Maybe you heard. Colorado has a Congressman who disagrees with President Obama's policies. That's not all that surprising. Lots of Representatives in the House disagree with Obama's policies and I don't have a problem with that. But what is surprising, and so disappointing, is that Congressman Lamborn has decided not to attend tonight's State of the Union address because he disagrees with the Obama's policies. After I heard this news yesterday I was embarrassed for Colorado and I took it upon myself to write Rep. Lamborn a little note, which I've pasted below. But I encourage you to write to him yourself by visiting his website.
Here's my letter to him:
Dear Rep. Lamborn,
First as a U.S. citizen and second as a Coloradan, I was embarrassed to see on the local and national news that you will not be attending President Obama's State of the Union speech tonight. While I respect the political differences between you and Obama, these aren't differences that should be sacrificed for the unity of our representational democracy. To do that is to cheapen this country and the founding principles of it. By not attending the speech you are getting a lot of attention, which I am sure you are pleased with, but you are also losing support from Democrats and Republicans throughout Colorado. It's a shame you've let differences and not similarities dictate your behavior in Washington. It is my sincere hope that you change your mind and attend the speech tonight. And if you don't, I hope Colorado sends you packing next midterm.
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
Thursday, January 19, 2012
Fearful of retribution given out by Monte, my parents brought her with on their trip to Denver for Christmas and New Year's. It was good to see the old lady.
She's got fire in her eyes.
She was either sleeping or going to the bathroom. Luckily, it was the former.
Max, the only Scotty I've loved. One of the Bradley dogs.
In fact, I love him so much I would never subject him to this horrible purple sweater and allow him to be held by some stiff old man in Loveland.
This is another Bradley dog. Her name is Daisy and she is a Corgipoo. Did your testicles just shrink? Mine did.
Saturday, January 07, 2012
Thursday, January 05, 2012
A short piece on Ron Paul appears in this week’s New Yorker. I appreciate some of Paul’s ideas, but Nicholas Lemann captures, for me, two important truths. One, why if Ron Paul’s government-shrinking strategy came to fruition, this country would be a scary place to live in. And two, why he’ll never, ever win.
Paul’s vision reveals—with candor and specificity—what the G.O.P.’s rhetorical hostility to government would mean if it were rigorously put into practice. A minimal state, without welfare provisions for the unemployed. A quarter of a million federal workers—as a first installment—joining those unemployed. Foreign policy and national defense reduced to a few ballistic-missile submarines. The civil-rights legislation of the nineteen-sixties repealed as so much unwarranted government intrusion. As for the financial crisis, Paul would have countenanced no regulation that might have prevented it, no government stabilization of the financial system after it happened, and no special help for working people hurt by it. This is where the logic of government-shrinking leads.