“Any man may easily do harm, but not every man can do good to another.”
–Plato
You must be logged in to post a comment.
BY: coloradosane
IN: Thursday Open Thread
BY: Duke Cox
IN: Wednesday Open Thread
BY: coloradosane
IN: Wednesday Open Thread
BY: coloradosane
IN: Wednesday Open Thread
BY: coloradosane
IN: So You Like Meat, Do You? Ready To Slaughter It Yourself?
BY: kwtree
IN: So You Like Meat, Do You? Ready To Slaughter It Yourself?
BY: JeffcoBlue
IN: So You Like Meat, Do You? Ready To Slaughter It Yourself?
BY: Ben Folds5
IN: So You Like Meat, Do You? Ready To Slaughter It Yourself?
BY: bullshit!
IN: So You Like Meat, Do You? Ready To Slaughter It Yourself?
BY: harrydoby
IN: Wednesday Open Thread
Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!
that support civil unions: may the force be with you.
To Frank McNulty: Show the citizens of this state you have the courage to be Speaker in more than name only. You aren’t the Majority Leader; you are Speaker of the full House of Representatives. Allow for an up or down vote on a civil union bill.
look for it to die in committee
McNulty is a gutless wonder and has undoubtably dug his heals in concrete.
Civil unions will pass, either now or next Spring. And while it’s sad to ask the GLBT community to wait yet another year, at least the latter option carries some side benefits.
I think he’s fixing the committees to ensure it doesn’t pass. He’s a fucking fool and about as politically un-savvy as they come for pandering to the fringe in his Party.
http://andrewsullivan.thedaily…
CBS also released a poll over the week end showing the President’s at “a new low of 41%” job approval.
I’m worried that the young vote, so very crucial in this election, is not going to turn out in the monster numbers they did in ’08.
The Democrats need the really smart people in the Campaign to come up with the connection, in ad’s and youtube spots, of voting a pure Democratic ticket in national and local elections, to getting things done.
The words “republican” and “discrimintation” need to mean the same thing.
For those of us that have fought the red menace since Selma, the Civil Rights Act, and George Wallace it’s obvious, but we need to remember young people don’t have the same frame of reference we do.
When LBJ told Bill Moyers “We’ve lost the South”, upon signing the Civil Rights Act, he was right.
Now we need to show “the south” and “the base” for what they are……..old, petty, scared, small, and bitter.
Young people might not know history like we do, but they know hate when they see it.
Money quote:
If the election were held today, Obama would win the veteran vote by as much as seven points over Romney, higher than his margin in the general population.
http://www.reuters.com/article…
The Romneybot campaign has no veteran or military issues to speak of (either on the campaign trail or on their website) because he’s already conceded the demographic to Obama. His constant hooting and shrieking for war with Iran, in some insane attempt to out-scream the other hawks in the GOP Clowncar have already turned off the one demo that Repubs used to count on.
Combine this with the Romneybot’s support of cutting $11 billion from VA spending, and it’s pretty certain that he loses the veteran vote this fall by double-digits.
from one returning vet who said he appreciated the way President Obama handled Libya…”no boots on the ground”.
But I was dismayed at the comments which followed. Lots of vitriol about Obama. I wondered how many of the comments were from vets and how many from trolls.
And the graphs sure portray a mixed bag in regards to support for progressive politics.
Of course, vets are no more a monolithic “community” than gays, African Americans or others, but I do feel that there’s been a turnaround: Military folks are no longer a lock for Repubs. Citizens (and the troops are citizens; need we be reminded?) will, I think, choose butter over guns. Eventually. Obama must be given the opportunity to make the opportunity of butter available again, for vets and all other Americans.
As an aside, I saw a report today (somewhere — I’m both too pooped from gardening and a long day to go back and reference it, sorry) that the Obama folks have finally wakened to the opportunity to woo vets (aside from Michelle’s and Mrs. Biden’s work with vet families). Given his record and obvious sincerity, it’s a fertile field.
Hey, here’s a thought: Obama’s the “First Gay President”? Hell, he’s the “First Vet President” in a heck of a long time.
We’re clearly in a tipping point on this issue. That alone probably makes it a winner, and at worse a tie.
But with Obama’s announcement we’ve had a giant discussion on this topic throughout the country. And that discussion will accelerate the switch on this issue.
By November any Republican in a competitive district will be shouting that they were always in favor of Gay Marriage. And Romney will bring up his grandparents to show he supports alternative marriage arrangements. (Ok, that last one may not happen.)
The Legislature is about to pass a bill that makes it a DUI if you have a level of THC in your blood that is not tied to driving impairment.
Maybe you say, “I don’t smoke pot, so why should I care?”
What if I said they should lower the alcohol limit to 0.0001 while they are at it? Now, what do you think?
But then again I would probably support criminalizing all forms of driving while we’re at it.
Wayne’s World 20 years on.
You shouldn’t be driving drunk (even a little bit), and you shouldn’t be driving high. I don’t care how important you think your busy stoner schedule is; find the time to take a bus if you’re intoxicated. You’ll get no sympathy from me on this.
I agree, no one should be driving drunk, stoned, distracted by cell phones, senile, etc. if it can be proven to actually impair one’s ability to drive.
Plenty of studies have documented the effects of driving while intoxicated leading to an objective standard that can be applied. That hasn’t happened with the pot DUI bill. I’m simply asking that the science be done before criminal penalties are legislated.
Don’t make me ask for legislation making it illegal to be driving while fat since you’ve admitted to excessive potato chip munching.
And the current classification of cannabis at the federal level makes it almost impossible to get permission to use it in research, so the data available are limited. Meanwhile, pot smokers may or may not be endangering lives on the road. There’s also currently no legitimate test to measure whether or not someone is currently intoxicated as a result of THC consumption.
This is legitimately a really tough problem to solve, but I come down on the side of “don’t legislate punishment before defining the crime in scientifically sound terms.” Many people whose primary concern is safety do not agree with me.
of any penalty based on a blood test. It is entirely possible to test COMPETENCY. It is the only thing we should test. Humans are individuals, and respond to all stimulants or intoxicants in varying degrees.
One should NEVER drive impaired…no question. But who is to say what that is? The trained officer standing in front of you, or a chemistry test?
I don’t carry a breathalyzer with me…do you? I have to use judgement to determine my competency. There should be no mercy for driving drunk or wasted…but those conditions should be determined by competency tests…not chemistry tests.
THC will be present in the body long after any apparent effects have worn off. For somebody who is legally authorized to imbibe marijuana for medical reasons, it seems pretty draconian to require that they refrain for perhaps a couple of days before any necessary driving to something like a doctor’s appointment.
Since our marijuana law is based around medical use, it seems particularly cruel to target legitimate users without a sound basis that balances medical necessity with safety.
is going to be the basis of the first challenge of the law by the ACLU, I’m sure.
with more of the baby boomers money.
Need to generate more penalties to insure continued growth in the industry. They will “soon” publish studies confirming the need for more penalties.
But empty.
First order of business is to introduce bills. No bills yet, so nothing is calendared.
Committee assignments? No big pronouncements?
http://coloradoga.granicus.com…
House and Senate both in recess.
Senate is in recess waiting for bills, will reconvene for read-across of bills, committees will meet at 1:30 to act on any bills introduced, Senate will reconvene at 3:00 for Second Reading of bills that come out of committee.
House is in recess until 11:00 until all bills are introduced, no announcement of other schedule.
All I got was that Nikkel and Beezley are staying put.
The cracks about the Other Place’s scheduling were a bit rich, considering the circumstances.
for two members that are excused today.
… like the notorious State/Veterans’ Affairs?
http://www.mysanantonio.com/ne…
As they say “reality has a well-know liberal bias.”
The computers in my office have the audio disabled so I can not listen to what is goibng on.
Can someone please post or tweet to CP when the civil unions bill is assigned a committe?
It is being introduced into the house first this time.
Thanks!
Assigned to State Affairs.
Committee will meet at 1:00
Becker will continue on State Affairs, no other changes to committee memberships.
I thought I heard 1:00. My bad.
Am I looking at the wrong committee?
Who McNulty removed late last session allegedly because he thought Liston was a pain in the ass.
Becker hijacked the bill to make it harder to amend the constitution and amended it to the point that the sponsor killed it.
See:
http://www.denverpost.com/brea…
http://blogs.denverpost.com/th…
Follow along here as McNulty either shocks us all with rationality or validates cynicism with a dirty trick.