ‘clean them up.’  Reducing these places further is a problem, IMO.  

              I think that as we diminish public institutions and public spaces we diminish our civic society.  I support libraries not only for what they provide(which, obviously, does need to adapt to changing demands, technologies, etc.) but also for what they represent.  

              1. But rather than retaining a declining public space, what if instead we figured out how to create some public spaces and institutions that will pull in increasing numbers of people. And redirect our tax money there?

                There’s got to be a better way to accomplish this. Society has changed a lot and so the most effective way to bring people together has certainly changed too.

                    1. My guess is if we didn’t have libraries, and Ben Franklin himself came back and proposed such, he’d be run out of the country as a communist.  If libraries are closed the money won’t go toward a better option IMO, (which I am still not convinced would be met by e-books) but to line some well-connected person’s pocket.  That’s the lesson I was referring too.

                      Congratulations for keeping your (unfounded?) optimism intact.  

                      Me, I’ll stick with defending what we have so we don’t lose that small bit of public institutions/space we have.  

                1. How about waiting until you can think of at least one new idea for such a space before eliminating one of the only places people currently have? If it’s easy to find a replacement, then do it. If it’s hard, maybe that’s why everyone has been opposing you on this.

                  Coffee shops didn’t disappear once caffeine pills were invented, bars didn’t disappear when liquor stores opened, town hall meetings didn’t disappear once email was invented, and stadiums didn’t disappear once games starting airing on TV. Humans still like social interaction and doing things in places where other people are.

    2. Suppose we burn all the hard copy books and then find out that the ionizing radiation from digital devices is making the whole world sterile??? Then what, smartie pants.

    3. Especially of a historical nature.

      White eReaders are fibne for current books, there generally are not e-version of older books except maybe some best sellers and classics.

      A lot of what I currently use a library for will likely never be in an ebook. The information may one day be available on-line, but having original source material is invaluable.

    4. I can go to a library for the amount of money it takes out of my taxes every year, which is relatively tiny.  They lend me stuff for free.

      If I buy an eReader, I get to pay B&N or Amazon if I want modern content, either a pretty hefty subscription (i.e. Prime) or a price that’s usually as high as the dead tree edition to “purchase” it.  What I get is a locked up file that becomes a bunch of useless bits if the company goes away or decides to stop supporting the format.

      My library gives me (and a bunch of people who can’t afford it nearly so well as I can) free access to books both old and new, including books that are so local and rare that Project Gutenberg and Google Books will likely never come to digitize them.

      I won’t dispute “death of the library system”, but it won’t be due to fully realized electronic access – it will be because some people don’t look past their own fortunate circumstances to see the benefits of the library system offered to others.

      1. . . . . it will be because some people don’t look past their own fortunate circumstances to see the benefits of the [  ] system offered to others.

        . . . “fuck ’em, I got mine.”

        1. If library usage drops dramatically, wouldn’t it make sense to start using that money elsewhere? My point is we should adapt as the world changes. I personally like libraries, I just don’t think they’re going to see much use 10 years from now.

          1. I mean, as more and more rich people move to e-books, why shouldn’t we just close down the libraries for the rest of everyone?

            Until you replace the service that a library serves, the best use of our tax dollars it so provide that service.

              1. What about middle-class kids whose parents don’t want to constantly buy new e-books for them? Are we OK with kids being actively discouraged from reading a lot? The library isn’t just for poor kids.

              2. In the end, eReaders will be a near non-expense.  Not now, perhaps, but in the not too distant future, I can foresee eReaders being extremely cheap as they merge with the tablet space.

                The problem is title availability.  Many publishers already don’t like the concept of libraries; they really like the idea of digital publishing because it gives them the fig leaf of “licensing” rather than right of first sale.  And eReader manufacturers don’t want the content they licensed from the publishers to be accessible on competitors’ readers because they lose the advantage of their reading device. (For example, Amazon’s Kindle Fire retails for a buck or two over the wholesale cost of its parts – they’re selling it at a loss and making it up on content.)

                So we are currently – and legally – in a world where publishers like DRM, device manufacturers like closed formats, and lending is done via a license agreement probably on a per-lend basis.  This is highly incompatible with the library concept, where a library gets a book at retail price, puts it on a shelf, and lends it out until it expires from overuse.

                This is probably a situation for Congress to remedy, and given the power of the various publishing lobbies, it isn’t likely to happen any time soon.  Until we get an open standard for eBooks and any ownership DRM associated to them, and a clear reassertion that publication content – books, movies, music, etc. – is sold and not licensed if it wishes to have Copyright protection, we will probably not have an effective replacement for libraries.  And considering how long we’ve known about this problem on the software side of the fence and had nothing done about it, I don’t expect a functional change any time soon.

        1. I can get hundreds of thousands of titles of out-of-copyright books in un-DRM’d ePub or PDF format.  But for-loan (i.e. DRM enabled) books in a format readable by all (or at least all major) readers, especially today’s bestsellers, are just not readily available at this time.

          1. In both Kindle and EPub formats.  Not so many Kindle at this time.

            And there’s the rub.  It won’t really catch on until there’s standardization, and Amazon has a vested interest in avoiding standardization.

  3. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) provides an Economic News Release asking executives to report the biggest reasons for layoffs.  The data from last weeks report shows that just about 0.4 percent of layoffs in Q3 2010 were due to “Govt regs.” It dropped even further in Q1-Q2 of 2011. Compare that to almost 35% of layoffs due to business demand.

    Related WashPo report: Does government

    regulation really kill jobs? Economists say overall effect minimal.

    “Based on the available literature, there’s not much evidence that EPA regulations are causing major job losses or major job gains,” Richard Morgenstern, a former Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) official who now works at the nonpartisan think tank Resources for the Future, told The Washington Post.

  4. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) provides an Economic News Release asking executives to report the biggest reasons for layoffs.  The data from last weeks report shows that just about 0.4 percent of layoffs in Q3 2010 were due to “Govt regs.” It dropped even further in Q1-Q2 of 2011. Compare that to almost 35% of layoffs due to business demand.

    Related WashPo report:  Does government

    regulation really kill jobs? Economists say overall effect minimal.

    “Based on the available literature, there’s not much evidence that EPA regulations are causing major job losses or major job gains,” Richard Morgenstern, a former Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) official who now works at the nonpartisan think tank Resources for the Future, told The Washington Post.

  5. I know, not news.

    Aurora Democrats mostly come from hard working class families and they are not at all like the Nancy Pelosi liberal Democrats of Denver and Boulder.

    From that paper.  Is this any kind of argument?

              1. to anyone in Coffman’s district other than the reactionary Teapublicans who are already going to support him?

                While his communications office might think this is a ‘good’ soundbite, I have my doubts it carry much weight with Is and Ds.  

                1. Does Coffman even known how to appeal to Us and Ds anymore? He’s been in such a tea party red meat feeding frenzy for so long, it’s probably hard for him to switch gears.

    1. I guess there’s supposed to be a hyphen in there, but I don’t see it working either way.

      Does he mean “working-class families” which are hard? Or does he mean “class families” who are hard-working?

      1. They’ve already run the gamut as far as candidates flaming out month-to-month and week-to-week. How long before they go back to Michelle Bachmann, or Tim Pawlenty decides he really didn’t mean to drop out after a meaningless non-binding straw poll.

            1. and then wasted it by opening her mouth.

              She had magazine covers and was all the Faux News rage for awhile but then when folks paid attention and her batshit lunacy became a bit of a detriment.

              Huntsman deserves a turn but he’s maybe too sane … too moderate … too Mormon? … not sure exactly but definitely just too “meh” to matter.

              Ron Paul needs/deserves/demands to be taken seriously but just like that bushy-eyebrowed perhaps demented third cousin once removed that you only see at funerals  he’s best left alone to his own thoughts.      

  6. Sen. Tom Coburn (Socialist, Oklahoma)

    “The income of the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans has risen dramatically over the last decade. Yet, the federal government lavishes these millionaires with billions of dollars in giveaways and tax breaks,” he wrote, referring to the growing income gap recently documented in stark fashion by the Congressional Budget Office.

    “The government’s social safety net, which has long existed to catch those who are down and help them get back up, is now being used as a hammock by some millionaires, some who are paying less taxes than average middle class families,” Coburn contended.

    1. $100 billion – amount given back to the rich via the capital gains tax rate.  (Assuming the capital gains rate of 15% and top marginal rate of 35%)

      Still, it’s shocking to hear Coburn – not generally known as a moderate – talk in such populist, ‘99%’ terms.

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

156 readers online now

Newsletter

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