The fool's summary of what happened with Hurricane Sandy can be found in a scientifically infantile editorial today of the Denver Post where we, the general public, are all encouraged to be aware of the weather outside. OPINION Editorial: What Sandy can teach us in Colorado Though our own stormy season — winter — seems distant, now is the time to prepare for nature's fury. The cowardly business folk at the Denver Post don't want us talking about climate change and our corporate leaders' part in screwing up Nature with their worship of consumerism and capitalism and US militarism. Now on towards Did Climate Change Cause Hurricane Sandy? ...(Scientific American). Of course it did.... partially. But a big PARTIALLY at that.
Tag: Denver Post
Dear President Tar Baby…
Does anyone know if Rep. Lamborn really sent an apology to President Obama for calling him a Tar Baby? Has anyone seen it? Lamborn's office issued a press release saying "the congressman is confident that the President will accept his heartfelt apology." News headlines regurgitated the story sight unseen. The Denver Post quoted Lamborn: "I am sure that he will not take offense and he'll be happy to accept my apology because he is a man of character.” How do we know an apology was sent? Because Lamborn says so? That dork told us Obama was a Tar Baby, luckily someone showed skepticism about that. This reminds me of the old gag about the man who returns to his parked car to find a note on the windshield: "Sorry I dented your car. I'm writing you this note so people will think I'm leaving my contact info, but I'm not." Until Representative Lamborn issues a public apology, or until President Obama acknowledges Lamborn's contrition for such a preposterous racist remark, how is this insult to everyone's intelligence and sense of humanity supposed to be lessened? To judge by the lack of sensitivity shown in Lamborn's press release, composed for the public, there couldn't have been much by way of empathy in a private letter to Obama. Alleged. Try to find it online. Every news article about the purported apology links back to Lamborn's press release. On his Facebook page, Lamborn has a link called "my apology to President Obama" but it leads to the same PR blurb below. (emphasis mine) Lamborn Issues President an Apology Congressman Doug Lamborn (CO-05) today sent a personal letter to President Barack Obama apologizing for using a term some find insensitive. Lamborn was attempting to tell a radio audience last week that the President's policies have created an economic quagmire for the nation and are responsible for the dismal economic conditions our country faces. He regrets that he chose the phrase "tar baby," rather than the word "quagmire." The Congressman is confident that the President will accept his heartfelt apology. Saying "I told him I was sorry" never passed muster in primary school, especially a pronouncement that was 3/4 filled with more insult. A child who'd offended another was made to apologize to his face, out loud. Why is Colorado's asinine little congressman being given a pass on a transgression that reflects so unbecomingly on his community? In response to the local fallout, Lamborn's office has acquiesced to holding a public forum on Friday August 19. It's outside of town, go figure, in a church pre-filled with dumb bigots, to ensure Lamborn's supporters can find him. What's he going to say there? "My statement wasn't racist." "Amen!" "It's not Obama's being black that makes him untouchable." "Amen!" I don't want to go -- what is there to say to him? I don't even want to meet Lamborn's unrepentant eyes, much less sit in an audience and give the stupid creep the impression what he has to say deserves a listen.
TASER YO MOMMA!!
So there was a recent Letter To The Editor of the Denver Post pissing and moaning about the Denver cops being sued just because they killed a guy with their tasers. "Stop being such crybabies, sure they killed him so what? They obviously didn't intend to kill him because they used tasers instead of guns to do it!" So, a matter of degree in HOW lethal a Deadly Weapon is? Taser deaths have steadily climbed. There were two Colorado Springs robberies I can immediately recall using tasers, both carried the "charge" (little electric joke) of Armed Robbery WITH A DEADLY WEAPON. If it's good enough for the cops to call tasers a deadly weapon in one context, why not consider it likely to be a deadly weapon in others? Audie Murphy was shot a few times, by people carrying military grade firearms (cause they were in an Army) but didn't die from the wounds. Is a military firearm, then, LESS or MORE lethal than a taser? The argument that a taser is not deadly when used by "trained professionals"? Bullshit. Taser deaths have been overwhelmingly the results of attacks by "Trained Professionals". In fact, that kind of Back The Badge claim has a disturbing back-end, if they're trained not to murder people with a taser, then the deaths must be deliberate. Nice try, DP LTTE writer. You might want a doctor to check out that leg, your knee jerked to the Right so fast it must have hurt. Tasers are, by the way, according to the manufacturers safe to use on children as young as 2 years. Which means either they're telling an outright lie or, the Taser company actually tested it by torturing Human Babies with it. "She wet herself! Taze her again!" Now, the babies they used for testing were undoubtedly in Third World countries so it wouldn't be nearly as heinous as torturing American kids, righ... ok so I can't force myself to write it all the way... What kind of sick bastard Demon Spawn finds it prudent or necessary to taser BABIES? Just a guess, here, but maybe somebody who believes and states in writing to a prominent newspaper like the Denver Post the belief that failure to instantly comply with his Police State Masters should carry a sentence of "Death by Torture".
Ex RMN columnists stuck to their guns
DENVER- Considering the villainous role the Rocky Mountain News played in the vilification of Ward Churchill, their insinuations having been thoroughly discredited in this trial, you'd think the RMN columnists now writing for the Denver Post would be self-conscious about taking the same mocking stance. But they are not. Attorney David Lane chats with them most amicably, but still they file the typical anti-academic hit pieces. Columnist Vincent Carroll summarized Churchill's recent testimony as: Ward's world of brazen claims. In an earlier piece, Carroll recaps Churchill's alleged misconduct, but where an objective reporter would say "alleged," Carroll writes "gross." Don't think the RMN vets aren't well aware that a vindication for Churchill means a repudiation of their libel. Mike Littwin is no better. For him, yawns in the audience are not a sign of defense attorney Patrick O'Rourke's pedestrian presentation, but of the discussion's irrelevance. Of Native American history in dispute, of genocide still denied by CU in this example, Littwin concludes: the World has moved beyond Churchill.
Churchill and his curiously vile detractors
DENVER- There's an interesting sideshow at the Churchill v CU case having to do with a cadre of unsavory Ward Churchill online critics. What they are writing is hardly interesting but their unceasing doggedness, repeating only ad hominem attacks, leads one to wonder who they are and what horse do they have, in not only this race, but in Churchill's ongoing activism. These are the same voices which heckled the DNC organizers, AIM, and the contra-Columbus actions. It's a little circle of shit-knitters, who cross-link or repost each other's comments from Blogspot blogs Drunkablog, Slapstick Politics, People's Press Collective, and riding point on the Churchill Trial, Pirate Ballerina. These are Little Green Football variety ditto-heads, and I hardly mean to draw attention to them, but their relentless character assassination seems to wag the local media dogs, and one might as well look into that. Meaning, more in a bit. Churchill amused the courtroom audience by illustrating his sarcastic use of quotation marks, as one might refer to the Rocky Mountain News as a "newspaper." It's not enough to conclude Professor Churchill has enemies. There are Native American casino owners who might be threatened by Churchill's revisiting of the past, there are rivals for Churchill's influence in the American Indian Movement. Obviously there are historians eager to retread what they've invested in the Master Narrative. Curiously, there are Zionists who are vehemently opposed to the discussion Churchill wants to provoke. And I suppose there are stupid white males who will stand for no diminishment of God Blessed America. These bloggers are the latter "Right Wing" variety obviously, and bring nothing to the table but personal attacks. But what sustains them, tasked as they appear to be, to hound Ward Churchill on a daily basis, year after year? There are players both on the national scene, and locally, who I consider complete bastards who merit every rebuke possible, but that doesn't mean I dedicate my every utterance when they so much as visit the bathroom.