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

50%

50%

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
June 13, 2009 03:41 PM UTC

Weekend Open Thread

  • 91 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

“Truth uttered before its time is always dangerous.”

–Mencius

Comments

91 thoughts on “Weekend Open Thread

  1. from Al Jazeera

    So this week, I will say that America has become a bank-owned state, allowing its banking oligarchs to suffocate the economy so they can survive at any price.

    As a development economist, what always made developing and poorer countries stand out was the level of inequality between individuals.



    Here too, a small percentage have the lion’s share of national income in their hands, while the rest of the population experience stagnant incomes, all within a democratic, rather than an authoritarian, political regime.

    1. Inequality of income and outcomes.

      From the “Great Compression” of incomes to the “Great Decompression” via Republican policies since RR.  And the “funny” thing is most Americans think that they have the opportunity to get rich, but they are getting screwed.  Not that it’s gone, but one’s opportunity is now far better in the EU.  Horatio Alger has moved to the Netherlands.  

      The Cons, and that is such an appropriate nickname, have Americans convinced that if anyone points out this inequality it is “Class Warfare.”  Of course it is!  But it is only a response to the Class Warfare perpetrated upon Joe Sixpack for 30 years.  

  2. also from Al Jazeera

    Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran’s president, has won a second term in office after a bitterly fought election, Iran’s interior ministry says.

    Ahmadinejad took 62.63 per cent of the vote, crushing Mir Hossein Mousavi, his main rival, who got just 33.75 per cent, according to results released on Saturday.

    The fact that many of us may dislike the results does not change the fact that Iran clearly has a very vibrant Democracy in place. (It’s not like we always elect the better candidate.)

    1. Form over substance. So long as the Council of Experts holds sway, and the Supreme Leader exercises veto power over who can run for office, the best one can say is that Iran goes through the motions of elections to choose among pre-approved candidates who will have little real power to change the fundamental direction of the society. Democracy? Theocracy in Democracy’s clothing? Or a society clearly divided between embracing the 21st or the 9th centuries, where a sack of potatoes literally buys votes (whereas it would take arugula and maybe some Camembert to get my vote).

      That said, there may well be reason to wonder: Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, Ahmadinejad in Iran–and arguably, Likud in Israel. Is there a pattern here? And if so, where does the USofA fit into it?

      1. Where the Supreme Court (unelected, mostly appointed by Republican presidents) selected the winner.

        And where in our system the Courts can overturn any law.

        I’m not saying they are identical, but Iran does appear to have a somewhat democratic system. And one that is becoming more democratic in practice over time.

        1. Any system based on religious law…Sharia, bible, makes no difference…has at root the notion of theocracy. And since God/Allah/Yehovah doesn’t have a cell phone or Internet access, the interpretation of the holy intention is left to mere mortals. This at its heart is Iran.

          The US system, corrupt, frustrating, and impossible as it may often be, is based on the premise that “to secure these rights governments are instituted among me.” Missing words instituted by and among…

          Every aspect of US government–including, indirectly, SCOTUS justices– is subject to a vote of the people, however hard that may be to bring about (Constitutional amendments, for example). I don’t think that to be the case in Iran, and therein lies a big difference.

          1. They are a lot closer to our system than the Saudi system. And while they have their theocracy at the top, a vibrant democracy below it actually does limit in practice what the theocracy can get away with.

            1. But that said, one more try:

              Form: People to go polls periodically to choose between available candidates who, once in office, have varying degrees of authority.

              Substance: The governed (the people) are the source of authority versus Allah/God/Fairie Queen is the ultimate source of authority and elected “officials” operate within a narrow range of options laid out by those who claim to have a direct line to the Divine Ruler.

              The Saudi system is actually quite different. So far as I know, the Saudi monarch does not claim to have divine authority–just the agreement among the ruling Saud family that he should be king. Does the religious establishment in Saudi have a voice in selecting the next king? I don’t think so…but I could be wrong (unlikely, of course, but possible).

              1. about Saudi Arabia, also Yemen etc.  There was never any Bush freedom agenda where our oil allies were concerned nor could reform minded  groups pushing for more democracy ever count on US support prior to the Bush era. Fact is, we never met a dictatorship that either had oil or was anti-communist that we didn’t like just fine and have always been more than willing to help the dictators crush the reformers.  

                Our dear Arab friends in the region don’t even pretend to attempt to have anything like democratic systems so they don’t need to rig elections. Agree that Dave is taking his argument a bit far, though.

                1. The argument about promoting democracy is a mighty old piece of BS dating from when, the ’50s? And when democracies didn’t/don’t suit our purposes (e.g. Iran and Mossadegh, Guatemala and Guzman, Chile and Allende, Nicaragua and Ortega, the list goes on and on and on, including Palestine and Hamas–with apologies for upsetting Ray Springfield by introducing a nasty reality), Off with Their Heads (aka CIA Coup)!

                  My point, and where I disagree with David, is this: To the extent that a popular vote cannot change a system from top to bottom, it’s not a democracy; it’s something else, possibly Form sans Substance (FSS, pronounced BULL-shit).

                  In the case of Iran in 2009, no prospective presidential candidate who advocated an overthrow of the theocracy/Sharia and institution of a secular republic was or ould be allowed on the ballot. Not entirely unlike saying: Only conservative Republicans can run for president; we have a democratic choice among them. Is that “democracy”? I think not.

                  Moreover, echoing someone else hereabouts, nodding benignly at the FSS process, and suggesting this is some “form” of democracy superior to the What-You-See-Is-What-You-Get monarchy such as Saudi Arabia’s, gives the regime a certain legitimacy and/or free pass that it absolutely does not deserve.

                  I strongly suspect that if a secular candidate had been able to run for president of Iran, he/she would have been trounced. But since such a candidate was not on the ballot, and would not have been allowed on the ballot, the entire procedure was a sham.

                    1. Or at least a dramatic change brought about by an election process (and while we’re discussing democracy, let’s not forget anarchy as another option that seems to be raising its flag here). If the leading clerics start going at one another in a serious way, we may well see just how much power Ayatollah Khameini really has (while recalling this isn’t the first time we’ve seen dissent among them–after all, Moussavi himself was once in the inner circle). Nor have I read anything about the loyalties of the army versus the Revolutionary Guards. We’ll stay tuned. Certainly makes better TeeVee footage than Bush v. Gore!

                  1. But I do think that there are more young Iranians whose ranks will be growing and who offer hope that sometime in the future there can be positive changes in Iran.  

                    There is a history of looking to the west among the young and educated there (many of the Iranians living here today were western educated who fled the Islamic revolution) that may yet reassert itself.  

                    It won’t happen next week or create a secular state. Still, it could lead to a less restrictive more open state, with a  bit more political freedom, if as the aging leadership fades away they are replaced by others more open to a level of reform and improved international relations. But it  does have to be top down as well as bottom up  

                    The educated reform seekers get the most notice in the west,  but are they really a big enough bloc in any case? Could they have won in a completely legitimate election? This one probably wasn’t but it was probably more a case of an inflated win than stolen one.

                    As you say, the Ayatollas are in charge and don’t need to allow anyone with a chance of beating their choice to run. They apparently want to stick with Ahmedinejad for now. Those hoping for a big step forward in this election probably were seriously over-estimating the size of the western friendly reform minded demo and underestimating the Ayatollas. Thanks for reminding us that they get to pick who runs at all so how much change from the bottom up can there be?  

                    1. I was in Germany in 1956 and I remember the Hungarian Revolution..brief, bright spot before the Russian tanks rolled in….same thing happened 12 years later…Prague Spring….we have just celebrated the 20th anniversary of Tianamin

                      (sp?)_ Square….

                      revolutions against a strong arm government are real hard  unless the CIA or the KGB is involved…

                    2. It is a beautiful quote from MLK…I don’t think I got it quite right…

                      However, the issue here is not one’s own personal attitude, but correctly assessing what might be happening in Iran, so that one could rationally support our government’s response.

                    3. Still, I pause to wonder whether our perspective is not distorting our perceptions. Take, for example, China. Mighty big changes since the Cultural Revolution…but those changes have been limited to the realm of the economy and haven’t much affected politics (if at all), at least not as far as I see. Possible model for Iran, substituting Mullahs for the CCP?

                      If Ahmadinejad had been defeated (or was defeated, for those who insist) would it have been/was it due to a throbbing desire for democracy, Obama, and the American Way? Or could Iran’s economic downturn have had more to do with it? My sense is that the Islamic Revolution is more visible on the streets than behind the Front Doors of lots of Iranians…and maybe people can live with that.

                      Hell, I wonder what the outcome right here in the USA would have been last fall had we not been 11 months or so into a steep recession!  

              1. Very good point. It might have been stolen. It might also be that the intelligestia was all supporting him while the vast majority was happy with the way things are.

                But I still come back to the fact that with all it’s limitations it is still a vibrant political argument going on there which is much more than you see in most of the middle east.

                Democracy generally occurs in steps (we started with only white male property owners able to vote). I think what we see in Iran is reason for optimism.

      2. Your last paragraph especially rings true.

        By encouraging regimes in places where extremism runs rampant to hold elections, it has undoubtedly done more to legitimize them. Even if the way that they hold those elections is by the book democracy, it’s totally counter-intuitive to the goal of peace in the region.

        Unfortunately, by taking the foreign policy route of the New American Century (slogan: “Democratize or die… or both!”) for much of the past decade, we’ve done more to aid extremism in the middle east than any terrorist group could have done.

      3. you seem to be suggesting in your last paragraph that Ahmadinejad was elected. From the look of the news coming out of Iran, he wasn’t elected, democratically or otherwise. This election was stolen by him and his party and the fraud has been ordained by the Ayatollah.

        As to Mousavi being “pre-approved” (your words) what’s happening today in Iran, post election, seems to prove you wrong on that one, too.

        1. “Wrong on that one too.”

          Re: Pre-approved. All candidates running for president in Iran are approved by the Guardian Council before their names are put on the ballot. Same with candidates for parliament. Many would-be candidates, arguably most, are rejected and don’t appear on the ballot. (Vague recollection: over 100 people submitted forms to run for president in 2009. Could be mistaken about the details.) Pre-approved doesn’t mean “endorsed.” It does mean the candidates are regarded as being within an accepted (“approved”) range of opinion, and that distinctly does not include challenging the supremacy of Sharia.

          Re: Was Ahmadinejad elected? Moussavi is contesting the outcome. Juan Cole wonders about it, but there is also evidence that Cole may be wrong…e.g., pre-election opinion polls of Azerbaijan suggested Ahmadinejad was ahead, contrary to JC’s expectations. So far I’ve not read of any evidence of a large-scale vote fraud undertaken at the last minute–have you? Riots, protests, allegations, refusal to concede, disappointment, embarrassment, regime crack-down on post-election violence, shutting down Web sites, cell texting services, and urban protests–all true. That’s the news coming out of Iran. Evidence of fraud? None yet that I have seen. Moreover, my observation about what we might conclude about general trends in popular sentiment in the region included the victory in Gaza of Hamas in 2005, the same year Ahmadinejad was first elected, indisputably, to his first term in another election that pitted a relative liberal against a relative conservative (Ahmadinejad was the conservative in both cases).

          I seem to recall earlier arguments with you about facts on the ground–was it about copyright law? By all means, be contrarian, seek to prove me wrong..that’s what the blogosphere is for and about…but possibly not on matters of fact.

          1. not to reply, Jo. I mean, you could always get off your pretentious ass and actually do something constructive, for a real big change. For all your whining about the evil blogs and those that frequent them, you rack up more comments here daily than just about anyone else. If being a hypocrite was your big goal for 2009, consider it mission accomplished.

            As for evidence, I’d love to see what you have to offer to me that proves this was an election void of fraud. Please do provide me links, facts and multiple sources that are asserting this election was not tainted, from the get go.

            1. Prove that you didn’t rob a certain store six months ago–or even last night, after everyone else in your household, if any, was asleep.

              “Void of fraud?” Doesn’t work that way either! I couldn’t point to any election, anywhere, that was “void of fraud,” including elections in the USA. Whether the announced outcome in Iraq was contrary to the votes cast is a different question, and the burden of proof lies on those alleging fraud. So far, I haven’t seen any specifics on this, such as independent monitoring of polling stations that differs from official results. Was 2005 also fraudulent? That was the year Ahmadinejad had a very similar percentage of the vote, within a point or two. Maybe Western hopes for a renunciation of Ahmadinejad were simply misplaced.

              “Whining about the evil blogs and those who frequent them…?” Sole example is my objection to copy-and-paste practices by ColoradoPols and some others on this blog. Defenders of the practice who cited, e.g., HuffingtonPost as also doing so turned out to be wrong (“dead wrong” was the phrase I used); HPost doesn’t do that. (Ring familiar?) True, lots of posters on this blog–not to name any names–seem somewhat ill-informed to me, but they obviously don’t think that about themselves. That doesn’t make them “evil” exactly…but I’ll refrain from using available adjectives that I think are apropos. As for not replying to you, agreed–but don’t imagine it’s not because I have seen some light that appears only when one is in the middle of the road. Wanna make that reciprocal?

              1. Sole example my ass. You take bitching to a fine art. Whining? It’s your forte. Don’t downplay your strengths darling. It’s what makes you so very…you.

                Bitch on, sweetheart. Bitch on. Why do something constructive when you can do what you do best.

  3. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06

    The government, which is in the midst of a vicious, countrywide battle with the cartels, played a role in the newfound tranquillity by pouring soldiers into Nuevo Laredo, under President Felipe CalderГіn and his predecessor, Vicente Fox. They took up positions around the city and took over the police force, which was regarded as a corrupt adjunct of the cartels.

    But the army did not actually defeat the traffickers here by rounding them up and putting them out of business. Rather, law enforcement officials on both sides of the border say, a brutal, long-running turf war between rival cartels came to an end when one side, the Gulf Cartel, came out on top. The added presence of government troops made it harder for the rival Sinaloa Cartel to continue its quest to take over Gulf territory. But many of the most-wanted criminals responsible for the violence got away and continued their business trafficking drugs, in the shadows.

    1. The last significant “health care reform” was Medicare–essentially a single-payer, public health insurance plan for people over 65. That was, about, 40 years ago.

      From all appearances, some new bill will be passed in 2009. The stakes are high, since a re-reform isn’t likely even to be attempted for years, if not decades.

      The debate is horribly clouded by euphemisms: “socialized medicine,” “public health insurance,” and “single-payer” are basically versions of the same notion: a new, mandatory program to finance health care for everyone by collecting monthly fees linked to income, as opposed to the optional, one-fee-fits-all charged by private health insurers, whether paid by employers as untaxed wages or by individuals, largely unregulated, and available only to those who can afford it or who work for companies & institutions that can afford it.

      One of the largely unremarked implications of soaring unemployment: large numbers of people who lose their health insurance, at least temporarily. I suspect this number is now in the range of 50 million, or one out of six (roughly).

      It’s important for those who prefer the first option–which also implies a brake on and/or regulation of certain highly profitable sectors, notably Big Pharma–to make their opinions known–forcibly–to Udall, Bennett, and the Magnificant Seven from CO in the Lower Chamber. Our chance will not come again soon.

      And the time is NOW. A bill could well be law by October, taking time out for the mandatory Summer Break in August.

      1. if it comes up. He also thinks there is no way it will even come up in the Senate.

        But I think that means it is very likely he will support the public option. With that said, you are right that we do need to keep the pressure on the 2+7.

        1. I called Bennet’s Grand Junction office last week and told the staffer why a public option is important.

          They DO track calls, letters, emails, and faxes.

          Let your voice be heard–but, JO, it won’t be heard if your desires are only posted here.

        2. IF there is a “public option,” and IF doctors are required to accept patients covered by the public option plan [a mega-If, if not the main one], does that not quickly become tantamount to single payer?

          If private insurers want to compete w/ federal government, they’re free to do so, of course. But I suspect a public plan leads either to a federal monopoly or a series of imitations that offer some optional supplemental coverage, much like Medicare today. If this makes some folks happy, fine. But the main goal has been achieved…which I also believe to be the main reason some in the medical establishment and nearly all insurers are dead-set against the “public option” [in the knowledge that the public payment schedule will be THE payment schedule]. Instead of one-premium-fits-all the shoe will be put on the other foot: one-payment-schedule-fits-all. Ouch!

          I believe the overlooked or undervalued issue (not by anyone on this site, certainly, but perhaps by others) is the availability of a plan with premiums linked to income, not one-price-for-all. The other element coming up: required coverage for all. Not a graduated tax ’cause it’s called a premium, but otherwise bears a strong similarity.

          Unfortunately, I don’t know how to use email or USPS, so this is the only outlet for my opinions. Wish it were otherwise….

        3. If you support single payer, then the good news for you is “public choice” makes your dreams come true.  It will just take a few years.

          Ain’t no way private companies can compete with the government option.  Politicians will give the “public choice” (either government or a nonprofit) all kinds of breaks (subsidies, mandates price benefits, etc.) that coral more and more Americans into the “public choice” by making the private options unattractive in comparison.

          Count me against this scheme.

          Bottom line is, if the Obama/Democrat scheme comes true, we’ll be replacing large private insurers with a large government insurer.  Both are bad.  Why don’t we empower individuals and competition instead?  How about a true marketplace?  Individuals should be empowered, not big insurers (like right now) or big government (the Obama plan).

          1. “Empower individuals and competition… a true marketplace”. Nice talking points, and I’m sure they sound good to the GOP, but they are quite simply empty words.

            The Democrats are offering a solution. It’s expensive, and it’s the government, but it’s a solution. Our current system is totally unacceptable, and the Republican party is completely bereft of ideas.

            Why is it that Republicans are so incapable of offering specific policy ideas, and how much these things will cost. I have yet to see such a plan come from a Republican.

            Until you can come up with a legitimate alternative, your party will be taking a backseat in this discussion.

            1. HSAs were just one example of how it could work.  Get rid of the employment based tax exclusion and offer everyone a tax credit or a voucher.  Allow folks to buy plans across state lines.  This is very simple.  Similar proposals have been considered but most are blocked by the insurance lobby the big goverment folks in Congress.  That doesn’t mean it doesn’t work.

          2. Greed.

            Thirty percent overhead in underwriting, hugely bloated salaries, advertising, sales, etc.

            According to capitalist theory, shouldn’t they be the dinosaurs dying off?  Compare to 3% administrative burden on Medicare.  If private companies got down to near that, there wouldn’t even be this national conversation going on.

            How does such logic fail to overcome your ideology?  Don’t let facts get in my way, eh?  

            1. You just made the case.  Let’s get big organizations and government out of the business of running people’s health care and let people run their health care!

              1. The very nature of insurance means: we’ll share in the risk. So people get together and share the risk. Sometimes they form corporations to do it. Sometimes they form government units to do it. Latest twist: health cooperatives. Problem with those, as I see it, is that some people seem likely to be left out. For example, what about people with pre-existing conditions? People laid off from an employer who provided insurance; do they have some guarantee of admission to a “cooperative”?

                But I digress. No corporations. No government. “People run their health care.” Huh? “People” don’t run corporations? Don’t run the government? What do you mean???  

                1. The current system divorces consumers from the market and from their doctors because it is frequently first dollar coverage.  Many cadillac insurance plans aren’t really insurance plans at all.  They are pre-pay plans.  

                  Insurers cover just about everything.  They just mark it up to the consumer.

                  Insurance should be insurance.  It should be designed for catastrophic situations.  For routine expenses, let people deal directly with their doctor.  They should shop around and deal with any doctor they want, not only doctors insurers permit or only procedures the government authorizes.

                  1. My parents use any and every doctor they wish to. And in my opinion, “the government” is way too generous in what they do pay for. I’m astounded.  

                  2. How do you shop around for doctors when most aren’t taking new patients unless their health insurance policies measure up? It’s true, KK, at least over here on the Western Slope. If you call a doc’s office, you’re asked what insurance you have. If it passes that inspection, you get an appointment. If not, you’re told the practice isn’t accepting new patients.

                    So tell me again how this is competition?

                    1. That’s my point.  I’m not defending the current system.  It works against consumers.  But putting government in charge of everything would be equally bad, if not worse.

                    2. So tell us.  What’s your plan?

                      And in 100 words or less, please tell us how it is different than what we have now.

                      Be aware that telling us what a good job the private sector is doing is a non-starter.

                    3. Put consumers in charge of their decision making, not insurance companies or burueaucrats.

      2. …instead, the system should be based on TriCare. which is the only good thing to come from the Repubs stealing military retiree health care in the ’90s.

        The problem with Medicare/Medicaid is that they were based on the insurance and health care practices of the 50s/60s., Tricare and all of it’s varying levels of coverage, was written in the early 90s’,and is much more comprehensive and intelligent in it’s structure and function.

        More here:

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T

        If we want to emulate a country’s successful transition to a mixed public/private health caare system, then we should be copying the Netherlands:

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H

        1. How could we let this happen in the USofA? In our gun toting Army of One we are all free and independent?  This is socialized medicine!  

          Seems to work, eh?

          1. ….is the harsh determination that we need to cut off ALL funding to Medicare and Medicaid.

            Then I tell them that TriCare is funded thru the same funding mechanism, and that would cut off all of their retirement and family member health care.

            After watching their shocked expressions, I remind them that they’re all Socialists after all!

            1. You have to acknowledge that TRICARE beneficiaries generally fell they have earned their coverage but  Medicare recipients have not.

              So, yes, we’re all socialists (we Tricare beneficiaries) but most of us draw a smaller circle around our society.  

              Personally, I hope the “public option” or the gov’t option or whatever we end up calling it works exactly like Tricare with premiums, slightly larger deductibles, and if it is mandated that providers have to accept it, that Tricare is included.  (A lot of providers in CD6 hate Tricare recipients so much they have stopped accepting Tricare- even when I agree to pay the un-reimbursed portion.)

                1. it would be hard, if not impossible to cite a mood or prevalent attitude in right leaning or right wing vets.

                  But in my experience many of them feel that they earned Tricare by voluntarily putting on the uniform long enough to retire.  Conversely, so the position goes, we all pay taxes- even those of us in uniform.

                  I’ve also  heard these same vets express the belief that Medicare and other social programs should be limited to paying out to an individual  no more than they paid in.  

                  Personally- I think they are wrong. That every American should have health insurance something along the lines of Tricare.

  4. Originally my company was just me, with my wife doing the bookkeeping. And then I hired a salesperson. And then more… and more… and more…

    We had a board meeting last week and one of their major recomendations was that it’s time to split my job in two. And while I’m decent as a CEO, I’m really good as a CTO/VP Development.

    And so our COO is now CEO/President and I’m now CTO (and still the majority stock holder). I am posting this because I have argued points as the CEO of a company and while I’ll still say “my company” I wanted you to know the specifics of my position.

    Mostly I’m happy with the change and already seeing that we should have done this 6 – 12 months ago. But it is a bit of a pain as now when I make suggestions outside of development it carries even less weight.

    1. Board meetings are going to be interesting – you own the most equity, but are not responsible for running the day to day. So you could fire your boss if/when you need/want.

      But do it only if he’s hurting the value of your equity. If not- but you want to- then just sell the equity and start again.

      1. Top management there is two women and 1 guy (me). And it’s really on all 3 of us, and everyone else there, to make the company successful.

        Plus VP of Development is the best job in the world IMHO. That’s where you get to create products.

        1. Freeing talent from day to day issues is a good idea.

          Be the Chair of the Board so you can set the strategic direction and set goals to judge performance.  Then read the Balance Sheet and P&L closely, develop some quick ratios to see deterioration trends, and spend vast amount of your time developing.

          This could be the greatest move your company has ever made.  

          No more accounts receivable calls, no more employee handbook amendments, no more vouchers,…

  5. It’s goo to know that the City of Boulder does have money for critical public safety needs. From the Boulder Daily Camera

    Boulder Police Chief Mark Beckner said Thursday that his department plans to enforce state indecent-exposure laws during a planned Naked Bike Ride on Saturday.



    If an adult is convicted of indecent exposure, the misdemeanor carries a requirement to register as a sex offender, according to state law.

        1. Is Boulder is facing a serious budget shortfall. Yet they have money to go threaten people with being labeled a sex offender for what is a political event that causes no serious problems.

          Talk about screwed up priorities.

    1. Somehow every year I’ve managed to be here to see the ride, despite never knowing in advance when it was going to be. I think I have a special booby radar.

      This time I just saw four guys in underwear being followed by a cop.

      I think it was a mistake to announce in advance what they were going to do; if you’re going to be doing something illegal, make it a surprise.

      That said, one reason for the low turnout might have been the crappy weather. After all, in past years there were still a lot of people who rode without being fully nude, and it’s only illegal if you show your genitals.  

    1. there are extremists in the US who shold be considered high risk for acts of terror.

      Perhaps the right wing talkers could acknowledge that while their ratings (and rev) are way up since election day- that, in fact, DHS was on the right track.

      I don’t blame the NRA, I don’t even blame the Minutemen. These were ideological nut jobs with guns and motivation.  But I do blame the talk universe for inciting the nut jobs with guns.

      1. the NOW segment broadcast on June 12, 2009, about doctors providing abortion services, focusing especially on a doctor in Boulder (available online from PBS), wherein you can see Bill O’Reilly over and over and over denouncing Dr. George Tiller as a baby killer.

        The point virtually never mentioned in this discussions is the circumstances surrounding late-term abortions. One example: a pregnant woman is diagnosed with breast cancer and must choose between the pregnancy and starting chemo therapy. Another: the foetus is diagnosed as having anenchephaly (meaning: no brain has developed) and will surely die upon leaving the uterus.

        No one … repeat: NO ONE … waits until the third trimester to have an abortion for her “convenience.” This is inevitably a dreaded medical procedure to save a mother’s life, or under an equally compelling circumstance (anencephaly, for example). Yet, there is O’Reilly, over and over and over, saying: “For $5,000 Dr. Tiller will kill baby.”

        Terrorism always has deeper roots than the terrorists themselves.

  6. Now here’s a truly radical idea: City ailing, can’t support services for all them empty houses? Bulldoze ’em! Return land to Mother Nature. It’s in the Telegraph (courtesy HuffPost): http://www.telegraph.co.uk/fin… We’re talking Flint, Michigan, for a start, but it won’t stop there. No siree.

    So, lessee…. Passing the southern edge of Denver County we suddenly enter the newly ploughed Tancredo Wilderness Antelope Refuge, and shortly afterwards we’re in the Manitou High Plains Wilderness extending from the base of Monument Hill all the way to Walsenbuwrg. The U.S. Army bore most of the cost of the Manitou project five years after exhausting the potential of Colorado Springs as its world-famous Rockemsockem School of Tank Manoeuvres and Artillery Testing… Former residents mostly rejected offers of free Political Reeducation Training at Metro State College, preferring to migrate to Idaho….

    Other nominations? (No, not Boulder. The police chief promised to let the naked bike parade go on unimpeded next year….)

  7. I find Al Jazeera a great source in times like this because it is a better read on what people in the area see. I think they have the best read on what is happening (and vote fraud is not getting much play from them).

    But they have a great interview with Azar Nafisi that gives on reason for optimism.

    Iranian people took up opposition and used an open space to express what they want. Their vote was not just against [incumbent President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad but for what he stood for.



    In order to win Mousavi had taken up the progressive slogans, which he had previously fought against. I was there at the beginning of the Islamic Revolution when he was the Prime Minister, and implemented many of the repressive measures which he now denounces.



    Iranian women have really worked for their freedom this election. Look at their signature campaign – they choose a non-violent campaign to educate people inside and outside Iran about the country’s repressive laws.

  8. Remember the Third World? First there was the First World…that was us, the good ol’ USA, richest, most powerful, richest, leader of the Free World. Then there was the Second World…the Commies, the Reds, the Soviets, the Chinese, all those poor bastards. And finally the Third World. Mostly in Africa, in places we couldn’t exactly put our fingers on, with leaders named Bongo (died last week), living in thatched huts, tuning in on the village short-wave radio to hear the Sunday Mornin’ Witch Doctor Hour with Reverend Jimmy Dobsongo or whomever.

    Well, folks, seems the USA has joined the ranks of the Third World. No, no, not in your neighborhood, probably. You can still meet with your CEO and your CFO and put a few stock certificates on the wall to make a point subtly. Not to worry.

    Nor am I referring to oft remarked poor little bastards who are now waiting tables at restaurants in lower Manhattan where they used to eat lunch, back in the good ol’ days of ’06 and ’07, and ’08, and feeling awkward when some of their old colleagues saunter in for a midday repast (key question: do they tip well, or, you know, are times tight and all…?). We all understand that sales of foie gras are off, as are tickets behind home plate at Yankee Stadium(@$2,500 ea., per game).  Gallons of ink spilled covering the Decline and Fall.

    No, I’m referring to people who were already poor before the Great Recession, and are now even poorer. They’re Old News, I realize, that can’t compete for space on Page One with a beloved but now crushed ’69 Pontiac Firebird sitting under an Evergreen FD tanker truck (hey, people don’t want to read this depressing stuff, JO, don’t you get that?). I’m talking about Americans who can’t afford to fill their prescriptions and buy food, so choose the latter since that’s now, and if death stalks as a result, well, maybe it will come in the night, quiet, quick, easy. Ain’t nobody hungry in Paradise. Family members who ask if they can move in, just for awhile, you know, until things get better, so that there are now two families, 10 people in all, living in two bedrooms, not counting whoever is couch-surfing in the living room.

    I dare you to read Barbara Ehrenreich on this topic in today’s NYT (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/14/opinion/14ehrenreich.html) and then tell me again how it must be that Iranians, and Iraqis, and, well, just about everyone else, is now or soon will be rioting in the streets, demanding to emulate the USA, that other Third World Country in the Western Hemisphere. And remind me…before I forget again…how Capitalism is the best best system ever invented by mankind.

    [NOTE TO READERS: After passing the collection plate, we will pause to praise the Free Market. Please dig deep, drop in 50 bucks–a hundred if you can–to help our brothers spread The Word, then proceed to unroll your prayer rugs, get on your knees, close your eyes (that’s important!), and repeat after me: Dear God of White Capitalism, we thank Thee….]

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

111 readers online now

Newsletter

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