Squarestate - Front Page

What Colorado College Remediation Rates Tell Us about the Value of a DPS HS Diploma

JAFO — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 17:39:29 GMT

In 2011, 8.7% of Denver Public Schools' high school graduation pool was academically prepared for college when they entered.

This revelation comes in the wake of the release of the 2011 Legislative Report on Remedial Education. The report, released On February 7, 2012, and embargoed by the Lt. Governor's office until Caucus Day in Colorado, was produced by the Colorado Commission on Higher Education (CCHE). The report focuses on the numbers of students requiring one or more remedial classes upon entering either a 2- or 4-year institution of Higher Ed.
According to the CCHE report, 1,075 DPS students enrolled in a 2- or 4-year institution of higher education in Colorado in 2011. Of these, 672 students, or 58.9%, required one or more remedial classes.

This number is consistent with the percentage of students requiring remedial course work from DPS' class of 2010 (59%). Five years ago, DPS' graduating class of 2007 had a remediation rate of 56.5%, or 2.4 percentage points lower than this year's class.

According to the report, the percentage of first-time recent high school graduates students placed into remediation in at least one subject increased from the previous year (31.8 percent in 2010-11 from 28.6 percent in 2009-10). Students not requiring remediation have higher 1-year retention rates at both 2-year and 2-year institutions compared to students with remedial needs.

Only 21.4% of DPS graduates chose to enter a 2- or 4-year higher education institution in the state in 2011. Approximately 50% of all Colorado high school graduates enroll in a 2- or 4-year institution located in Colorado.

Denver Public Schools serves approximately 80,000 students in Denver County Colorado. DPS' mission is to "...to provide all students the opportunity to achieve the knowledge and skills necessary to become contributing citizens in our society."

DPS has been a particular focus of urban school reform initiatives over the past 5 years, when then Superintendent Michael Bennet released The Denver Plan. The plan has since been updated by Bennet's replacement, Tom Boasberg. Reforms outlined in The Denver Plan have focused on achieving better outcomes for Denver's students, in particular, creating students who are college ready upon high school graduation.

Recently, the Colorado Department of Education (CDE) released its 2011 high school graduation rates for school districts and high schools across Colorado. DPS' over all graduation rate was 56.1%. This rate was up from 51.8% in 2010 and 52% in 2007. In all, DPS had a graduation base of 5,008 students in 2011.

The following equation can be used to determine the percent of student's prepared for college based on a school district's graduation base: The number of DPS students entering college * (1 - The remediation rate)/The graduation base.

For DPS, this equation looks like this: 1,075 * 0.411/5008 = 8.7%.

DPS has been mum on the issue, other than Superintendent Boasberg's statement that the results are troubling.

The CCHE report did not include students attending college from Manual High School or Bruce Randolph because less than 25 students entered a 2- or 4- year institution. Manual had 90 students classified as seniors and Bruce Randolph had 80.

Bruce Randolph was mentioned in President Obama's State of the Union address in 2010 as being an example of how an urban school could turn around. According to Obama --

...after the first year of the school's transformation, the principal who made it possible wiped away tears when a student said "Thank you, Mrs. Waters, for showing ... that we are smart and we can make it."

During the address, Obama asserted that 87% of Bruce Randolph's graduates were accepted to college. Of these, no more than 30% chose to attend based on CCHE's exclusion of the school's remediation rates once students entered college.

The Howard Beale Index?

Jason Salzman — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 15:49:08 GMT

From one side of The Denver Post Wed., Political Editor Chuck Plunkett told me that The Post doesn't like to "cry in public about having a rough time getting someone to talk to us."

Then, from the darker side of The Post, Editorial Page Editor Curtis Hubbard, wrote on The Post's Spot blog, that he has a "hunch" that FOX 31's Eli Stokols' strategy of calling Mitt Romney out for avoiding the press in Colorado will pay off. Hubbard wrote:

Eli throws a bomb: I don't know that I've ever seen a reporter publicly criticize a campaign for their media strategy/declining interview requests. Fox 31′s Eli Stokols didn't hold back in his criticism of the Romney camp today. Just a hunch, but I bet his strategy pays off.

So I asked Hubbard, via email, why he didn't use Stokols' tactic, when he had Plunkett's job.
I also asked whether Hubbard expected more journalists to be inspired by Stokols and call out hiding politicians more often, and whether he'd give it a try himself, on the commentary page. Hubbard replied:

It's an interesting discussion, but my job (whether it was in the newsroom or in this position) is not to be a media critic. As the editorial page editor I certainly have more leeway to comment on media coverage, but I try to keep in mind that more of our readers care about news than how the sausage gets made.
I commented on Eli's post yesterday because, in my nearly 20 years in the news biz, I couldn't recall a reporter doing anything like it. Eli has demonstrated through his strong work on the beat that he shouldn't be ignored, so it's probably a pretty safe bet on his part. Then again, a thin-skinned campaign or a cut-throat competitor, might very well use it against him.

The trouble is, the line between the news and how it's made isn't so clear. In the case of Romney ignoring Denver journalists, the two are one and the same. It's a news story that Romney is ignoring the press in favor of conservative talk-radio hosts. (Or at least it deserves a mention in a news story.)

But my takeaway from Hubbard's blog post is that he thinks the tactic could work. I'd love to see him try it. (And if it backfired, I'd love to see The Post blow up the retribution.)

Hubbard (or Plunkett) could create a little chart showing which candidates actually take questions from journalists when they pass through town.

It could be called the "Howard Beale Index."

Each time the Howard Beale Index is updated, a short Eli-Stokols-type letter could be published.

If I'm a Post subscriber, and I am, I'd be proud of my newspaper for going after those candidates, and trying to hold them accountable publicly.

No More Deception in Colorado

Katie Fleming — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 17:58:03 GMT

I can pay a company to send out a robocall that tells voters Election Day is changed to a day later, when that’s not actually true. I can also pay someone to beat up my annoying neighbor. But just one of these morally reprehensible behaviors is illegal in Colorado.

I bet many of my friends are tired of hearing me talk about how important voting is, especially those friends who think this country is beyond repair. Voting is pointless, they say.

Blood has literally been shed and an untold number of lives have been lost to protect our right to vote. We’re still in a free society. It may be broken, but we still have the democratic infrastructure we need to overcome our problems together. Voting is one of those ways.

Right now, there is a bill in the Colorado Senate that would make it illegal to deceive voters about the time, place and manner of an election and our status as registered voters. This bill is something that could become law if enough Coloradans say they want it so. It’s our chance to leave a legacy of fairness in voting.

Sign the petition for Fairness in Voting: http://www.commoncause.org/CO/FairnessInVoting

Let’s make the men and women who have worked to forge, protect and expand our voting rights proud by leaving a legacy of equal access and opportunity.

Cross-posted at http://www.commonblog.com

2012: The War On Women's Bodies, and How To Respond Legislatively

peacemonger — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 16:35:18 GMT

Pro-zygote, anti-woman bills are being presented all across the nation, in an effort to awaken the evangelical Republican base before the election of 2012. Most of these bills have been written by, or championed via Personhood USA.

In Oklahoma, our not-so-distant neighbor, Senate Bill 1433 states a fetus "at every stage of development (has) all the rights, privileges, and immunities available to other persons, citizens, and residents of this state." If Senate Bill 1433 becomes a law, all forms of abortion and various forms of contraception could potentially be considered murder, and therefore illegal.

Democratic State Senator Constance Johnson, attempting to make a point, attached
an amendment to the Oklahoma bill that would ban the spilling of semen in any location other than a woman's vagina. Unfortunately, Senator Johnson then withdrew her amendment, which would have made masturbation illegal.

A like-minded State Senator, Democrat Jim Wilson, also added an amendment to the same bill, requiring the biological father of the child to be financially responsible for the mother's welfare during the entire pregnancy (put your money where your mouth is, conservatives!), including housing, utilities, food, transportation, and all medical care expenses. As you may have guessed, this amendment also failed.

A similar bill to Oklahoma SB 1433 was defeated at the polls in Mississippi in November, 2011. Clearly, the point still needs to be made, and not just in Oklahoma.

In CO, their strategy is a little different. Personhood USA is once again attempting to amend the Colorado constitution through a statewide initiative, similar to the earlier Amendment 62. Amendment 62, in a nutshell, said a fertilized egg is legally a separate and distinct human being, and aborting one is murder. We know from previous elections in Colorado, this initiative will probably not pass. Voters have resoundingly defeated similar bills twice.

Still, Coloradans are concerned about what is happening all over the country, and it is merely a matter of time before our state legislature will be handed an anti-choice bill here. According to NARAL Pro-Choice Colorado, which released a 2012 study of pending legislation all over the United States:

The report shows that states enacted more than twice as many anti-choice measures in 2011 as the previous year, and the legislative landscape could open the door to even more attacks in 2012.
"The findings in this report should spur every American who values freedom and privacy into action," Keenan said. "Last year, we predicted that our opponents would ignore the public's call to focus on the nation's immediate challenges, such as the economy. Sadly for women, our predictions came true at near-record levels. Lawmakers waged a War on Women, and as a result, women in many states will see more political interference in their personal, private medical decisions. In some cases, women could lose access to reproductive-health services they currently have."
Keenan said 26 states enacted 69 anti-choice measures in 2011, the second-highest number since the organization started tracking such data in 1995. The record is 70, set in 1999. Since 1995, states have enacted 713 anti-choice measures.
Keenan said two pro-choice governors, Mark Dayton of Minnesota (D) and Brian Schweitzer of Montana (D), vetoed anti-choice bills and kept 2011 from breaking the record for state-level attacks. NARAL Pro-Choice America dedicated the publication to these gubernatorial champions.
The outcome was quite different in other states. For instance, while former Gov. Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas (D) vetoed eight anti-choice bills over the course of her tenure, her successor, Gov. Sam Brownback (R), signed five anti-choice bills into law in his first year in office. Kansas tied with Arizona and Florida for enacting the most anti-choice measures this year.

Colorado needs to stand together to defeat the latest incarnation of Amendment 62, and be ready when the next pro-zygote bill is presented at the state legislature, as well. As a concerned citizen, I respectfully offer the following tips to our state legislators, when faced with a piece of anti-choice legislation.

Attach any of these as amendments: 1) The mother is allowed to claim the zygote as a dependent on her taxes, 2) Give the zygote a vote beginning with the next election, as interpreted by the mother (pray for twins ladies -- you'll get three votes), 3) Give the zygote the right to collect Social Security, food stamps, and other "entitlement" resources, 4) Give the zygote residential status beginning at conception, 5) Attach an amendment saying fathers owe child support beginning at conception.

The persistence of the evangelical right to strip women of their personal, private decisions regarding the health of their own bodies is not funny. Personhood USA, and its supporters, are incredibly persistent. As progressives, we need to also be persistent in protecting the rights of women everywhere. Sometimes, it takes a little humor, or a little shock-value, to wake some people up to the serious ramifications of ill-thought out legislation. In this regard, Colorado is at least as clever as her neighbors, is she not?

Do Americans Love Themselves Too Much?

Jack Van Ens — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 01:12:34 GMT

Americans like optimistic politicians. Towards the end of his presidency, Jimmy Carter in a TV address told the nation that mortgage rates approaching 20 percent and hostages imprisoned in Iran were symptomatic of our country hitting the skids. Headlines dubbed this forthright admission the "Malaise Speech." Ashen-faced Carter's dour expression matched his greying hair.

Along came an upbeat personality with thick dark hair and ruddy cheeks. Ronald Reagan, using biblical imagery, promised dispirited voters that we are a sparkling "...city set on a hill that cannot be hid" (Matthew 5:14). National spirit perked up. His sunny demeanor won him the White House in 1980.

During Reagan's presidency, Americans became giddy over how good they were. Historian Henry Steele Commager in his book The American Mind surveyed our country's past to discover what characteristics defined it. He described the #1 attribute that makes the American spirit soar. "As nature and experience justified optimism, the American was incurably optimistic," observed Commager.

"The American saw the present with the eye of the future: saw not the struggling, dusty town but the shining city, not the shabby shop but the throbbing factory, not the rutted roads but gleaming rails. In every barefoot boy he saw a future president or millionaire, and so the future belonged to his children, he lived in them, worked for them, and pampered them."

President Ronald Reagan personified this optimistic spirit. Jimmy Carter-the realist-didn't.

In June 1788, during Virginia's Ratification of the Constitution Convention, James Madison clashed with Tea Party favorite James Mason over the virtue and vice of its politicians. Madison sounded like Reagan. "I go on this great republican principle, that the people will have virtue and intelligence to select men of virtue and wisdom." Mason, who distrusted federal government and refused to sign the Constitution, contradicted Madison's sunny view of human nature. Congress, "like all other assemblies, will be composed of some bad and some good men; and considering the natural lust for power so inherent in Man," warned Mason, "I fear the thirst for power will prevail to oppress people."

Sounding like Madison and Reagan, Thomas Jefferson invested enormous confidence in citizens. He regarded the human spirit as primarily good, marred by occasional lapses into ignorance. Common folk using quality education, Jefferson believed, would achieve success at governing themselves, so much so that our nation could thrive with less government. It would shrink in direct proportion to educational reforms wise citizens made.

Commenting on Jefferson's hope for positive outcomes, historian Gordon S. Wood writes, "...Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson remained very optimistic; indeed, they thought that the natural harmony of society might even replace much of governmental authority itself. If only the natural tendencies of people to love and care for one another were allowed to flow freely, unclogged by the artificial interference of government, particularly monarchical government, the most optimistic republicans [in Jefferson's party] would prosper and hold itself together."

Thomas Paine reduced the need for government because he elevated citizens' basic goodness. "Society," wrote Paine "is produced by our wants and government by our wickedness." Society "promotes our happiness positively by uniting our affections," government "negatively by restraining our vices." Society "encourages intercourse," government "creates distinctions." Here's the Tea Party's charter for limited government.

Jefferson's presidency showed the effects of shrinking government. Sick of the artificial formality at George Washington's and John Adams' inaugurations when they rode in stately carriages, Jefferson humbly walked the inaugural route. Reminiscent of English kings, Washington and Adams delivered state messages to Congress. Jefferson, a lousy public speaker, submitted his speeches in writing to the legislature. He dressed casually, offending British leaders because he wore scuffed slippers at state dinners. Jefferson didn't reserve head chairs for important foreign ambassadors. He saluted the mythic Common Man who eschewed fancy government.

To the Tea Party loyalists' dismay who support a large military, Jefferson reduced troops to 3,000 men and 172 officers, mostly stationed in the West. If war came, he predicted stout-hearted citizens would join local militias and form a loosely connected army. In the build-up to the War of 1812, when President Jefferson had retired but his military policy hadn't, good citizens stayed home. British Redcoats torched Washington City.

Alexander Hamilton rejected Jefferson's optimism for lean government and confidence in Americans' goodness. He labeled such giddy optimism as "pernicious dreams." Hamilton branded ridiculous "the bewitching tenets of the illumined doctrine, which promises men emancipation from the burdens and restraints of government." Sarcastic Hamilton in 1802 chided Jefferson's assertion of human goodness as "a most visionary theory."

Hamilton was the realist with history on his side. We aren't basically generous, with greedy moments that education eradicates. We are motivated by self-interest with occasional bursts of sacrificial compassion. We need government's restraint, lest Wall Street's barons corrupt the U.S. and Washington's crooks cook the budget.

Theologian Reinhold Niebuhr declared the only Christian belief needing no proof is that we aren't all that good. It's self-evident. That's why our country needs robust government.

Reporter doubts he'll go "all Howard Beale" but his slam of Romney silent treatment is great anyway

Jason Salzman — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 21:39:50 GMT

One of the many things professional journalism needs to do to survive is fight back.

For example, as I've discussed before, when politicians slam the "media" or "The Denver Post," as having a liberal bias, reporters should ask them for the evidence, not act as if an insult has not been hurled at them.

And when political candidates like Mitt Romney slide into Colorado, take questions from friendly talk-show hosts, and slide away, journalists should call them out on it--so we are informed that a candidate is avoiding questions but also so we know that journalists are trying to do their jobs, to ask questions on our behalf.

You'd think most journalists would agree, but this doesn't seem to be the case. Otherwise you'd see more journalism, like the kind Fox 31's Eli Stokols produced today, in the form of an "Open Letter to Team Romney."
In the letter, Stokols wrote that Fox 31 had made numerous requests to interview Romney (Ding. Ding. A journalist doing his job.).

But, Stokols pointed out, Romney hadn't held a "media availability since Florida," giving Denver media the "silent treatment, "though Romney took "some questions from the media" in Colorado Springs.

You'd think someone campaigning to be leader of the free world could handle questions from local reporters, as, say, Rick Santorum did whenever we and our competitors approached him here over the past week.
Congratulations, though, on saving Gov. Romney the potential embarrassment that might have arisen from -- gasp! -- an unscripted moment.
That nightmarish scenario surely would have been worse than last night's -- going 0-for-3 because you couldn't even salvage a win in a state you should have owned.
But, listen, if -- if!!! -- you make it back here this fall, we'll still be here -- and hoping to talk.

Asked via email if he'd ever called out another candidate who's avoiding reporters, Stokols wrote:

No, I haven't Not quite so directly anyway. We're often pushing and prodding communications directors for sit-downs, for access, but I don't normally try to call them out publicly -- and, honestly, that's not why I wrote this piece. I framed it as a letter to Romney, although I wrote it to simply make a point about his strategy, not to antagonize the campaign into agreeing to an interview down the road.

I was disappointed to read that Stokols wasn't trying to "antagonize the campaign into agreeing to an interview," because he had every right to do so, toward Romney or any other candidate who acts the same way.

In fact, I had already shot off an email to Denver Post Political Editor Chuck Plunkett, asking if The Post would join Stokols in calling on Romney to talk to reporters. I wrote Plunkett again, saying he could ignore my question because Stokols' letter was meant as an analysis of Romney's strategy.

Still, I asked for Plunkett's thoughts on Stokols' letter and for an explanation of why The Post hadn't even reported that Romney wasn't taking questions in Colorado. Plunkett wrote:

It is more often the case that politicians don't make themselves available to the media when they swing through. Both sides of the divide love to ignore us, as they know risking a press avail risks having their answers made public, and most of them like to remain on script.
Here at The Post, we don't like to complain to our readers -- many of whom work demanding jobs -- about difficulties we encounter in doing our jobs (though sometimes we do complain!). We'd rather not cry in public about having a rough time getting someone to talk to us.
We here at The Post routinely seek chances to do interviews with those we cover, including the president and presidential candidates when they are in Colorado. Sometimes we get to do the interview, other times we don't.
It looks like Eli was being clever, and I enjoyed his post and its tongue-and-cheek approach to calling attention to the situation.

No one likes whiners, it's true, but I think most Post readers buy the newspaper to be informed, and it's pretty important to know when a political candidate isn't taking questions from The Post, even if it's routine for candidates to blow off journalists.

In any case, I was glad to read Plunkett's assurance that The Post is fighting for access to candidates. You'd obviously expect this, but it's good to read it anyway.

Unlike the Post, Stokols did report on the air, during Romney's visit, that Romney was not answering questions from reporters in Denver.

Stokols added that Romney had just announced a press briefing for today, his first since Feb. 1, on the tarmac in Atlanta.

I asked Stokols if he planned to read his "Open Letter" on the air:

I doubt I go all Howard Beale and read this on the air, although I may tease it after my piece tonight and direct viewers to the website.

To which I say, dude, it's time to go all Howard Beale. Do it for the sake of journalism and the electoral process. The stakes are high for both. And it's a great letter.

Rick Santorum's Red Badge of 'Savage'

wade norris — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 17:34:40 GMT

We now have a real fight on our hands for the 2012 campaign.
Do not underestimate Rick Santorum.
IMHO he has all the boxes checked for a viable Republican candidate - let's look.
Not Mitt Romney - Check.
Conservative - Check.
From a potential Swing State - Check.
A 'true believer' faith wise - Check.
Stable family history (as far as we know) - Check.
Access to oodles of Super Pac money via Foster Freiss - Check.
Stable on issues, not flip flopping - Check.

And lastly, and perhaps the most important - Rick Santorum and the Google.
Yes, Dan Savage's re-naming of Rick Santorum was a good laugh when Santorum was a defeated intolerant Senator, but now that he is a viable Presidential Candidate, things are different. This is a 'Red badge of Courage - or Savage' and it will help Santorum.
And here's why...
Like a Red Badge of Courage or 'Savage', the Right can go on the attack on this 'Santorum' Google issue.
You know how that Clint Eastwood Chrysler commercial is giving the Right fits because it sounds like a pro-Obama ad, even though it wasn't at all coordinated?
The Right wing noise machine can play the same game.
They can point to Dan Savage's column and re-naming of Santorum and say

'This is how the elite, liberal, Obama supporting left view the sanctity of marriage - by tearing down a faithful family man who supports traditional views on Marriage'

Rick Santorum has all the boxes checked and thanks to the Google joke about 'frothy' stuff, he has a lot of name recognition because he has been laughed about on many different outlets, Colbert, Daily Show, late night, Saturday Night Live etc.
Remember Richard Nixon's statement "you won't have this clown to kick around anymore"

And how he seemed headed for political obscurity only to become the President 8 years later?

Hypothetically, how does Obama answer this question?
"Mr. President, do you agree with Dan Savage's characterization of Senator Santorum for his beliefs about Marriage?"

It certainly is not as an easy slam dunk as questions on Romney or Gingrich.

And with Romney, the attacks were so easy, the hated Obamacare is based on Romneycare.
But now, the White House is on the defensive from a large voting block amid backlash over one of the provisions of his healthcare plan - contraception in Catholic hospitals.

David Axelrod, a senior campaign adviser to President Barack Obama, said the administration had heard the Roman Catholic Church's concerns and never intended to "abridge anyone's religious freedom."
But he gave no sign that the administration would reverse course under intensifying pressure from church leaders and political heat from Republican presidential candidates.
Over the weekend, Catholic clergy across the country called for congregations to pressure Obama to back down.
"To force American citizens to choose between violating their consciences and forgoing their healthcare is literally unconscionable," said Cardinal-designate Timothy Dolan, archbishop of New York and president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, in a statement last month....
White House spokesman Jay Carney also sought to diffuse criticism from church leaders, telling reporters later on Tuesday the administration would work with religious organizations "to see if the implementation of the policy can be done in a way that allays some of those concerns."

With Romney, this was a non-issue as his Massachusetts plan went just as far if not farther in covering contraception.

But with Santorum, you have a bona fide conservative issue, not just solidly against contraception, but a person that has been on record for years defending abstinence, even going so far as to promote the uber conservative 'sex only for reproduction' viewpoint based on his faith in the Old Testament.

I can remember when Catholic Bishops were telling people if they voted for John Kerry they would be denied communion based on Kerry's view on Abortion.
Santorum already will have the Catholic faith block on his side, and the other religious right groups will be on board as well, just as they were in Iowa.

We were laughing as we considered thrice divorced Newt Gingrich as the opponent for the Election.
We were smirking as we watched Romney take 2 or 3 positions on every issue and distance himself from his own health care plan and try to laugh past tough questions from Fox interviewers.

I don't see that in Santorum. His statement today after moving into the lead with 4 contests to Mitt's 3 is "Conservatives are starting to get it"

Once in awhile, I switch from Ed Schulz to Rush Limbaugh (during commercials) and I heard a lady take Limbaugh to task for making light of Gingrich's 3 marriages.
She said, with firm conviction
"If it is choice on the ballot between Obama and Gingrich, I'll write in Santorum, because it means that much to me and other women"
Limbaugh was on the defensive like I had not heard before.

We laughed at Santorum before, but the longer he is winning, the more the narrative will be that 'Santorum is the new comeback kid'
a nick name that helped Bill Clinton win his nomination.

I believe Barack Obama is headed for a second term, and he will campaign effectively, but I don't want any of us to laugh off Rick Santorum.

Talk me down, or better yet, talk strategy, because that's the smarter thing to do.
Never underestimate an opponent, especially one with a Red Badge of 'Savage'.

Dear Colorado Republicans,

Zappatero — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 16:45:38 GMT

Thank you for selecting, once again, someone by the name of Rick Santorum, who will never be elected President by the American people...not even with Tim Tebow, or that RINO Jesus himself on the ticket.

Sincerely....

Senate Democrat Fail

Zappatero — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 16:53:29 GMT

Our two regrettable and forgettable senators were key constituents in yet another failure of the Democratic Majority in the U.S. Senate to stop Republicans' assault on the middle class. From FDL:

Senate Passes FAA Authorization Bill with Anti-Union Elements
Despite fierce opposition from major transit unions, the Senate yesterday gave final approval to the FAA Authorization bill, a five-year extension that removes uncertainty from the FAA, approves a next-generation air traffic monitoring system and, in Harry Reid's telling, creates hundreds of thousands of jobs. But unions were unhappy about changes to labor law insisted upon by House Republicans, and they expressed betrayal at the hands of Senate Democrats. (Ho hum. -Ed.)
But 37 Democrats supported the bill, including Commerce Committee chair Jay Rockefeller, Majority Leader Harry Reid, and top leadership members Chuck Schumer and Dick Durbin. Here were the 15 Democrats who opposed it:
Akaka (D-HI), Blumenthal (D-CT), Brown (D-OH), Cardin (D-MD), Casey (D-PA), Franken (D-MN), Gillibrand (D-NY), Harkin (D-IA), Klobuchar (D-MN), Leahy (D-VT), McCaskill (D-MO), Merkley (D-OR), Mikulski (D-MD), Sanders (I-VT), Stabenow (D-MI)

Not worthy of mention to Dayen were Colorado Senators Mark Udall and Michael Bennet, both of whom voted for a bill that makes it more difficult for unions to exist and for middle class workers to maintain quality employment and working conditions. Both senators will give justification for their votes on this bill and say it's just one vote of many.

But the pattern is clear and well-established with our 2 Democratic senators. And it is nothing to write home about. Though Mark Udall writes, and tries, he continues to be a milquetoast who compares quite poorly to his blood-relation senator from New Mexico. Bennet, like his political benefactor Bill Ritter, has shown a complete disregard for labor and unions.

This was yet another failure of Democrats in the Senate. Failure is the only way I can describe Bennet and Udall's unrequited bipartisanship, their double-dealing against the base, and downright tepid attempts at legislating. And if they think constantly playing the "middle" against everyone else is the safest way to win reelection, then there's a quarterback in Denver who can explain how that really works to these veteran politicians who currently represent us.

In case you don't trust this Cheetoh-stained blogger, take a peek at Ed Schultz, former Republican and expert on Upper Midwest values, discussing on the tube:

Act now to support a parent's right to opt-out their kids from the CSAP!

Andrea Merida — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 01:12:29 GMT

Rep. Judy Solano introduced a bill this year, HB 12-1049, the "Parental Rights Regarding Statewide Ed Assessment" bill. This bill would allow parents the right to opt out their children from the CSAP/TCAP without repercussions aimed at their child, teacher or school.

Why is this important? Plainly and simply, the stakes have become too high regarding the CSAP/TCAP, and consequently, school leaders and districts have adopted a punitive attitude toward families and students who choose to opt out.
School curriculums are now firmly focused toward teaching to the test, and CSAP scores are used to close schools and fire teachers, even in populations who are not linguistically ready to take the test.

According to a Pueblo elementary school parent, for example, the principal is actually punishing children (whose) parents have opted out of CSAP. The principal is withholding recess and keeping them out of events due to the parent's decision.

Another Colorado parent writes:

I have now opted out my children for four years and am still pretty involved in our school district...the schools are supported with OUR tax dollars, so we have EVERY right to have a say in how those monies are spent.
But it's amazing what her high school is telling the kids (about opting out of CSAP): You can't graduate and you can't get into college. (emphasis mine)
They're saying if we don't come in tomorrow or have a doctor's note for all absences, all of my children will be "withdrawn" from the school. We're in IOWA (for a family funeral)!! This is all about CSAP and their bitterness towards me for exercising my right to opt my kids out and my right of free speech.

As Diane Ravitch, an education historian, former supporter of No Child Left Behind and outspoken critic of high-stakes testing, says, "No high-performing nation tests its students every year or uses student test scores to evaluate teacher quality." Parents are making serious and informed decisions about curriculum for their kids, and they know what's best for their children.

A parent in the Poudre Valley school district is taking matters into her own hands:

We are opt-out parents in Poudre School District. After considering the options, we have decided (our children) will ride the bus to school next week with their peers, stay in the front office during CSAP, and then join their schoolmates when actual learning commences at 9:10 am. They will have books to read while at school, and their time there will likely be more productive than at home, which is the alternative.
I suspect by reading books their time will actually be more productive than their schoolmates taking the state-mandated high-stakes standardized testing. Most productive of all would be if they and everyone else were actually getting instruction and learning to analyze information and think critically, instead of taking tests designed to fail lower-performing schools and turn them into for-profit charter schools, part of the overall ideological assault on public education in the hopes of turning our precious children into a commoditized profit center for educational corporations.

And it appears that the pressure exerted upon so-called virtual school families may even be worse. Online school parents are reporting intimidation and suspension of access to grades, etc., when they choose to opt out their children from CSAP. This is ironic, since many of these parents have reacted to promises of flexibility when choosing these schools in the first place.

My daughter is a student at Colorado Virtual Academy. For years, I've allowed the administration at my daughter's school to intimidate and threaten me into forcing my daughter to take the CSAP. My daughter has a 504 plan and is exempt from testing, if it is too stressful. She has severe Panic / Anxiety Disorder, and her panic attacks center around school and testing. Regardless, a school administrator told me my daughter wouldn't be welcome back the next year if she didn't take the CSAP. The same administrator told me how to have my daughter cheat on the test so that the test would still count, but it wouldn't be as stressful on my daughter.

And another COVA parent writes:

"..yesterday COVA (Colorado Virtual Academy) has shut off all access to my son's school. I cannot log attendance, have him take any assessments after we complete lessons or have my son complete any "online only" lessons.
I am being forced to call in and ask for permission to school my son. The last letter that I received stated that if I didn't reschedule a time for my son to take the CSAP, I would be forced to meet with administration and my son would have to undergo rigorous testing. I am not interested in putting my son through any of this.
They have taken away the "Internet Service Provider" reimbursement for the coming school year also. That actually cracks me up- my convictions about my son taking the CSAPs are not for sale. Getting a check for $120 bucks is not going to do anything. I am now forced to call the school and again explain that no means no. I am worried how this will turn out. I hope that I can get on with schooling my son ASAP. I am not totally sure where to go after today if they insist on meeting face to face first before they allow my son to continue going to school.

It's for these reasons, and a myriad more, that Rep. Solano's bill is vital, and it's time for parents to get involved.

So here's your opportunity. HB1049 has been scheduled for its first hearing before a committee on Thursday, February 9. The House State, Veterans, and Military Affairs committee meets immediately after the whole House adjourns its session, or roughly at 9:30 a.m., in room 0112 in the ground floor of the state capitol building.

Can you join in and show support, either by testifying or by simply helping to fill up the room?

Uniting4Kids has prepared a great guide on how to testify, and you can read it here.

Also, please take time to sign the petition and send a note to the members of the State Affairs committee, urging them to vote yes on this bill.

If you'd like to make your own, direct contact, the members of the committee are here.

Please support this initiative, whether you're a public school parent or not. Since parents pay the taxes, their rights should be maintained throughout the educational life of their children. Please either testify, bear witness with your presence, and/or sign the petition. A parent's constitutional right to raise their children free from unreasonable state interference, as supported by the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, should not stop when they drop their child off at the classroom.

Please do what you can to stand with Colorado's parents.

Unconcerned about very poor? Then expanding Medicaid is "very radical"

Jason Salzman — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 17:08:17 GMT

Even people like Colorado Sen. Greg Brophy, who's told me he's willing to put the health, and even lives, of poverty-stricken kids at risk by charging more for state health insurance, says it's hard to decide what to do about Medicaid, given the complexities involved and the struggles of the poor, especially kids.

That's the tenor of the debate about cutting Medicaid in Colorado. It's not like the Republicans want to do it, we read in the media, because they know that cutting money for poor people can cause hardship, sickness, and even death.

But there's a budget problem (assuming we don't want to raise taxes on the vulnerable 1 percent) and, besides, skin should be inserted in the game.

When Mitt Romney changes the tone of the conversation about poverty, and says brazenly, "I'm not concerned about the very poor," that's news.

And rightly so, because in America, we're supposed to care about each other, and our country is supposed to provide basic opportunity for everyone, right? And, as the debate about Medicaid shows, no one's saying, let the poor get sick and die.

But what about proposals to expand Medicaid? These proposals save lives, yet politicians go around trashing the Medicaid-expansion aspects of Obamacare day in and day out, with near media immunity, as if saving poverty-stricken Americans from sickness and death is so outrageous.
You don't have to search very hard to find examples, but I'll use one from Rep. Mike Coffman, who, as I've written, deserves more media scrutiny now that he's in a competitive district.

Coffman told Mike Rosen during the debate on health care that "there are some very radical elements to [Obamacare] such as the expansion of Medicaid, a government run healthcare program."

Very radical elements? Sounds like communists are hiding in the bill, but Rosen treated the statement like normal air.

It turns out that, from perspective of anyone who is concerned about the very poor, Republicans and Democrats alike, the Medicaid expansion in Obamacare isn't so radical.

It sets a national standard for Medicaid eligibility at 133 percent of the poverty level, which amounts to about $30,000 for a family of four, according to Elisabeth Arenales, Health Program Director at Colorado Center for Law and Policy.

"Across the country, most people who are poor, if they are childless adults, unless they are disabled, don't have access to Medicaid," Arenales told me. "It's setting a uniform framework."

Very radical.

Arenales says the Medicaid expansion under Obmacare would also benefit early retirees, under age 65, who run into health problems.

As you can imagine, health insurance is expensive for people around 65, who have health problems. Under Obmacare, if these retirees with very low incomes will be covered by Medicaid, Arenales said.

She points to another example of an early retiree whose kids are grown, gets cancer, exhausts COBRA, and spends all their money on treatment. Under Obamacare, these people get treated under Medicaid. It gives them an option.

"You see those stories," Arenales said.

I'm not saying there shouldn't be a debate about whether to cut or expand Medicaid, but my point is, why do we give the silent treatment to the Coffmans of the world who say Medicaid expansion is so radical, while a guy like Mitt Romney is slammed for making a similarly extreme statement that he's "not concerned about the very poor."

Bradley Manning Court Martial "could be imprisoned for life"

wade norris — Sat, 04 Feb 2012 18:22:07 GMT

That's right.
Bradley Manning could face life imprisonment for leaking cables about how the Government conducted itself in the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I have a clear opinion about the extreme use of solitary confinement on Bradley Manning after his arrest - I believe this was wrong and that this was clearly an attempt to silence other people who might think about becoming a 'potential whistleblower.'
And I say 'potential' whistlebliower' because I am conflicted about what the merits of the case are. Did Manning expose crimes? Yes. Does the government have merit to prosecute him for exposing other info that put people at risk?
I don't know.
What say you?
I have heard the arguments on both sides, on the one hand, Bradley Manning's leaks violated the Government's ability to effectively operate against the War on Terror, on the other hand, Bradley Manning's leaks exposed the previous administration's use of torture and worse in the War on Terror.

But I can think of another case that mirrors this one closely.
Valerie Plame.
Her identity was leaked also as a way to silence other whistle-blowers - much like the solitary that Manning faced after his arrest.

By leaking Valerie Plame's identity - there is no doubt that this harmed our intelligence community, put assets in jeopardy or cost them their lives and hindered our government from operating in the War on Terror.
And this leak came from the highest realms of our previous administration - from Vice President Cheney's Chief of Staff - Lewis 'Scooter' Libby.

So we have two cases of leaked information.
One leak to Wikileaks and the General public about our Government's covert actions - the other a leak from within the Chambers of the Vice President, about our Government's covert actions.

I am no legal expert, but it seems that Bradley Manning and Scooter Libby did pretty much the same thing - leaking info the Government has said put us at risk and people's lives in harm's way.

In my humble opinion, Bradley Manning should receive a sentence no more severe than Scooter Libby - which was 30 months in federal prison.

But since I am just an average citizen, I need some 'smart people' to explain to me why this low level officer deserves to be sentenced to life in prison.

Any info is appreciated.

It's not the extended school day -- it the extend use of the lies

JAFO — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 23:44:29 GMT

Much press has been swirling around DPS' proposed extension of the school day by 1 hour for students in middle school. Undoubtedly extending the school day is a good idea. Students who are behind can take the time to hasten catching up. Students at grade level can take enrichment classes not normally offered. And, DPS can easily pay for the extra hour of school time. Most of the teachers I know are excited about the opportunity to work more with students.

However, this plan has the usual trapping of most of DPS' plans, a failure to coordinate with important stakeholders and a bunch of lies.

While a Denver Post editorial claims a wide range of people were involved in creating the plan, those people did not include the school board and it did not include the union leadership. No doubt, the school board will go along, as they have a pattern of forgiveness with Mr. Boasberg. The unions suite will be dismissed out of pocket by some judge who doesn't understand the issue. Nonetheless, the management of DPS' inability to collaborate with one of its stakeholders is a clear indicator of failure when there should be nothing but success.
Once again, DPS made some less-than-honest claim about using a rainy day fund to pay for extending the school day, or, reducing administrative staff. DPS first told 9News it would cost $10 million to implement its plans for one extra hour per day of instruction, with Mr. Boasberg saying this money would come from administrative reductions. He said, "Its all about getting more money into the classrooms." Then, the next day, The Denver Post ran a story wherein the dollar amount for implementing the plans increased to $20 million, with Boasberg saying this money would come from a "rainy day" fund. (DPS loves the amount "$20 million." It comes up over and over.) (This number has since been removed from the Post's story.) The latest cost offered up by DPS is $2.5 million, which was discussed at the School Board meeting held Thursday, February 2nd.)
Regardless of which number is the actual cost of implementing an extra hour of school, all of them are ridiculously inconsequential within the DPS budget so why care on about it? In 2011/2012, Denver's school system budget was just below $1.7 billion. That's right, BILLION. To put $20 million in perceptive within this budget, an extra hour of school will cost DPS 1.1% of its total annual budget. Put another way, this would be like losing $550 over the term of 1 year on a household income of %50,000. Spread this out over a year's paychecks, and you are looking at $45.83 per month, or far less than cable T.V. I won't even go into $2.5 million

The puzzle of Denver's school system is, why must leadership lie to the public at every turn?

Management refinances pension debt and then makes ridiculous claims related to saving money.
The District tells parents they will be included as part of some process effecting the school where the parents' children are enrolled. The inclusion never happens.
DPS actually comes up with a good idea but thwarts the feel good element of the idea because the message sent to the public is wrapped in lies.

Nothing makes stakeholders more demoralized than being lied to time and again. That goes for the teachers' union, certain members of the school board, parents involved in their schools, teachers, even janitors. It is a basic fact of human nature -- if you lie time and again, people will hate you and every task you undertake will be 10 times harder than it needs to be.

Maybe this is why DPS fails so frequently.

Cut A Fair Deal For Every American

Jack Van Ens — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 01:33:16 GMT

At the dawn of the 20th century, President Theodore Roosevelt, Jr. drafted a political playbook for a fair deal. When robber barons and powerful financial Trusts controlled American finances, Roosevelt promised rural folks residing in Osawatomie, KS how he'd give them a fair shake. Because of Roosevelt's pledge, government began regulating Wall Street Trusts. The wealthy, previously paying less than their fair share, no longer left middle class citizens with a raw deal. The rich saw tax increases.

President Obama returned to Osawatomie last year. He echoed Republican Roosevelt's convictions that the U.S. economy must be built on sturdy American values of fair play and shared responsibility. Enlarging this fair deal perspective in his recent State of the Union address. Obama sided with 79% of independent voters who, in a recent Wall Street Journal/NBC poll, said the U.S. is "out-of-balance and favors a small proportion of the rich over the rest of the country."

President Obama pinpointed concerns of this disgruntled 79%. "We can either settle for a country where a shrinking number of people do really well while a growing number of Americans barely get by, or we can restore an economy where everyone gets a fair shot...."

Critics gripe that the president plays his "envy card" in a deck stacked against rich citizens. President Obama rejects this Republican charge he's engaged in class warfare. "Now, you can call this class warfare all you want. But asking a billionaire to pay at least as much as his secretary in taxes? Most Americans would call that common sense." The president's square deal mentality expects the well-heeled to pay their fair share.

The day after his State of the Union address, President Obama traveled to communities where citizens haven't received a fair financial deal. He rejected as Republican blarney that he's jealous of Mitt Romney's business success leading to enormous wealth. "Look, we don't begrudge success in America.... When Americans talk about folks like me paying my fair share in taxes, it's not because Americans envy the rich. Most of them want to get rich."

From whom did President Obama acquire this keen sense of justice for all Americans, which undergirds his fair deal speech?

Detractors wrongly assert that Saul Alinsky and Reverend Jeremiah Wright serve as major role models. Alinsky, who died in 1972 at 63 years, was a Chicago-bred social movement organizer who Democrats and Republicans alike praise because he gave a fair shake to marginalized residents. Reverend Jeremiah Wright served as Obama's pastor when he belonged to Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ for two decades.

However, Reinhold Niebuhr serves as President Obama's # 1 intellectual Christian inspiration for justice and fair play. He taught at Union Theological Seminary in Manhattan from the late 1920s through the 1950s and ranks as the leading American Protestant theologian of this era.

Niebuhr believed justice for all citizens is rooted in more than individuals exercising personal liberty. Conservatives assume Thomas Jefferson's fair shake prescription for success is satisfactory. "The God who gave us life gave us liberty at the same time," taught Jefferson.

That's OK, believed Niebuhr, but it doesn't go far enough to guarantee a just society. Why not?

Conservatives' national economic vision is too narrow because it's based exclusively on citizens exercising unfettered personal liberty under limited government. They reject political centralization. Conservatives press for free markets with less taxes and minimal economic regulations.

Niebuhr offers a much-needed corrective to this narrow view of justice based on personal freedom. Think of justice, said Niebuhr, as the seat of a three-legged stool. Fair deals are propped up by liberty, equality and tolerance.

Financial extremes among citizens undercut our Republic's strength. Colonials believed "power follows property," creating inequality. Consequently, what's economically unfair weakens representative government when the rich amass too much influence and the poor are robbed of their financial independence.

President Obama pressed for equality at the end of his State of the Union message when he used the Navy SEALs' teamwork as a symbol for effective government. SEALs presented their Commander in Chief with a flag, signed by team members who had killed Osama bin Laden. "Each time I look at that flag," said the President, "I am reminded that our destiny is stitched together like those 50 stars and those 13 stripes. No one built this country on their own. This nation is great because we built it together. This nation is great because we worked as a team. This nation is great because we cover each other's backs."

Conservatives practice a shallow justice because tolerance isn't part of it. They sign a pledge never to raise taxes. If a legislator breaks this code, he's ostracized. Anti-tax pledgers fear dissent in their ranks as much as they value uniformity. Those who dare step out of line are labeled malcontents or worse, sliding down the path of socialism.

When the U.S. balances personal freedom, social equality and tolerance, fair deals are struck. Fair play makes citizens believe they can succeed. This is what President Obama learned from
Niebuhr. It's true. It works. It's just.

House Republicans arrest journalist at fracking hearing

wade norris — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 21:07:23 GMT

a quick diary on a clear violation of the First Amendment. Josh Fox who made the documentary "Gasland" was ordered arrested by House Republicans for attempting to film and report on a hearing concerning fracking in natural gas drilling.
From Huffpo's Zach Carter:

In a stunning break with First Amendment policy on Capitol Hill, House Republicans directed Capitol Hill police to detain a highly regarded documentary crew that was attempting to film a Wednesday hearing on a controversial natural gas procurement practice. Republicans also denied the entrance of a credentialed ABC News news team that was attempting to film the event....
Approximately 16 officers entered the hearing room and handcuffed Fox amid audible discussions of "disorderly conduct" charges, according to Democratic sources present at the arrest.

For those of you who may not be familiar with Gasland:

Here is some more on the 2005 'Haliburton' loophole that allowed Fracking to start and the impact on residents in Colorado.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/...

lastly, it appears that Josh Fox and his crew will not be able to return to the hearing.

The meeting of the House Subcommittee on Energy and Environment had been taking place in room 2318 of the Rayburn building. Rep. Brad Miller (D-N.C.), the ranking Democrat on the committee, is currently seeking to secure a procedural maneuver that would allow the detained film crew to re-enter the hearing, which is open to the public. Miller's motion is not expected to succeed.

This is particularly upsetting, because this hearing is about revealing the secret ingredients in fracking fluids. President Obama made the statement that he wanted Oil and Gas companies to reveal these ingredients in the State of the Union, but it appears House Republicans are not ready to give up that golden goose.

I am starting to agree with Thom Hartmann on the reason for the delay to reveal these ingredients, by the Republicans and the Oil and Gas industry - not only are they dangerous to us, but these industries are used to having to pay huge sums of money to properly dispose of by-products from refineries - and this is a convenient way to get rid of these by products - just inject them 3000 feet underground which also happens to be where our aquifers are.

A sad day for the first amendment and for those of us who don't want to see any more of this:

Star Birther Witness Running for CO Legislature

Jason Salzman — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 18:50:48 GMT

Conservative talk radio is all aflutter about a trial underway in Florida to determine whether President Obama is eligible to appear on the election ballot there.

A Georgia law requires all candidates to prove they're eligible for office, and this means presidential candidates must prove they're U.S. citizens.

Such laws, now on the books in a handful of states, are the cutting edge tactic of the dregs of the birther movement, which will not accept that Obama is a U.S. citizen.

The case has a local connection in the name of John Sampson, a former immigration officer who retired in 2008 and also a candidate for Colorado Senate District 25, facing Sen. Mary Hodge.

Sampson told his story to an adoring audience on KLZ's Grassroots Radio Colorado on Friday.
Sampson said on the radio that he was retained by a leader of the birther movement, Orly Taitz, whom he met in Lake Charles Illinois in November 2009, to investigate President Obama's Social Security number, and he determined that Obama's Social Security number was issued to a Connecticut resident in March of 1977.

Sampson tried hard but can't find evidence that Obama was a citizen of Connecticut, ever.

"Why is [Obama] utilizing a Social Security number that was issued to somebody who was apparently living in Connecticut at the time it was issued?" Sampson asked on KLZ Friday.

Sampson flew to Georgia to present his evidence at the administrative court hearing, compelled, he says, by a subpoena to do so. He testified in court that there is "credible evidence to warrant further investigation" into Obama's Social Security number and birth certificate. He also testified that he'd investigate Obama's passport history.

Sampson was in court when another person who was subpoenaed failed to appear. That would be Obama, whose lawyers contend the President is under no legal obligation to testify.

As a souvenir for his trip to Georgia, Sampson got his photo in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, a step up from the publicity he's used to getting in the birther underground. He makes an appearance in Jerome Corsi's Where's the Birth Certificate, for example, he said on the radio. (See a video of Sampson testifying in Georgia here.)

Asked on Grassroots Radio Colorado why the birth certificate released last year by Obama did not put the matter to rest, Sampson responded by saying another expert at the hearing said birth certificate was fake.

Sampson also said his own research raised "concerns" about the legitimacy of Obama's birth certificate, as well as Obama's Social Security number.

"I'm not prepared to tell you whether he was born in the United States, not born in the United States," Sampson stated on KLZ. "I'm not what you would consider a birther, per se. This is an issue of constitutionality. This is an issue of whether or not the provisions of the Constitution requiring a natural-born citizen to be President of the United States have been violated or not."

Hmmmm. I wondered what he meant when he said, "I'm not a birther, per se." But the radio hosts weren't thinking along the same lines, and KHOW's Peter Boyles, who's sharp as a knife on this issue, and proud of it, wasn't there to clarify things.

In any case, Sampson explained on the radio that the Georgia hearing continued without Obama. The administrative law judge is scheduled to rule Feb. 5 on whether the sitting President meets Georgia's citizenship requirements, and at that point, the Georgia Secretary of State will determine if he's eligible to appear on the ballot--again.

Asked by a caller, who turned out to be yet another conservative talk show host, Jimmy Sengenberger, whether the birth-certificate issue was worth raising, with unemployment and other issues plaguing the country, Sampson pointed out he was hired to investigate the Social Security number and subpoenaed.

Sampson also said: "I am a very firm believer in the Constitution. In June of 1981, I raised my right hand for the first time of many and swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. And to paraphrase what Lt. Col. Allen West has said, that oath did not come with a statute of limitations or with an expiration date. And that's the only reason I'm involved in this. I have not and do not have sufficient evidence that would warrant me to make a statement as to whether or not he is eligible or not eligible."

This satisfied Sengenberger and the Grassroots Radio guys, who told Sampson he was 100 percent behind him.

But would you be satisfied? I thought a birther was someone who doesn't believe Obama is a citizen. That's what Sampson is saying when he testifies that he doesn't know if the President is a citizen. Same thing. A birther.

I mean, the entire birther movement is about not being satisfied with the citizenship documentation provided by Obama. Where's the birth certificate?

That's exactly what our own John Sampson is saying.

And when the birth certificate is produced, you have to guess, though we don't know for sure, that Sampson, like his fellow birthers, will find some other reason not to know for sure if Obama is one of us.

OMFG! Politico writes Bipartisanship's Obit

Zappatero — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 00:56:51 GMT

FDL tells me the good news:

On the front of Politico is an article about how the big bipartisan deals that used to be relatively common in Congress now appear to be a thing of the past. From Politico:
Call it the Split the Difference Scenario - a dream of Washington at its civic-minded best that has flourished for decades, even as the reality of Washington became ever more snarling and contentious.
Sometimes, the dream even came true, in iconic closed-door moments: a bipartisan bargain over Social Security in 1983, a high-drama budget summit at Andrews Air Force Base in 1990, a landmark spending accord between Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich in 1997.
The striking fact about Washington at the start of 2012 is how many people, in public and private, say they have concluded that the capital is no longer a city of splittable differences.

A-effin'-men to that. Do-Nothing Doug Lamborn didn't need to read this news. Mark Udall and Michael Bennet do. And if they don't believe it, tell them about that Great Bipartisan Rapist Grover Norquist. Instead, Democrats in DC have permission (as if they ever didn't, see Truman, Harry; Roosevelt, Franklin Delano) to act like Democrats and quit negotiating with those who have no intention to negotiate.

UPDATE: If you have the time, Digby explicates beautifully.

Graph of the Day: Global Temps 2011

Gypsy Chief — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 00:27:38 GMT

Climate Crocks - published January 23, 2011

NASA:

Nine of the top ten warmest years in the modern meteorological record have occurred since the year 2000. Last year was another one of them, coming in at 9th warmest since 1880.
The map above shows temperature anomalies, or changes, by region in 2011; it does not depict absolute temperature. Essentially, the map shows how much warmer or cooler each region was in 2011 compared with an averaged "base period" from 1951-1980. The line plot shows yearly temperature variations (from the base period average) for every year from 1880 to now. (For more explanation of how the analysis works, read World of Change: Global Temperatures.)
On January 19, 2012, researchers at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) released their annual analysis of global temperatures, noting that Earth's land and ocean surfaces continue to experience higher temperatures than several decades ago. The global average temperature for 2011 was 0.92 degrees Fahrenheit (0.51 Celsius) higher than the mid-20th century baseline.
"We know the planet is absorbing more energy than it is emitting," said GISS director James Hansen. "So we are continuing to see a trend toward higher temperatures. Even with the cooling effects of a strong La Niña influence and low solar activity for the past several years, 2011 was one of the ten warmest years on record."

Balance of article: here

Why is this tagged "Kevin Lundberg"? Because he claims to be considering a run for Congress in the Second District which now includes Fort Collins. Lundberg is a well-known climate denier. I hope he does run. He would lose badly.

Representative Joe Miklosi: Best Match for CD-6

peacemonger — Sun, 29 Jan 2012 07:32:44 GMT

Rumor has it CO Senator Brandon Shaffer, current candidate for CD4, will be deciding this week whether or not to jump into the CD6 race, abandoning his campaign in CD4. My guess is, he's waiting for CO Representative Joe Miklosi's numbers to come out from the last quarter. For those who have not been paying close attention, Colorado's CD4 became less easily winnable as a result of recent Congressional redistricting.

I respect and admire Brandon Shaffer; he is literally one of my political heroes. Not just that - I am indebted to him. I've even made calls for his race in CD4 very recently.

Loyal readers on Colorado Pols may remember Senator Shaffer's unwavering support of Michael Bennet in the 2010 Senate Race. Not only was Senator Shaffer one of just a few legislators who believed in Michael Bennet from the beginning (add State Representatives Karen Middleton and Daniel Kagan, as well as Congressman Jared Polis to that list), but he also took a lot of grief for Bennet at the Boulder Convention and Assembly. I stood by Senator Shaffer then, and always will.

Senator Shaffer courageously sponsored a controversial anti-human trafficking bill written by my friend Beth Klein, as well. Always a diplomat and a statesman, Senator Shaffer had to answer to opponents on both sides of the aisle to defend the bill. I am grateful to him for his courage and strong sense of justice; he acted to protect young street girls and boys who would otherwise have no political voice, and who certainly were in no position to benefit his office financially or politically.

Yet, I support Joe Miklosi for Congress in CD6. Joe has laid the groundwork since the beginning for a successful campaign to oust tea-party darling, Congressman Mike Coffman. An expensive primary in CD6 will not help win the seat for a Democrat. Because of the Citizens United Supreme Court ruling, unprecedented amounts of dirty corporate money will be pumped into this Congressional race (You thought you were sick of Bennet/Buck ads in '10? Just wait!). We need every dime from every Democrat we can scrape together to defeat corporate loyalist Coffman.

My friends and I are deeply invested in this race. While working for MoveOn in 2008, my team and I registered many thousands of new voters across the state, most of whom turned out to elect President Barack Obama. Staffers of then Secretary of State Mike Coffman instructed voter registrars to register voters one way, then Coffman said they did it incorrectly, prompting him to try to throw out more than ten thousand of the registrations. It took a federal investigation to get him to stop.

Coffman's office has also turned away left-leaning and independent constitutents who have tried to meet with Coffman, telling them, "Congressman Coffman represents those who voted for him". Add to that the time Coffman's staffers flat-out lied and told television reporters the crowd of 1000+ pro-health care reform activists we gathered outside his office were in fact, anti-reform tea partiers.

Democrats and Independents alike in CD6 want Republican extremist Mike Coffman out of office as soon as possible. The Colorado Democratic Party could not justify helping us much in 2010; CD6 was considered a lost cause. This year is different; the numbers are in our favor. Winning in CD6 depends on two huge variables: getting out the vote in Aurora, and Mike Coffman's friend, Secretary of State Scott Gessler, doing his job with integrity. The first variable is within our control. The second takes faith in our political system.

Why Representative Joe Miklosi?

Joe identified CD6 as his next goal long ago - long before Congressional redistricting made CD6 a competitive seat. Joe cares about Veterans, and knows Coffman has failed them. Joe believes in listening to his constituents and working across the aisle when necessary, and Coffman's record is abysmal at both of those things. Joe cares about the many diverse interest groups in Aurora, and wants to protect their interests; Joe has a solid record in the state legislature to prove it. Joe understands suburban and rural voter's issues, and has learned the political landscape of our district. He's met many of us, and we've signed on to his campaign.

Joe Miklosi won me over as a supporter a couple years ago when I saw his extraordinary skills as a mediator and consensus builder. At the time, progressive radio talk-show host Mario Solis-Marich was raking Democratic State Senator Morgan Carroll over the coals ruthlessly for her "no" vote on tuition equity; he literally aired slanderous commercials on his radio station at every break. As a friend and supporter of Morgan's who understood her rational while wishing she would vote "yes", I was outraged. Those who know Morgan know she is a legal genius - if Morgan says a bill is not written well and violates the State or U.S. Constitution, you can bet your house keys that she's right. Senator Carroll wanted a bill that was better written and would hold up in court, and was willing to work together as a team to draft a better bill - one that would not only win, but stand.

I called a group of Latina/Latino friends and asked them to meet with Senator Carroll and myself over dinner to talk about what happened on tuition equity and try to rebuild together for another round of legislation. The first meeting was great. The second meeting, with an expanded circle of invitees, was very heated and tense. In stepped Representative Miklosi, someone who cares deeply about the issue and wanted what was best for Colorado, and helped to diffuse the tension and clarify mutual goals. It was at that moment I saw an extraordinary statesman in Joe Miklosi -not your average Joe.

I recently asked my network of 2500 facebook contacts (most of whom are progressive activists in Colorado) if they think Senator Shaffer should primary Representative Miklosi, and those who responded were overwhelmingly against the idea. Those in CD4 said they would feel betrayed, and would ask for their contributions back. Those in CD6 said they were already supporting Joe Miklosi, who has worked long hours since Day One to build relationships, going to many house and senate district meetings and special events.

Money may have started trickling in slowly at first (CD6 residents have a version of learned helplessness, I think), but pundits will discover the pace picked up remarkably in the fourth quarter of 2011. CD6 residents are starting to believe in the political process again, and they... we... are finding our hope in Joe Miklosi. Joe Miklosi has also won the support of many labor unions and nearly every Democratic state legislator in the area.

The 2012 election cycle will see an unprecendented amount of PAC money dumped into Colorado, but the latest incarnation of the eggmendment and the marijuana legalization initiative will get out left-leaning and independent voters in large numbers. Under those circumstances, Democrats tend to do well. I trust Senator Shaffer (and his very capable campaign manager, RBI's Craig Hughes) will see the wisdom in staying in the CD4 race and giving it all they've got. We need to win both Congressional seats in CD4 and CD6, and in 2012, it's possible to do so. Why? Senator Brandon Shaffer is a class act, and Representative Joe Miklosi is not your average Joe.

Please send Congressional candidate Joe Miklosi as much money as you can if you want a strong new leader in Congress.

Still To Come Very Soon: "Who is Joe Miklosi?"