SquareState.net - Front Page

It was the Stupid Virus

Zappatero — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 20:43:27 GMT

My favorite line: "He's a Kenyan, Jew-Hitler."

And all this tea-bag stuff is trafficked by the newly unemployed Lou Dobbs, as well as Local Liars Peter Boyles, Gunny Bob, and all the 50 Glenn Beck syndicated stations in Colorado.

Heckuva Job Brownie doesn't think our courts can handle KSM

Zappatero — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 14:38:56 GMT

Well, I'm sure everyone knows Michael "Heckuva Job, Brownie" Brown is on 850KOA these days. (At least Dummy Bob ain't.)

We can also thank George Bush and Brownie for displacing "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" as Teh Stupidest Presidential Saying Evah™.

Well, right behind "Bring 'em on" and "We'll get OBL dead or alive", and maybe "I just don't spend that much time on him." And Brown had the nerve to say Barack was slacking off even as he courts our allies in Asia.

But Brown, playing wingnut in his new job last night, went on and on saying we can't have a terrorist actually go on trial, and we can't have top secret court proceedings (even though we already do) without causing a mistrial, and that waterboarding KSM 3 times is cool, but 183* is just maybe not cool. (The lawyerly Mr. Brown forgot the "80" and said it was only 103 times.)

I thought we had the greatest system extant?

Brownie doesn't think so.

I thought we had the best Homeland Security money can buy?

Brownie ain't sure. Though he probably likes Blackwater's business model.

Well, here's what some Dems say on how we prosecute, and jail at SuperMax in Florence if necessary, the world's worst terrorists:

Patrick Leahy: "I have always believed that the nation's federal courts are capable of trying high-profile terrorism and national security cases. They have proven time and time again to be up to the job... I hope these cases will move forward promptly. By trying them in our federal courts, we demonstrate to the world that the most powerful nation on earth also trusts its judicial system - a system respected around the world."
Russ Feingold: "Our system of justice is more than capable of securely, fairly, and effectively prosecuting alleged terrorists."
Jerrold Nadler: "New York is not afraid of terrorists, we want to confront them, we want to bring them to justice, and we want to hold them accountable for their despicable actions."

Now Brownie: you're doing a heckuva job playing wing-nut at 850KOA. I want you to put on your lawyer's cap and get off your high horse and tell us the truth about America's legal system, it's ability to try people with secret information, and it's ability to protect our citizens. You're an integral part of that system you paint as lethally weak.

Your listeners might be shocked that our legal system can handle it, but I bet they'll be pleasantly surprised when KSM gets life or death. Something George W. Bush could not do. And we'll get Doug Lamborn some Pampers from David Vitter if the thought of Khalid Sheik Mohammed in hist district makes him.........uncomfortable.

And one last thing, Brownie: aren't lawyers not supposed to lie in our most awesomest judicial system?

Saturday Morning Garden Blogging Vol. 5.39

Frankenoid — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 14:21:39 GMT

In Orange.

Good morning, and it's a miracle! Welcome to Saturday Morning Garden Blogging.

Well, actually a couple of miracles.

First, I managed to get every single fucking spring bulb into the ground! Denver had a string of lovely days, with highs creeping into the 70s on Wednesday and Thursday. Starting last weekend, I took my trusty drills and bulb augers out to the front yard, and started drilling holes and plugging them with bulbs. On Wednesday I put in a big push, and, after mowing the lawn, spent the time between the morning warm-up and the afternoon cool-down putting hundreds (yes, that's right, hundreds of beauties out. By day's end, everything but a few dozen crocuses for the back lawn patch were planted.

The second miracle? As I was planting daffodils in front of the front porch, I discovered that somewhere, very late in the season, the passionflower vine I thought was gone had undergone resurrection. And I also discovered a volunteer passionflower.
On Thursday, I got off work a couple of hours early, and was able to get the crocus into the lawn - and also solved the mystery of why unplanted bulbs appeared in the front yard as I was finishing up covering the holes.

When I plant bulbs with the augers, I generally drill a hole, drop in a bulb, then leave it uncovered so I can keep track of where I've already planted. But on Wednesday, when I went around to re-fill the holes, I found several bulbs laying out on the ground. I figured I had just dropped them in my haste to be finished.

On Thursday I was following the same pattern and, as is usual, Zasu Pitts Pootie was being my gardening buddy. And then I noticed her crouching down, and trying to poke her very large paws down in the crocus holes. She was frustrated because I'd used the small auger and her paws wouldn't fit - unlike the large auger holes in the front yard where she could reach down and pull out what was in the bottom of the holes.

Doh!

But the job was finished, and just in time: cold and snow came in Friday afternoon and will continue through the weekend. Which gives me a chance to fart around with getting the indoor bulbs going. My technique keeps developing as I ferret out more information and try new tricks - but you can look back at previous editions: Year 1, Year 2, Year 3 and Year 4.

One thing that has changed since that first year is that I no longer use soil at all for forcing bulbs. In containers I rely exclusively on water absorbing granules and colored glass gems as the "planting" mixture. I like this brand of granules, rather than the larger crystals, because they absorb water much, much faster - they'll be fully saturated in a few minutes, rather than the several hours it takes for crystals.

I've also discovered that if I leave the gel thick enough, I can skip the glass gems and just set the bulbs on top; it's quite stunning to fill a narrow cylindrical glass vase 3/4 of the way up with gel and set a single bulb on top to bloom inside the cylinder. However, the gel does not work at all in forcing glasses - the roots of the bulbs never develop. (As a side note, I've been scoping out forcing glasses on e-bay and have discovered (1) that I can get nice, vintage glasses at quite reasonable prices, (2) the Brits are totally nuts about mid-19th century forcing glasses, with their starting prices being much higher than American ones, and then going to the stratosphere - one that looked very intriguing sold for over $300!)

The twist I'm going to try this year is "planting" the bulbs in gel only - burying a few up to the crown in gel. I'm theorizing that the saturated gel will act as damp potting soil - then again, the bulbs might just rot as if they were sitting in a container of plain water. I want to try this because I'm thinking that if I set the bulbs in gel, then surround them to the crown with gems, the gems will help hold them upright - keeping the blossoms upright can be a struggle.

One method I tried successfully last year was tracking down and purchasing clear floral tape to make a grid across the top of the containers. If you can't get hold of floral tape, 1/2" transparent tape (the really cheap stuff) also works.

Another twist I'm trying this year is that I've found several sources that recommend soaking the bulbs in water overnight at room temperature before setting them in the forcing medium, whatever it is. I'm not quite sure of the reasoning - perhaps that it starts the rooting process better, or softens the top so that the leaves can emerge more easily? I have found that when I first put up the bulbs, whether in gel or forcing glasses, it helps to leave them at room temperature for a day or two to jump start rooting - I put them back in cold storage after I first see the little rootlets start emerging. I soaked a batch the other night, and noticed that on a couple of bulbs the rootlets had started emerging.

Of course, the soaking softens the papery outer-layer of the bulbs, so now I need to figure out if I should leave it there, or take it off - it peels off quite easily when wet. I'm taking it off of a few of the bulbs to see what happens.

I bypassed buying any white or yellow hyacinth this year for forcing: they've always been problematic for me. They tend to root slower, bloom later, and require weeks longer refrigerator time to develop long enough stems. Instead, I bought bags of Blue Jacket, Sky Jacket, Delft Blue, Pink Pearl and Fondant specifically for forcing (although I planted a few of each outside). I also ordered a bag of Purple Voice, the majority of which I planted outside, but I saved a few for forcing. I forgot to order Jan Bos - it's very good for forcing, blooming very quickly. However, last year I found that Delft Blue and Fondant also bloom easily and early, making them perfect for holiday gift giving.

So today I'll be mucking about inside - serene in the knowledge that the outside bulbs are planted and being well watered-in and cooled by the falling snow, and getting the inside bulbs on the way to brightening the dull days after the solstice.

That's what's happening here. What's going on in your gardens?

The Future Of Birther Queen Orly Taitz

Something The Dog Said — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 17:18:37 GMT

Sometimes you can just see the future, not because of any kind of precognition, but because the path is clear and the people involved are completely inflexible in their positions. Now, you might think the Dog is talking about some of our politicians, but the reality is he is talking about the Queen of the Birthers, Orly Taitz. For those who are only marginally tuned into the train wreck, which is Ms. Taitz crusade to prove the President was not born in the United States, let the Dog walk you through it a little.
Ms. Taitz is naturalized U.S. citizen. She was born in Moldova in the USSR. She is of Jewish ancestry and religion and immigrated to Israel in 1981. There she became a dentist. In 1992 she became a naturalized U.S. citizen.

Ms. Taitz went on to attend a mail order law school, Taft Law School. In addition to being a "distance learning" school, it is non-accredited. This means any one wanting to take the bar once they have finished their mail order courses (its really on the internet but mail order gives you the feel of the quality of the legal education you will get from Taft), has to take what is called the "Baby Bar" or the First Year Law Students Examination and pass it before any state will give you a shot at the real Bar Exam. To give you a feel for how good a job Taft does only one in three of their students who take the Baby Bar pass.

No one has accused Ms. Taitz of being less than studious. While it is unknown if she passed the Baby Bar the first time or not she was able to pass it at some point and go on to pass the California Bar Exam. This makes her an attorney. She is well versed enough in the law for the State of California to admit her into their courts to argue before judges. Still knowledge of the law does not guarantee you are reasonable or even sane in applying it. Like any other profession, there are brilliant attorneys and ones who are at the bottom of the pile. The determining factor is often the balance they bring to the practice of law. Ms. Taitz has a bit of a problem with balance.

We know this because of her crusade to prove President Obama was not born in the United States and therefore is not qualified to be president under the Constitution. Since the presidential campaign in 2008 Ms. Taitz has filed five separate motions or law suits alleging President Obama was born in Kenya. She brought a lawsuit on behalf of Allen Keyes against the CA Secretary of State alleging the Sec. State did not verify then Sen. Obama's credentials to be president (this case is still pending, unbelievably). She sought an emergency injunction from the U.S. Supreme Court to prevent the certification of the California vote for President Obama, the High Court refused to hear it.

She brought a lawsuit for that moron Maj. Stefan Cook arguing he could not be deployed to Afghanistan since the President was not the president and could not issue those orders. Unfortunately for her, the Major had to have asked for deployment and since it was a voluntary thing, the Army just rescinded his orders and the case collapsed.

In Barnett v Obama the case was dismissed by the Federal Judge because of concerns that Ms. Taitz "may have suborned perjury through witnesses she intended to bring before this court" This was from an affidavit filed by one of her co-conspiracy theorists. This is a huge deal as the suborning of perjury is a disbarment offense. We will come back to this.

Also has made a spectacle of herself in her fight with a Republican appointed District Judge, Clay Land. Judge Land dismissed a filing for a restraining order to prevent a Capt. Connie Rhodes from deploying on the premise the order was illegal since the President is not a legal president. Judge Land not only rejected the motion, he called it frivolous, noting that Capt. Rhodes made no objection to serving in the military under President Obama as long as it was in the United States.

He then went further, hammering Ms. Taitz for using U.S. soldiers as pawns for her quest to oust the President. He then finished up by expressing his dismay at Ms. Taitz's lack of understanding of the U.S. legal system given her intent to try to make the prove his innocence to charges which are based on conjecture and speculation.

This did not go down well with Ms. Taitz. She called the Judge a traitor for his dismissal and even though she had been warned not file frivolous motions in his court, Ms. Taitz filed another motion for a rehearing of the dismissal order. Now some of you who are not involved with the law might not know how big a deal it is to call Judges names. Federal Judges are lifetime appointments, once their butts hit that bench they are there until they die or find it too hard or in rare cases are convicted of a crime. Judges have enormous power in their courtrooms. If they decide to make your life as a litigator hard there is very little you can do about it. They can do this forever if they choose.

Instead of this long term passive aggressive tactic, Judge Land issued an order to make Ms. Taitz show cause why she should not be fined $10,000 for her ignoring of his warning and her continued intemperate behavior in his court. To make matters worse, within a few hours of this order, a letter arrived from Capt. Rhodes saying that Ms. Taitz had filed the motion for rehearing without her knowledge or consent. She asked Ms. Taitz be removed as her lawyer of record.

Ms. Taitz does not know when to quit. She filed her show cause which called the show cause order "a quasi-criminal prosecution of the undersigned attorney, for the purpose of punishment." Needless to say this is not the tone you want to take with a Judge who is threatening to fine you $10,000.

Judge Land issued a ruling fining Ms. Taitz $20,000 in which he continued to demolish her legal ability. Quoting form the order :

The Court finds that counsel's conduct was willful and not merely negligent. It demonstrates bad faith on her part. As an attorney, she is deemed to have known better. She owed a duty to follow the rules and to respect the Court. Counsel's pattern of conduct conclusively establishes that she did not mistakenly violate a provision of law. She knowingly violated Rule 11. Her response to the Court's show cause order is breathtaking in its arrogance and borders on delusional. She expresses no contrition or regret regarding her misconduct. To the contrary, she continues her baseless attacks on the Court."

Ms. Taitz told Talking Points Memo she had no intention of paying the fine and would appeal all the way to the Supreme Court. Today the Judge ordered the Justice Department to start collection procedures to insure the payment of the fine.

That is the history, what we see coming down the tracks is pretty clear. Ms. Taitz with her mail order law degree is going to keep pushing her spurious and insane notion. Already we have seen she is willing to suborn perjury, willing to go beyond her clients wishes, willing to call Judges who don't agree with her traitors and enablers of dictators and a complete unwillingness to comply with Court orders. Any one of these would land her in hot water with the Bar, combined they are just about begging for disbarment.

Which the Dog thinks is Ms. Taitz ultimate desire. What better proof of the system being stacked against her heroic (to her) efforts to prove the President is not the president by failure to be born in the U.S. This allows her to keep going, to be a martyr to the Conservative cause. She does not need to practice law for a living; she has two dentists offices in CA. She will become a cause for the Far Out Right and get to write Wingnut welfare books about how she was shut down by the corrupt system.

This is what is coming down the tracks. However, there is a bit of problem for the Right making Ms. Taitz one of their many faces. She is bat shit insane. This woman ignores the basic fact that the Obama family would have had to plan their son being in politics and running for the presidency from before his birth. Otherwise, there is no reason at all for them to have his birth announcement in the Hawaiian papers. He would have always been a citizen, regardless of where he was born, his mother being a U.S. citizen and married to his father at the time, the one and only thing he would not have been able to do was serve as president. The level of planning and confidence required for something like this is beyond belief to everyone but nut jobs like Ms. Taitz.

So in the coming months we will see Ms. Taitz disbarred. She will go on Fox and cry with Glenn Beck and bemoan how badly she was treated. She will be at Tea Party rallies and say crazy things which will inflame the base of the Republican Party, but will continue to drive the Independent voters away from that regional Party. This Birther thing will be this Administrations Vince Foster. It will be an article of faith for the Far Out Right that it was a real cover up because Ms. Taitz was treated like any mail order law school lawyer and tossed out of the ranks of litigators for being an insane full.

All the Dog can say is pass the popcorn, it is going to be a long fun thing to watch.

The floor is yours.

Springs Republican Dave Schultheis is the Worst Person in the World

Zappatero — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 15:17:06 GMT

For yesterday:

I wonder how Keith could've gotten the news sooooo quickly?

What McInnis might say

Alan — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 16:30:08 GMT

At the ProgressNow Bat Cave yesterday (also known as my co-worker Jen's teeny windowless office), we got to talking about Scott "McLobbyist" McInnis and the coup recently scored on his behalf in the Republican gubernatorial primary. It's really odd that Josh Penry left the race so suddenly, isn't it? And most media reported that a big reason Penry left the race was an "independent committee" set up to fight off any challengers to McInnis.

This immediately got us thinking about our call last May for an investigation of McInnis after he left a voice mail message, leaked on the internet subsequently, describing in detail 'his 527'--inviting questions about illegal coordination between McInnis and 'his' so-called "independent committees." What happened this week to Penry could be seen as a confirmation of our worst fears.

What we at ProgressNow would really like to do is talk to McInnis about this, get his response to these potentially serious allegations on the record. Unfortunately, McInnis doesn't grant very many interviews. And some of the interviews he has granted haven't gone so well.

But then we remembered, we've got McInnis on the record addressing these very questions: the voice mail! If Scott McInnis were to come clean about his questionable campaign activities as we've called for over and over again, here's how we imagine the interview going. Not a real conversation, obviously!

It would be nice to have this kind of candor in the non-parody world, wouldn't it?

Posted at ProgressNow Colorado

Should We Let The House Health Care Reform Bill Die?

Something The Dog Said — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 16:19:07 GMT

Is there a limit to where a bill, which is designed to help people, becomes so compromised it is better to let it die? The obvious (and therefore suspect) answer is yes. There are times when the compromises required to pass a piece of legislation are such that it is better to let the bill die than let some of its provisions become law. This is the very definition of a "Poison Pill". Barring something like the Stupak amendment (a classic poison pill), where does a bill become too compromised by compromises to be worthwhile?
The Dog has heard from several folks on the blogs and in the meat world that the House bill, even without Stupak, is not worth passing. Their arguments are that it is too big a give away to the insurance companies. It does not have a strong public plan, it is nowhere close to single payer or even Medicaid for all and as such, it is not worth enacting. The Dog thinks these arguments come from loosing sight of what we are trying to achieve. In a fight this big, this complex it is easy to lose sight of the overall goals and get bogged down in the tactics.

This may not be your goal, but this old hound sees the goal of this round of reform as two factors; cover as everyone (or as close as we can get) and establish any kind of not-for-profit insurance company, nationally. Everything else is window dressing. Yes, it would be best if we went to Medicaid for all. Hell it would be really best if we could have a full scale single payer system. And a pony, if we are going to wish, should always wish for a pony for everyone.

The real fight we are fighting here is not what kind of health care system we should have. It is not a fight about government run versus private; it is a fight about whether all citizens should have even have health coverage. This is an issue, which is still up for grabs as far as many on the Right are concerned. If you ask a conservative what they owe their fellow citizens the nearly universal answer will be "Nothing, not a damn thing. I work for what I have, so should they".

This is part and parcel of their world view, this rugged individualism which looks at those less fortunate (for what ever reason) as losers and slackers who can't get with the program. The fact these people do not have health insurance because they don't make enough money or it is not offered at their work place why then it is some kind of moral failing.

It is this issue of whether insurance and access to good health care is a privileged or a right which we have to get past if we are ever to get to single payer or any kind of national health care. Sure it is dressed up as "Socialism" or "Communism" or even "Nazism" but the real argument is should all American citizens have health care, as a right of citizenship.

One of the things we will achieve by passing any bill, is the settlement of this argument. Once the idea of everyone being covered is settled, then we can and will move on to the issues of what that coverage really should be and how we actually pay for it. One of the main reasons the Insurance Cartel wants to kill this bill is they know once everyone is covered there will be no going back from that position. Coverage will become an expected right. The questions will then turn more directly to what we are paying for by using private insurance; they will no longer be muddied by the question of who to cover. This will lead to coming back to the limiting of profit, to the need for more competition to the inevitable realization that a private, for-profit, management of health care is inherently inefficient because it requires profit and marketing and multiple huge bureaucracies. This will allow us to make the changes we can't seem to get done this time around.

There are other reasons to pass something over pulling the plug and passing nothing. One is the amount of time. The Republicans have done an excellent job of stringing this process out far longer than it needed to be. If we allow this bill to die we hand them a win and then have to start the process all over again. It makes real change even less likely, in fact, it makes any change less likely as the Republicans will know they have a winning strategy and will use it again and again.

Another problem with letting this bill die is the fact it leaves people without coverage in the same position they are in today. Let us not forget 44,000 of our fellow citizens will die this year because they do not have health insurance. 2,200 of them will be U.S. veterans under the age of 65. To the Dog, some level of coverage is always going to be better than none. Of those who will die because they are not covered there are those who could have been treated with something as simple as antibiotics. There are those who could have had serious conditions, which eventually kill them diagnosed early where the chances of avoiding death are much higher.

Yes, there are problems with the cost. We are doing nothing to contain costs in these bills. There will be issues with subsidies for those who cannot afford coverage and sadly, the money goes to one of the most immoral and disgusting business in America. However, there will be progress. People who are not covered will get coverage. We will remove the preexisting condition situation, permanently. We will end the antitrust exemption, which makes it easier for insurance companies to maintain monopolies and keep raising prices.

On a purely political point of view, failing to enact a signature issue like health care reform weakens the Democratic chances in future elections. The Dog is confident the Republicans are going to have their Civil War raging in 2010 and this will help the Democrats, but if we do not have this signature issue to point to, then we will be playing defense. When you are in the majority you never want to play defense, you always want to be trying to gain ground (even if it is not likely to happen). This failure hanging over us will not help.

Another political point is the longer we keep the nation tied up with this debate the less time there is to do other work. All kinds of issues have fallen by the wayside as our Congress proves it can not walk and chew gum at the same time. There is a critical need for a major jobs bill. The time to do it is now, but as long as we are fighting over HRC there will be exactly no serious movement on this. This is a critical need for the people of this nation (many, like the Dog, are out of work and cannot find a job) and for the Democrats. While the public has made up its mind that the Republicans are crazy, they are the only place to go for a protest vote. People who are out of work and still smarting from the necessary but distasteful bail out of the financial sector are not always going to remember it was the Republicans who got us into this mess in the first place.

Is it frustrating that we cannot achieve the level of change we want? Of course it is. However if we are going even talk about scuttling this bill then we really have to look at all the factors. Is this bill so bad we are willing to leave those without access to health care in that position? Is the bill so bad the win of settling the argument about who gets coverage does not matter? Is the bill so bad it is worth continuing this long fight, to the determent of other agenda items and ballot box peril? These are the questions all of us have to ask ourselves.

The job of legislating is never, ever, done. Part of the reason for this is the near impossibility of getting all you want in any one bite at the apple. The way to long-term success is to get all you can, every time, and then start with that as your baseline and go forward. We have a chance to make a major step forward, to set the ground for the real fight to get to single payer health care in this country. The Dog does not like all the things in this bill. There are major flaws and there are likely to be more flaws added before we get to the end. Nevertheless, given the goals of covering everyone and starting a public insurance plan are achieved the rest can and will be fixed. If the choice is one of having to take longer than we would like but achieving our goals and having the status quo stay, then the choice is clear to this Dog.

The floor is yours.

Thinking Of Some Veterans I Have Known

Something The Dog Said — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 15:47:49 GMT

Since this is a family thing, I am going to bail on the talking dog bit for this post. It will be back to amaze and annoy tomorrow.

It is Veterans day and I have been thinking about the Veterans I have known. We have an epic myth in this nation that all soldiers are heroes. There is this dysfunctional idea that somehow the service to ones country in uniform absolves the faults inherent in all people. To me this is a dangerous thing all the way around. It is not that those who serve willingly or otherwise in the military do not deserve a measure of respect for being willing to put themselves in harms way, they do. It is just the fetishization of service as a universal way of elevating people is harmful. By setting the expectations of veteran this high we nearly universally guarantee disappointment.
Military service does change those who serve, sometimes in good ways, other times in not so good ways. Since today is the day we honor the service of those in uniform, I thought I would share some of the experiences of my family in the military and what they have gained and lost from it.

Dad was a veteran. He became a soldier by outsmarting himself (which did not happen much in his life, but when you believe you are the smartest person you know, it is going to happen sometimes). In 1961 Dad was getting ready for his Junior year of college. He had joined the ROTC in order to get some scholarship money, but it was only a two year scholarship and that money had run out. Dad was sitting around drinking a beer with a friend complaining about how even though the money was gone, he still had to ware the uniform at his work and attend formations, all of which were fine as long as the Army was paying but felt like a burden now.

Between him and his friend they came up with what seemed like a good idea. Dad had corrective surgery on an extremely lazy right eye as a child. The two of them figured that if he went to Detroit and volunteered, the Army Doctors would take one look at his eye, classify him as 4F and send him home. Bingo! He would be out of ROTC free and clear!

So, the next day, with his books for the fall semester in the back of his car, he drove off to the induction center in Detroit. After filling out paperwork and seeing a couple of corpsmen who checked his blood pressure and heart rate, he was at the sight testing station. The corpsman ran his tests then said, "Go to that station and the man will check your hearing".

Dad was shocked. He said "Whoa there. I had this operation on my right eye as a kid; you might want to look at that". The corpsman took out a tool, looked in both of Dad's eyes and then more closely at the right eye. "It looks like they did some nice work," said the corpsman. He then took out a piece of paper and on it wrote, "Teach this man to shoot from the left", paper clipped it to Dad's file and sent him to have his hearing tested. Dad never even got to go home. He was put on a train to boot camp that night. He had to have someone come, get his car, and sell his books back to the bookstore.

In another ten weeks Dad was on the Korean peninsula. Still for all that he had outsmarted himself by volunteering, the experience in the Army changed the course of his life. He became a company clerk. This meant he was in charge of typing up all kinds of paper work. One of these paperwork duties was to type up the verdicts and punishments for minor infractions by members of his company. Law in the military is very different than law in civilian life. One thing he saw that he did not like was the fact that many of the verdicts were decided before the hearing ever happened.

Part of this is the difference in the two legal systems, but Dad did not like it. He felt that anyone accused of a crime should have a chance to be acquitted, not summarily punished. When he left the service, he knew he wanted to be an advocate for justice. It was this desire that lead him to the law and his lifetime of service to his community representing the little guy against powerful interests.

Not everyone's time in the military brings good things. Uncle P. (I am using his initial to preserve his privacy) did not volunteer, he was drafted in 1967 and sent to Vietnam. Five months into his tour of duty P. stepped on a landmine. In a way he was very, very lucky. It was not a big mine and he had stepped past it, not directly on it. The mine exploded and ripped up the backs of his legs and his back.

Dad was law clerking at the Supreme Court at the time. He went into overdrive and talked to everyone he had ever met on the Hill and in the Court. 38 hours after stepping on that mine Uncle P. was in Walter Reed Hospital. He got the very best care available at that time, and recovered, physically. We now know that he also had PTSD from this experience. I am not going to lay the whole of his alcoholism on his war experience, there are always other factors, but for the next ten years, he self-medicated with alcohol.

Eventually Uncle P. recovered. He has been recovering ever since. However, I have to wonder if he would have been able to avoid those actively addicted years or if they would have been shorter if he had not been in the military and had this experience?

Uncle T. had a very similar story, even though he came through his time in Vietnam with no physical injuries. He also fell into alcohol addiction. He also found his way to recovery. However, between the two he found he could not be an active part of our sprawling Irish family anymore. Uncle T. is my godfather, but from about the time I was 13 until just very recently I never saw him, none of us ever saw him, only the very occasional phone call. It seems T.'s time in the military gave him a need to control his with less give and take than is the usual in a huge family of strong willed people.

Uncle D. was a different story all together. Drafted in the late 50's he was a State Side soldier who worked on missile installations. Uncle D. tells the story of how when the Cuban Missile crises started he was stood and watched as the Redstone missiles he worked on all were swiveled to the South and targeted on Cuba. D. had a great military experience, he became a sergeant, he met his wife while serving, he gained skills and discipline which allowed him to do what he always wanted to do, be a dairy farmer.

In my generation of our family, we do not have any soldiers. I do not know if this is a bad thing or not. On the one hand, many of my 100 first cousins are directly involved in public service in one fashion or another. On the other, there is a need for the military and there is something to be said for those who have many advantages serving in uniform.

What I have gained from the veterans I have known in my family and outside it is that soldiers are first and foremost just like the rest of us, they are people, they are citizens. They have their faults, their strengths, and their time in uniform acts to change some of them for the better and some of them for the worst. It is not the fault of the military; this is after all what happens to all of us in life. But it is the nature of the jobs that the military does, the life and death consequences which are around every corner which tend to intensify these changes.

It is this intense nature of their service which deserves our respect, all other actions and choices of the veterans aside. To go where you are told, to fight if you have to, die if you can not avoid it, all at the orders of your nation is special. It does not matter how they got into the military, once the choice was made, they did their jobs and served at the call of their nation.

There may come a time when we do not need soldiers, a time when we will "study war no more, forever". Until that time, we will have to have some of our fellow citizens putting themselves at risk, mentally and physically. As long as that is true, we do owe those who do so respect for this act. Without them, we would have to do this ourselves, but our current soldiers have chosen to do this. It is this level of potential sacrifice, which we should honor and give respect too.

So, today, I will call my Uncles, I will tell them thank you for their service, even though it was not always voluntary. I will keep going up to any soldier in uniform and thank him or her as well. While I don't always agree with the mission they are sent on, I can not do anything but express my respect for those who decide to serve.

The floor is yours.

On Paying For Immoral Things, Or, Is Stupak On To Something?

fake consultant — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 13:17:16 GMT

There has been a great wailing and gnashing of teeth over the past day or so as those who follow the healthcare debate react to the Stupak/Some Creepy Republican Guy Amendment.

The Amendment, which is apparently intended to respond to conservative Democrats' concerns that too many women were voting for the Party in recent elections, was attached to the House's version of healthcare reform legislation that was voted out of the House this weekend.

The goal is to limit women's access to reproductive medicine services, particularly abortions; this based on the concept that citizens of good conscience shouldn't have their tax dollars used to fund activities they find morally repugnant.

At first blush, I was on the mild end of the wailing and gnashing spectrum myself...but having taken a day to mull the thing over, I'm starting to think that maybe we should take a look at the thinking behind this...and I'm also starting to think that, properly applied, Stupak's logic deserves a more important place in our own vision of how a progressive government might work.

It's Political Judo Day today, Gentle Reader, and by the time we're done here it's entirely possible that you'll see Stupak's logic in a whole new light.
So let's go back a moment and reconsider what Stupak wants: his religious beliefs are offended by the concept of abortion, and he is taking steps to ensure that the government is not using his taxpayer dollars to pay for the procedure.

This precedent is fascinating-and what I'm inviting you to do today is to consider, for a moment, what our government might look like if we take his logic and...extend it a bit.

"...In the game of life, the house edge is called Time. In whatever we do, Nature charges us for doing it in the currency of time..."
--Bob Stupak, "Yes, You Can Win!"

I always try to find common ground with those I oppose, and the most logical place to start would be to consider the fact that Stupak and I are both morally offended by the idea that we use taxpayer dollars to go around killing people.

So where do we differ?

For starters, I find it morally offensive that my taxpayer dollars are used, on a daily basis, to fund the actual killing of actual, living, people by my Government...so, Congressman Stupak, in the name of finding common ground, how about if the same day your Amendment goes into effect we also stop funding any military activities that might reasonably be expected to, as I hear people say, "stop a beating heart", so as to prevent offending my religious sensibilities?

John Allen Muhammad, the so-called "Washington Sniper", is scheduled to be executed today. Are you prepared to support legislation, Congressman Stupak, which will prevent his "post-term abortion" and the potential abortions of all those other human lives on Death Rows around this country if those state-sponsored abortions are as much of an affront to my religious beliefs as they should be to yours?

During the more or less four months worth of slow-walking and stalling that we have seen so far in this process 15,000 Americans have died...or, if you prefer, five 9/11s...simply because they have no health insurance-and unless your religion is a lot more bloodthirsty than mine, the abortions of 15,000 people because of the...what's the word I'm looking for here...let's see...could it be...sloth...of your colleagues should be an act as reprehensible as the greatest of blasphemies ever recorded in The Bible.

With that in mind, are you prepared to join me in cutting off the use of my taxpayer dollars to fund the salaries, the "public option" health care, and the office operations of those legislators who are behind these killings?

What else do we do that's aborting lives on a daily basis that I'm sure Congressman Stupak would be glad to allow me, as a result of the offense to my conscience (and, presumably, his), to "negatively fund with extreme prejudice"?

There's that Drug War, of course, and whatever we're doing in those secret prisons-and public ones-and subsidies for those who clear mountains and poison lands...not to mention the tax dollars I've been providing for a company who did electrical work that's aborting soldiers.

So whaddaya think, Congressman Stupak?

Since you're so proud of your pro-life credentials, are you ready to stand up with me and defend the principle that all human lives deserve to be protected, and that we have the right to withhold funding for all those activities that are morally repugnant...or are you just another one of those "enablers" who helped kill 15,000 people this past few months?

Enquiring minds want to know.

Dear Betsy,

Zappatero — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 17:27:23 GMT

Notwithstanding your BS excuse, you were wrong on both the politics and policy by voting against the health care reform bill:

The Democrats in marginal districts who are patting themselves on the back for taking the "safe" vote by voting no on health care reform are fooling themselves, and in a great many cases dooming themselves in the next election.
If the part of the electorate that strongly favors you drops by 10% (or more) in the next election, do you really think you can win a competitive race?
And does not helping your party and your President deliver health reform help you or hurt you in turning out the Democratic vote? ...
The Democrats who oppose health care reform are also hurting themselves in a lot of different ways besides depressing turnout:

They damage the brand of the Democratic Party as an effective party that can get things done
They hurt the approval rating of the President they will need campaigning and raising money for them next year
When Democrats like the President nationally are making the case as why Dems in 2010 deserve re-election, they will use the passage of health care reform as their number one selling point, leaving you on your own to explain why you deserve re-election
They lessen their ability to raise money from all those Democratic activists and interest groups who care about health care
They dampen the enthusiasm of volunteers back home (This is virtually guraranteed. Several callers to Mario's show have said as much.)

Good luck in '10,

Tell The Senate; No Bill, No Recess!

Something The Dog Said — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 15:54:21 GMT

So now the House of Representatives has passed a bill. It has some problems, starting with the odious Stupak Amendment. Still there is a lot of reason for mild happiness. We are closer to comprehensive health insurance reform than we have been in the Dog's life time. All the details aside, this is a very good thing, as it means we are significantly more likely to achieve real reform than we have been before.
The next hurdle is, of course, the United States Senate. We have already seen Sen. Lieberman lining up to prove that A) he is not a Democrat anymore and B) that he is the biggest obstructionist asshole in the history of obstructionist assholes. Not only is he putting himself in the way of reform, he is making it easier for other lily-livered Democratic Senators to do the same.

On the Republican side we know what we will hear "Slow down", "It costs too much", "Government take over of health care!!!!". The main tactic of the GOP has been to delay the process in whatever way they can. In the Senate, there are many ways to delay any process. We have seen the Republicans do it with Executive Branch appointees, we have seen them do it with the Stimulus bill, we have seen this on the extension of Unemployment benefits, and we have seen them do it with the Health Care Reform Act.

They will use every procedural tactic they have to stretch this out as long as they can. From their point of view it is a good tactic. The longer it takes the Senate to pass their bill the more time there is for weak-kneed Democrats to be wooed away from doing what their constituents and the nation wants them to do. There is also the issue of other things needing to be done. The time for fooling around with Health Care Reform and nearly nothing else is over. There are budget bills that must be completed and passed. There are other issues like the illegal torture programs of the Bush Administration, which need Congressional investigation. There are all of the oversight responsibilities of the Congress in our wars and perhaps most importantly there is the need for a jobs stimulus bill, which has to be in place soon if the Democrats are going to be able to make a case, they can run the economy better than Republicans in 2010.

All of this means the Senate is out of time. They have this reputation as the "Greatest Deliberative Body in the World", which they are proud of. The idea is there is nothing in the world, which can push the Senate to move faster than it is willing to move. However, the Dog thinks there might a way to move past these delaying tactics. The Thanksgiving recess is traditionally two weeks long. The Christmas recess is often as long as a month.

This combined with the other work makes the prospect of getting a bill on health care reform to the president's desk anytime soon dim. Or does it? Here is the thing, the Constitution does not allow either House of Congress to adjourn without the consent of the other. If we can get the votes together in the House, we can force the Senate to stay in session for as long as it takes to get their work done. The Dog is a big believer in the need for Federal elected officials to get home and see the people who put them in office in the first place. It is a critical step in having a truly representative government. However, the mandate for health care reform with a Public Option is one that is clear. It has been tested at the ballot box, it has been tested time and time and time again in polls and it is clear that the majority of the American People want this change. It is time to force the Senate to do the work of the people and keep doing the work of the people until we get the reform we are demanding.

There are already rumors that Majority Leader Reid is talking about shortening these recesses. The problem here is, Sen. Reid is a Senator and not particularly strong at times when he should be. We have seen it time and again where he talks tough but allows things which make it harder to get the Democratic agenda passed.

This is where we should help him out, from the House side. Article 1, Section 5 , Clause 4 of the Constitutions reads:

Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.

By getting Speaker Pelosi to refuse to vote on the adjournment, or to vote to not allow the Senate to adjourn until there is a health care reform bill be do several things. First off the House makes it clear they are not going to just roll over to the Senate on the important issues in this bill. Second we present the Republicans with the choice of staying around or actually confirming the opinion they do not really care about the issues facing the public. Third, we keep the pressure on all the wavering Dems. If you are just posturing like Sen. Lieberman may be, then it is becomes harder to maintain when you are the one keeping the Senate from recessing and everyone from seeing their families over the holidays.

Finally it moves the issue to the level of paramount importance it deserves. It makes it clear we will not be held hostage to an arbitrary calendar but will do what it takes to make the changes the nation has elected these officials to enact.

If we are going to make this stick, it needs action and it needs it today! Below is the number for Speaker Pelosi's office as well as her e-mail. Please give her a call, thank her for her efforts so far and let her know she is not done. By starting to talk now about keeping the Senate in Session for as long as it takes now, she can start to affect the thinking of those who know better on this issue but are hopping it will go away if there is more time.

Here is the contact information for Speaker Pelosi:

Phone - 202-225-0100
Email

Achieving real reform is hard. We need to use all the tactics in our arsenal if we are going to prevail, because it is sure the other side will use all of theirs. Keeping Senators in Washington over the holidays is one way to keep the pressure on.

The floor is yours.

State of the Arctic - 11/9/09

WeatherDem — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 04:06:39 GMT

The state of the Arctic ice in November 2009 is the worst of any November in recorded history. Arctic areal sea ice extent didn't break the 2007 record for the absolute minimum, but it has never been this low in November. Further, the extent continues to be nowhere near the climatological average, just like it hasn't been for most of this year. As I've stated before, that's indicative that a new phase of the Arctic has been reached. For three years in a row, sea ice extent has bottomed out at well below two standard deviations from the average extent. For three years in a row, all-time ice-extent lows have been reached at some point in the season.

Here is my State of the Arctic post for Sep and for Aug. I didn't post anything in late October because I had a feeling a record low extent would be set shortly, which it did. The big change since my last post is the presence of weather conditions that have kept ice from refreezing at the rate it normally does this time of year. Two years ago, adverse weather conditions developed during the summer. This year, they're around in the fall. The effect is the same: relatively little ice compared to climatological norms. Here is a satellite representation of Arctic sea ice conditions from yesterday:

Compared to the minimum reached earlier this year, there has been a recovery in ice in the Canadian archipelago, along the northeast coast of Greenland and from the Arctic Sea toward Siberia.

For comparison purposes, here is the similar picture from August:

Here is the time series graph through yesterday:

Notice the rapid refreezing that occurred in 2007, but which didn't happen so far this fall. No, this fall, a high-pressure system sat over the Beaufort Sea, while unusually low pressure dominated the Barents Sea, according to the NSIDC. This brought 6C (11F!) warmer than normal air temperatures up from Siberia, preventing robust ice growth in that area.

Sea ice extent averaged over October 2009 was 7.50 million sq. km., 1.79 million sq. km. below the 1979 to 2000 mean for October, and only 730,000 sq. km. above the record low for the month, which occurred in October 2007. I expect the average extent for November to be very close to 2007's, perhaps a little higher, perhaps a little lower, but in poor shape compared to climatological conditions.

The NSIDC released a report at the beginning of November with an additional time series representation of conditions. It shows the last two years' worth of time series data, plus 2005's time series, with +/- 2 standard deviations from the climatological average on the same graph:

This graph was made before 2009's time series line crossed over 2007's (as in the graph above), but the point remains: ice extent conditions in the Arctic have entered a new state, a state much lower than the 1979-2000 average. The volume of ice has decreased year after year recently, leaving one- or two-year old ice the predominant type in the Arctic. This ice is less capable of withstanding the warmer temperatures that October's weather patterns produced. New ice is less able to grow around the younger ice. While refreezing will occur every winter, the times when ice does or does not refreeze is more dependent on favorable weather regimes. Additionally, since the Arctic waters absorbed large amounts of solar radiation again this year, the water is warmer than it used to be this time of year. It has to release a lot of heat to the atmosphere before freezing can occur. Thus, the past few falls have seen ice growth in fits and starts, remaining well out of the 2 standard deviations of extent, which is becoming increasingly statistically significant.

The U.S. Senate is slowly drawing closer to considering climate and energy legislation. The 2009 Copenhagen climate summit starts in less than a month. So there are important policy decision points staring us in the face. What will we do about them? The Arctic has demonstrated quite clearly that it has shifted to a new state. The consequences of a warming planet are showing up all over, in places and in ways that were unforeseen even a few years ago. The rate of warming and of other climate change indicators are occurring much faster than recent predictions indicated, exposing our lack of understanding of the complex systems in play. Do we really want to keep trying to kick the can down the road and letting some other group to deal with things? Or do we recognize that it damage to ecosystems and societies is already occurring and now is the time to act to prevent catastrophic situations?

Cross-posted at WeatherDem - the blog.

Penry exiting CO-Gov race

johne — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 00:00:22 GMT

According to WashingtonPost:

Colorado state Sen. Josh Penry (R) plans to end his gubernatorial campaign and endorse former Rep. Scott McInnis (R), according to two sources familiar with his thinking.
Penry's decision to opt out of the race is a stunner as many national Republicans had touted him as a potential rising star (and we had featured him in our "Rising" series that looks at up and coming politicians).

Considering his problems understanding basics of state government, I'm not surprised. Two weeks ago he called for abolishing the Governor's Energy Office, an office that costs no general fund dollars, has helping bring numerous renewable energy jobs to Colorado, and $145 Million in stimulus money that would otherwise have gone to other states.

Thank You John Salazar: A Blue Dog Comes Through

saindenver — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 17:08:26 GMT

There has been a lot of discussion here about our Blue Dog Democratic Congressional members. One of the targets has been John Salazer who represents CD-3. John has been the only Democrat elected to a Congressional office in his district in a very long while. His district has a Cook PVI of R+5, and there was a lot of pressure from some of his donors and constituents for his "Nay". But, true to Democratic priniples, John did the right thing and voted "Yea". Today, DavidNYC thanked him publicly on the KOS Front Page. I think we should also thank this man for his support of this very difficult vote and am doing so both here and by other means:
Washington, DC
326 CannonHOB
Washington, DC 20515
202-225-4761
202-226-9669 (fax)

Grand Junction, Colorado
225 North 5th Street, STE 702
Grand Junction, CO 81501
970-245-7107
970- 245-2194 (fax)

Pueblo, Colorado
134 West B Street
Pueblo, CO 81003
719-543-8200
719-543-8204 (fax)

Durango, Colorado
813 Main Ave, Ste 300
Durango, CO 81301
970-259-1012
970-259-9467 (fax)

Alamosa, Colorado
609 Main Street, #6
Alamosa, CO 81101
719-587-5105
719-587-5137 (fax)

Thank you, John!

Some more of that classy Republican bipartisanship

Zappatero — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 23:18:40 GMT

Ummmm, Dems. Can you take a hint here?
Should have put Barney Frank as Chair.

Join Andrew Romanoff for a live blog tomorrow afternoon

johne — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 23:22:26 GMT

UPDATE: Here's the link: http://www.dailykos.com/story/... We started a few minutes ago.

Tomorrow, Sunday, Andrew Romanoff will be going on DailyKos to talk about his campaign for the US Senate. Starting at 12:30pm (MT), Andrew will take any and all questions for about an hour. I'll post a link here before we start. Note, I am volunteering a bit to help the campaign.

Will my life change?

johne — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 22:05:39 GMT

If you haven't noticed, I've been kind of quiet of late. You see, I've kind of had other priorities. In about three weeks I'm going to be a father. My life isn't devoid of politics. I've built a few basic websites for some political candidates and a clean campaigns organization. My next diary will actually announce another thing I've been helping with. I've also been looking for a job. Of course the more time I put into that search, the more depressing it is. But, most of my time is being spent preparing the house for a tiny new resident. If you remember a few months ago I was dealing with mice in the house. I had to pull up some of the deck to figure out how they were getting in the house. That allowed me to see how much the deck was rotting from exposure to moisture. I dug new foundation holes and poured concrete. Then the joists (the deck is just a few inches from the ground), and finally new deck boards. Now I'm prepping the surface for deck paint. I'm also doing work inside the house. We have one large second bedroom, whereas our next-door neighbor with a similar house layout has two. So, I'm adding a wall with a door, so the baby will have his (yes it's a boy) own room, plus an office area. Two weeks ago I got the building permit, and last monday was the framing inspection. Then there's drywall, another inspection, taping, joint compound, sanding, final inspection, trim, and painting. My goal is to finish all this before the baby comes. The doctor says day before thanksgiving, but who knows what he'll decide to do.

I'm going to try to keep blogging from time to time, but I think my schedule will be even more upturned soon enough. But, who knows; maybe I'll be even more fired up thinking about the future of this state and this country for my son.

Saturday Morning Garden Blogging Vol. 5.38

Frankenoid — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 14:59:15 GMT

In Orange.

Good morning, and where does the time go? Welcome to Saturday Morning Garden Blogging.

Denver recovered rapidly from the snow dump of a week ago: by Halloween evening the snow was gone from the southern exposures and the path was clear for massive numbers of trick-or-treaters to clomp up our front steps, ignore the doorbell and pound on the door.

For the past few days we've been hovering at near record highs at the airport: 77? on Thursday and 75? on Friday. In Denver proper we were several degrees warmer. Overnight lows have likewise been warm, not even descending to the 40s.

Today and tomorrow will be a touch cooler, but still lovely fall days - and the warmth earlier this week dried out the soil enough such that I'll be able to get at least some of the spring bulbs into the ground. I think I'll concentrate on those really pricey bulbs from Old House Gardens first.
The butt-ugly bush on the east side of the front porch has put out its berries. I have no idea what this thing is, beyond a bone of contention between the Mister and me.

He loves it because it spreads easily and thrives on neglect.

I hate it because it spreads easily and will take over if neglected. Plus it's ugly, dense, tangled and gets really leggy. And collects trash. I've gradually been pushing it back from the porch, giving me space to plant a dwarf Korean lilac bush - the lilac is a three years old now and finally starting to grow rapidly and soon (I hope) will overshadow the butt-ugly bush's ugliness with lilacian splendor.

Last week I promised an update on What I've Learned About Forcing Hyacinth, but stuff happens and time got away from me. For one thing, Arwen the Terrible has been at sixes and sevens with the time change. Sigh. I wish cats came with a re-set button. Arwen has her routine, and woe betide anyone who isn't doing what she thinks needs to be done at a certain time. Thus, although the alarm clock was reset, the Arwen purr-ball-get-up-and-give-me-gooshy-food alarm has still been going off an hour earlier. Ditto at the end of the day - she gets frantic when I haven't gone up to the bedroom to read at what, to her, is the "right" time. And, horrors of horrors, I've been getting home an hour late in Arwen time to re-fill her gooshy-food bowl. She's gradually acclimating, but she's been a most frantic, clingy pootie all week.

So you'll get your update next week.

On my normal Wednesday off it was too wet to actually plant bulbs, but I did do some of the cleanup which will allow me to plant bulbs this weekend. Along with cutting back spent foliage, I also took the opportunity of super-soft soil to pull out some excess plumbago. I have it planted at the base of a peony bush, and it's wonderful there, growing up through the peony's support ring and giving late-season color to what otherwise can be a dull spot. But plumbago's roots do spread wide, far and deep, so every few years I need to get it under control (at the same time separating the spring bulbs that also are planted in the area).

As soon as the morning has warmed enough, I'll head out, finish the front yard clean up then grab a drill and the bulb auger, start plugging bulbs in the ground and dreaming of spring.

That's what's happening here. What's going on in your gardens?

Mad Tom Tancredo

Aaron Silverstein — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 23:34:36 GMT

I wonder if Coffman agrees with his predecessor on this one?

UPDATE: Here's what Markos was talking about:

As a Republican student activist Tancredo spoke in support of the Vietnam War. After graduating from the University of Northern Colorado he became eligible to serve in Vietnam in June 1969. Tancredo has said he went for his physical, telling doctors he had been treated for depression, and eventually got a "1-Y" deferment.

Can anyone be surprised? Markos served, Tancredo dithered.

Blue Dog Salazar can vote for HC Reform AND reduce the deficit. Will he?

Zappatero — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 20:41:19 GMT

The philosophical flaws in House Dems' Blue Dog Caucus have been known for quite a while. Blue Dog John Salazar has been boldly playing both sides of that debate, but he'll have to make final and fateful choice in the next few days:

Blue Dogs like to say that they are fiscal conservatives. In fact, "fiscally conservative" is the first way that Blue Dogs describe themselves on their website. That description is right next to a deficit clock, because I guess reducing the deficit is their number one priority. Fortunately for the Blue Dogs, there is a health care bill in the House right now that the CBO projects to reduce the deficit in both the near term and long term. From the CBO:
CBO and the staff of JCT estimate that, on balance, the direct spending and revenue effects of enacting H.R. 3962, incorporating the manager's amendment, would yield a net reduction in federal budget deficits of $129 billion over the 2010-2019 period.

Wow. Blue Dogs can go to heaven! Deficit reduction AND major health care reform. $129 Billion in savings can buy a lot of dog biscuits.

Surely, that old Blue Dog John Salazar would jump at the chance to take a bite out of this one. Let's give him a treat and let him know how we feel, just in case he's not sure:

Washington, DC
202-225-4761

Grand Junction 970-245-7107

Pueblo

719-543-8200

Durango

970-259-1012

Alamosa, Colorado
719-587-5105