Friday Open Thread

“Whatever can be noted historically can be found within history.”

–Martin Heidegger

58 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. Zappatero says:

    The Wall Street Journal has become the domain of the know-nothing, anti-intellectual, hyper-political right since being taken over by Aussie Rupert Murdoch.

    They attack everything the EPA does anymore (in collusion with local hacks like C. Coffman), doing the bidding of Charles and David Koch, trying to make sure big energy can drill, drill, drill with little regard for health of the environment or the health of the citizens.

    If it's good for the 1%, it's good enough for the Wall Street Journal.

    • davebarnes says:

      I will give "Mr. Cox is the editor in chief of the peer-reviewed journal Risk Analysis and on the faculty of the University of Colorado School of Public Health. His Denver-based company, Cox Associates, develops and applies causal analyses for improving health outcomes." his point: reducing ozone may not reduce asthma problems.

      But, I will not accept the implied statement that reducing pollution is bad for the economy.

      I, for one, do not miss the brown cloud.

      What we have is mining and power companies in denial and fighting mode. This was how the auto industry was for decades. Remember when they fought against the 3rd brake light? Belatedly, around 2010, they woke up and said: you make the rules and we will find a way to comply. A 100% reversal of attitude. It only took them 40 years to reach that point.

    • slavdude says:

      Wait, I thought their editorial page was always like that.

      In all fairness, their straight reporting used to be pretty good.

  2. MichaelBowman says:

    Some Friday levity for the group.  If you're not following @nexttokimdavis on Twitter you're missing out on some of the best tweets on the intertubes.  #youcantfixstupid

    • notaskinnycook says:

      I've been following this saga since about February. Michael, did you see that she was arrested by marshals? She's up on federal contempt charges. Her days as clerk are over. And did you see? gofundme changed its policies? They will no longer allow accounts for people charged with discrimination, among other prohibitions.

      • MichaelBowman says:

        I saw that, skinny.  GREAT news.  All of these faux-Christian, 'persecuted' hucksters are going to have to find a new gig!  I did see in one of her tweets that mama was getting a new bass boat – let's hope that weren't counting on crowdfunding to pay it off.  I imagine a book deal is imminent – and there'll be more than enough sheep goats in the flock to fall for that stunt and give this ignoramus a windfall. 

  3. Progressicat says:

    For fans of the Jeffco school board recall, a little hitch in your giddyup

    A letter from the Secretary of State’s office sent after business hours, however, casts some doubt on whether the recall could be part of the regular mail-in ballot.

    The letter, sent about 5:30 p.m., asks the clerk to provide the state with a plan on how the clerk’s office will address ballots to those in the military. Those ballots must go out by mid-September, which is problematic because candidates running to replace the recall targets have until Sept. 28 to turn in petitions with at least 50 valid signatures needed to make the ballot.

    • slavdude says:

      I’m suspicious of the timing, especially with our current SOS.

      • slavdude says:

        Hey Pols, we need an Edit button.

        To continue, slightly OT for this response:

        My brother teaches in Jeffco. The new union contract gives him a whole extra 30 dollars a month.

    • Progressicat says:

      OK, this seems to be "resolved"

      The Jeffco clerk will mail two ballots to those [overseas] voters. The first, which will be sent 45 days before the Nov. 3 election, will contain statewide ballot questions. The second, which must be sent 22 days before the Nov. 3 election, will contain the county’s ballot language including the recall question

      but

      Ballot printing errors are one potential problem. Another: a conflict between state statute and the state constitution regarding candidates to replace recall targets Ken Witt, Julie Williams and John Newkirk.

      State statute says residents who want to replace the school board members can petition to be on the ballot up to 15 days before the mail-in ballots must be sent to voters in October. However, the state constitution says residents have 15 days before the election day — which is technically Nov. 3 — to petition on to the ballot.

      If someone tried to enter the race under the constitution’s timeline, that could trigger a legal challenge. That could send both the recall and regular election spiraling into chaos, Staiert said.

      Oy?

      • BlueCat says:

        Sounds like it's going to get done. 

      • mamajama55 says:

        Deja fricking vu. I thought this had been fixed with SB 158. The military voter issue has been fixed with allowing overseas military voters to submit voted ballots via email. But the stupid successor candidate issue can still bollix things up, apparently.

        It would have to be an independent or third party candidate petitioning to be on the ballot close to the election date. Or maybe not, since school board elections are, in theory at least, nonpartisan, and anyone of either party can petition to be on the ballot.

        If someone does that, it will cost the county $500,000. There's a platform of conservative fiscal responsibility.

        The successor candidates all got their petitions in with the required number of signatures long ago, I think it was on the very day that the recall petition signatures were certified. So that's not an issue.

         

        • I think SB 158 says that "election day" for the purpose of recalls is 15 days prior to the first day of early voting, or the first day that ballots are accepted for returns, or something like that.

          • mamajama55 says:

            You're right. SB158 Section 1.12.100.5 (3.5) says that "election day" is  the first day

            ON WHICH RECALL BALLOTS ARE TO BE MADE AVAILABLE TO ELIGIBLE ELECTORS AT VOTER SERVICE AND POLLING CENTERS PURSUANT TO THE ELECTION PLAN APPROVED UNDER SECTION 1-12-114 AND MAY BE ACCEPTED FOR PROCESSING BY A DESIGNATED ELECTION OFFICIAL

             

            SB158 Section 7 (4) provides that recall questions must be included on the general election mail ballot:

            (4) A USED IN THIS SECTION,AND FOR PURPOSES OF ARTICLE XXI 24 OF THE STATE CONSTITUTION,"PART OF SAID GENERAL ELECTION" MEANS THE INCLUSION OF THE QUESTIONS OF BOTH THE RECALL OF AN INCUMBENT AND THE ELECTION OF THE INCUMBENT'S SUCCESSOR ON MAIL BALLOTS THAT ARE EITHER SENT BY MAIL OR IF REQUESTED BY THE ELECTOR AS PERMITTED BY LAW OR IF EXPRESSLY REQUIRED BY STATUTE DELIVERED IN PERSON FROM THE BEGINNING DATE OF MAIL VOTING FOR THE GENERAL ELECTION THROUGH THE END OF SUCH VOTING

            An earlier section 7b provides for the Secretary of State to approve or disapprove of a "mail ballot plan" for this election, but also says that he/she can use "ONLY THE SAME STANDARDS USED TO EVALUATE AND APPROVE OF MAIL BALLOT PLANS TRANSMITTED UNDER SECTION 1-7.5-105."

            So I think that Secretary Williams, and Deputy Staiert were using SoS authority to approve a mail ballot plan, but will be ultimately unsuccessful. Staiert was always SoS Gessler's tool in voter suppression and like shenanigans – she hasn't changed her partisan loyalties at all.

            SOS Press Secretary Lyn Bartels, we need your acerbic and reality-based reporting ASAP!

  4. Gadfly says:

    The Jeffco recall is possibly the hottest fight for public education now going on — organizers have been nothing short of brilliant in bringing together a massive coalition.

    My questions:  Where are the Democrats for Education Reform in this?  Where is Senator Michael Johnston who loves to wax poetic about improving schools?  When there is a real fight they are revealed to be nothing more than bloviating blowhards. 

  5. BlueCat says:

    Just made my daily Bennet call and found out that moments ago Bennet announced support for the Iran deal. They'll be so happy not to hear from me for a while.

  6. Colorado Pols says:

    Sorry for the server problems this morning, folks, we got hit with a high load and had to reboot. Let us know if things seem amiss today, like every day.

  7. BlueCat says:

    Well you're back More on the latest Iran deal count:

    Bennet yes

    http://www.tri-cityherald.com/news/politics-government/article33942570.html

    http://www.coloradoindependent.com/155171/littwin-why-bennet-has-slogged-toward-announcing-support-for-the-iran-nuclear-deal

    Cardin no

    http://www.politico.com/story/2015/09/cardin-says-he-is-a-no-on-iran-deal-213347

    That makes 38 for the deal with five left. 3 to go to take the need for veto off the table The remaining undecideds are :

    Blumenthal, Cantwell, Manchin, Peters, and Widen.

    Why do I have the feeling that Bennet already knew that 41 couldn't be reached with or without him before he stood up preserving his position of not making a difference? Hope I'm wrong. I can see 3 of the remaining going yes, especially Widen. Also read yesterday that it's possible R Susan Collins would support the deal but highly unlikely, especially if that would make it 41. Bad enough for GOP that they couldn't get the count to override a veto. Not even having the chance to get it to Obama's desk would be the perfect in your face comeuppance.

    • BlueCat says:

      Took two tries. First time I got the robot thing again but without the code so couldn't proceed. Logged out, back in and it worked.

      • BlueCat says:

        OK just got it again. Logged out and in. Here goes.

      • BlueCat says:

        By the way. Voting to support might not mean going along with filibuster (41) for everyone. Even if Manchin supports he has strongly suggested he wouldn't go along with a filibuster.  If so at least 42 with Manchin the only one  refusing to filibuster would be necessary to avoid the need for a veto. Still, getting so well past the 34 to hold on to a veto will be even more embarrassing to GOP leadership than just barely making it. Just a week or so ago McConnell was still boasting that they had enough to override. I suppose for those getting the most pressure to oppose, supporting but not joining a filibuster might seem like a way to split the difference and appease the opposition lobbies a little. Hope this doesn't sound like a bright idea to Bennet. 

        • FrankUnderwood says:

          What's the big deal about maintaining a filibuster? People are sick of its use and abuse by both parties. Granted, the GOP started it but people don't care about that at this point.

          I say let the constitutional process play. Maybe the public will like it (if any of them pay attention). Let the Republicans pass them damn resolution of disapproval, let Obama veto it, and let the vote on the override go forward. I certainly want him to get as many votes as he can to sustain the veto but at least our side won't be accused of playing the filibuster game. And the fix is in – he has enough votes to sustain.

          Isn't that what happened with Keystone? And as I understand it, Keystone is just as dead from a sustained veto as it would have been by a maintained filibuster.

          • BlueCat says:

            You have a very good and honorable point but it would be sweet to hand the GOP as abject a defeat as possible. I'd love to see them go from bragging about having the votes they need to override a veto to not even being able to get it to the President's desk. Less than altruistic? Vindictive? Of course. But I never claimed to be Mother Teresa and the Republicans have been first class SOBs from the moment Obama won the election.  I'm sure I ought to be above a simple desire to twist the knife, Frank, but… what can I say? I'm not. I do respect you  for being a bigger a person than I am.

            Oh and it also makes a stronger showing to our allies. 34 votes to sustain a veto would have been enough but could have left them pretty nervous about the close call next time they join us in negotiating. 

  8. MichaelBowman says:

    Some light reading for concern troll MB4CO and the AG's office.  Coal is in it's final hours – and nothing is going to bring it back.  It's mathematics and geology driving its demise – not the CPP.  

    Coal Companies Are Dying While Their Execs Grab More Cash

    In case the shutdown of hundreds of coal plants wasn't a sufficient indicator of the industry collapse, here's another clue: coal companies' rapidly deteriorating bottom lines.

    To be clear, there's no evidence of anything criminal happening here. But you can include this trend in the pantheon of corporate executives getting rewarded for their companies' bad performance. Even the world's best CEO probably wouldn't be able to save these corporations—the fact is, the American coal market is disappearing and isn't coming back. But, Anderson argues, if these execs were truly interested in fixing their business models, they could have invested in alternative forms of energy, such as gas or renewables. "The smart thing," according to Anderson, "would have been to diversify their portfolio so they wouldn't be so vulnerable."

  9. yameniye says:

    Lots to do this holiday weekend. 

    Happy Labor Day.  Solidarity

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account


You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.