• Bernard Birnbaum 1,375
• Steven Thorson 1,370
• Debbie Healy 393
• Matt Fries 320
• Jack Irving 86

Birnbaum and Thorson, both doctors, were re-elected. Read more about them here [pdf]

Some community activists had expressed concern that other candidates were running in order to pad their resumes for a higher office or to further an extreme anti-government agenda. On the first point other opportunities exist ranging from Fort Collins Cat Rescue to Friends of the Library

On the second point:

People who don’t believe in government shouldn’t get to run one
~Rachel Maddow

Related: Shovel-Ready Clinics

Resource: Salud Family Health Centers

Posted by Gypsy Chief

Follow @GypsyChief

What's the Plural of Uterus? Girl Power

Republished from PoliticusUSA from April 29,2012 here by Rmuse

A conception or mental creation that is baseless or unbelievable is said to be imaginary, and it implies delusion or myth in some contexts. It is hardly appropriate for aggressors to claim their victims are imagining an attack when there is documented evidence of injury, and especially when the aggression continues unabated, but that is precisely what Republicans are claiming in their war on women. Perhaps Republicans hope that by lying often and loudly about an imaginary war on women that women will ignore or forget the devastation and injury they have endured for the past year and support their assailants. Apparently, that is what Republicans are hoping will happen and they are ramping up a campaign to convince voters, and especially women voters, that there is no war on women.

This past week, House minority leader Eric Cantor’s Young Guns group announced a multi-million dollar media campaign called “Woman Up” to convince voters there is no war on women. During a closed-door fundraiser this week, Willard Romney told supporters they needed to “get the women” on board to ensure his election to the White House, and both instances not only fly in the face of reality, they are an epic insult to women. However, no amount of media propaganda or campaign rhetoric will ever convince women that they have not been on the receiving end of the GOP’s assaults on their rights, and this week highlighted the fact that the Republicans are serious in punishing women.

In the House, Republicans successfully passed legislation keeping student loan interest at the current level by paying for it with women’s healthcare funds instead of raising payroll taxes on high-income owners of corporations to the level every other working American pays. In a speech on the floor of the House, Speaker John Boehner displayed faux outrage at Democrats for asking the wealthy to pay their fair share of taxes and accused them of playing politics with student loans and said it was the latest Democratic “plank in the so-called war on women” that was “entirely created by Democrats for political gain.” In the Senate, former presidential candidate John McCain gave a ten-minute rant about Democrat’s politically motivated intention of “dividing the country in the name of fairness and equality” and called the “supposed” war on women “outlandish rhetoric to distract citizens from real issues that really matter.”

McCain obviously does not comprehend that for half the population, what really matters is that their rights are being subverted by Republicans as a matter-of-course and it shows just how out of touch and misogynistic he is when it comes to women’s rights. Women have spent the past year watching Republicans redefine rape, vote for gender pay inequality, restrict their access to cancer screenings and contraception, and give employers the right to deny healthcare if it went against their religious beliefs. Women are patient, but they are not stupid and that is the message Republicans are expressing when they say the war on women is imaginary, or worse, a creation of Democrats who have voted time and time again to give women equal rights the Constitution guarantees. Then there is presumptive Republican presidential candidate Willard Romney telling his supporters they have to “get the women” to support his candidacy.

Romney said, without hesitation, that one of the first acts as president is “getting rid of Planned Parenthood” that serves millions of women with cancer screenings, contraception, and family planning, among others. He supported the Blunt amendment giving employers medical rights over women’s healthcare issues, and said he wants women to have dignity of working at the same time he fawns over his wife because she had the luxury to stay home and raise children. In Romney’s budget, poor and middle class women face massive cuts to programs that provide healthcare and food assistance for their children while the wealthy receive greater tax cuts. It is too late for Romney to “get the women” to support any Republican much less a wealthy elitist who promises to escalate the war on women if he is elected.

President Obama sees the war on women as a war on equal rights and he assailed Republicans for advocating for less government regulations unless it is regulating women. In defending his policies on women, the president said the Affordable Care Act “finally gives women more power to make their own choices about their health care,” and that the Republican war on women was “appalling and offensive, and when it comes to what’s going on out there, you’re not going to close your eyes. Women across America aren’t closing their eyes. As long as I’m president, I won’t either.” Most women, who make up 53% of the electorate, know the President has been fighting for their rights, and as he mentioned, they know what Republicans are doing and their eyes are wide open. The President also noted that Republicans in states are “saying that women can’t be trusted to make their own decisions,” and it is a message women have heard loud and clear since Republicans swept into power after the 2010 elections.

Women are, and should be, incensed at the second-class status that Republicans are legislating them into with law after law abridging their rights and protections. Who do Republicans think they are waging an all-out unrelenting war on women and their rights, and how dare they think that just because they say there is no war on women that women will believe their lies? Women are not stupid, but that is the implication Republicans are making with their media blitz disputing their attacks on women and belief that they can just “get the women” to support their campaign to put women back in the Dark Ages. As the President said, women are not, and have not, closed their eyes to the hideous assault on their rights and yesterday they took the first step to destroy their attackers. In 55 cities, women united against the war on women to tell the entire country they have had enough of Republican misogyny and this is only the beginning.

The sleeping giant that is American women is wide awake and they are livid and looking for retribution. They are not sitting idly by hoping the Republican assault will subside, and the GOP is going to pay in the general election. The march and rallies across the nation should serve notice to Republicans that no impassioned Senate or House floor speeches is going to convince them there is not a war on women, or that Willard’s campaign to “get the women” on board is going to have any success because Republicans have battered women for too long and they are not taking it any longer. It is stunning that Republicans voted against women’s rights and access to healthcare in the same week they are telling them there is no war against them. It is beyond the pale that the GOP has such low regard for women that as they are beating them down, they say there is no war; women will make them pay and they are not alone. The men who love their wives, daughters, mothers, and sisters are just as furious as women and they are mobilizing and supporting women’s movements to end this Republican war on women’s rights which is, in reality, a war on human rights.

Related: Comment on Mysogyny Does Yahoo! Hate Lesbians?

Posted by Gypsy Chief

Follow @GypsyChief

For more information Email Rosemarie Russo

Related: Can Economy Bear What Gas Prices Have In Store?

Posted by Gypsy Chief

Follow @GypsyChief

Event Details

• Suggested prices for starts are $1 for 2-inch pots and up to $3 for larger plants, but gardeners are free to set their own prices.
• Gardeners can keep up to 75% from the sale of their starts to cover costs.
• Home Grown Food will keep 25% of sales for this fundraiser.
• Larimer County Master Gardeners will be available, along with veteran suburban gardeners, to answer your gardening questions.
• Seed will also be available for purchase.

Who Is Home Grown Food?

Home Grown Food is based in Fort Collins and has evolved from Grow Food Not Lawns. The group now:

• Gives public talks on growing your own food.
• Sponsors public workshops to educate the community members.
• Maintains a Google Group for ongoing discussion and resource lists.
• Holds monthly discussion groups on gardening and local food topics.
• Coordinates publicity and car pools to out-of-town events.
• Works with and through local media to provide perspectives promoting local food issues.
• Mentors new gardeners.

Posted by Gypsy Chief

Follow @GypsyChief

Ayla, 9, completes springtime Pagan ritual

Cotton Mather Likely AG Pick

I fully expect that Romney, should he become president, will be unable or unwilling to govern from the center. The modern GOP has moved so far to the right that President Mittens would have to go with them. Word around Washington, DC is that Cotton Mather is under serious consideration as Attorney General in a Romney administration. Even if Mather is not available, some other Attorney General is apt to bring back Spectral Evidence into American jurisprudence. I fear that Ayla will be accused of witchcraft based upon this photograph.

Want More Proof?

Ayla channels a vampire

No matter who wins the election of 2012 the problem of Vampire Banks is not likely to be addressed. Instead, the powers that be will ascribe witchcraft status based on these photos.

Posted by Gypsy Chief

Follow @GypsyChief

The Gypsy Chief and his travelling companion Sugar, 11, just concluded a successful trip to California to see the grandkids for Easter.

On the way back we stopped at Donner Summit to take a picture. Sugar wants everyone to know that dogs are not luggage. The good folks at Dogs Against Romney agree. They were kind enough to retweet.

Posted by Gypsy Chief

Follow @GypsyChief

Illinois Congressman not Florida Congressman

One abiding theme here at the Gypsy Chief Blog is the press always gets it wrong. I was thinking that the other day when I heard Richard Lui of MSNBC say that Joe Walsh [R-IL] shouted “You Lie” at last year’s SOTU speech. Unfortunately the you lie comment was made by Joe Wilson [R-SC] not Joe Walsh. Walsh, in a tough re-election fight against Tammy Duckworth is the child support guy and Tea-Party favorite.

Decided there wasn’t enough to blog about but then today the Coloradoan came up with a doozy of a Tweet. The Coloradoan says in a Tweet Florida Congressman is thrown off House Floor for wearing hoodie [I am paraphrasing]. Sorry Coloadoan, Bobby Rush is from the Chicagoland area of Illinois, not Florida.

Accuracy in journalism is key

Posted by Gypsy Chief

Follow @GypsyChief

Think about this for a second and if it doesn’t stagger you, I don’t know what to say: the U.S. military consumes as much oil every day as the entire nation of Sweden.

Or take a guess on this question of the week: How much did it cost Mobil and its partners to build the world’s largest oil-drilling platform, a 1.2 million-ton monster that sits in 300 feet of water in “Iceberg Alley” in the Canadian North Atlantic and is armored with 16 protective “teeth” designed to absorb the impact of those approaching bergs? The answer: $5 billion for the Hibernia platform, which is now producing 135,000 barrels of deep sea oil per day.

If you wanted, you could spend your time turning Michael Klare’s new book, The Race for What’s Left: The Global Scramble for the World’s Last Resources, into an energy and resources version of Believe It Or Not that would stagger your friends. Klare has a way of landing us on a strange new planet called Earth, one stripped to its disappearing resources and filled with insatiable greed. It’s always a bracing experience, even when, as he assures us in his new book, the rush to the planet’s Iceberg Alleys to provide energy for the U.S. military and the rest of us fuel guzzlers may be the last “race” of its kind we are likely to undertake. (To catch Timothy MacBain’s latest Tomcast audio interview in which Klare discusses his new book and what it means to rely on extreme energy, click here, or download it to your iPod here.) Tom Englehardt

A Tough-Oil World

Why Twenty-First Century Oil Will Break the Bank — and the Planet

by Michael T. Klare

Oil prices are now higher than they have ever been — except for a few frenzied moments before the global economic meltdown of 2008. Many immediate factors are contributing to this surge, including Iran’s threats to block oil shipping in the Persian Gulf, fears of a new Middle Eastern war, and turmoil in energy-rich Nigeria. Some of these pressures could ease in the months ahead, providing temporary relief at the gas pump. But the principal cause of higher prices — a fundamental shift in the structure of the oil industry — cannot be reversed, and so oil prices are destined to remain high for a long time to come.

In energy terms, we are now entering a world whose grim nature has yet to be fully grasped. This pivotal shift has been brought about by the disappearance of relatively accessible and inexpensive petroleum — “easy oil,” in the parlance of industry analysts; in other words, the kind of oil that powered a staggering expansion of global wealth over the past 65 years and the creation of endless car-oriented suburban communities. This oil is now nearly gone.

The world still harbors large reserves of petroleum, but these are of the hard-to-reach, hard-to-refine, “tough oil” variety. From now on, every barrel we consume will be more costly to extract, more costly to refine — and so more expensive at the gas pump.

Those who claim that the world remains “awash” in oil are technically correct: the planet still harbors vast reserves of petroleum. But propagandists for the oil industry usually fail to emphasize that not all oil reservoirs are alike: some are located close to the surface or near to shore, and are contained in soft, porous rock; others are located deep underground, far offshore, or trapped in unyielding rock formations. The former sites are relatively easy to exploit and yield a liquid fuel that can readily be refined into usable liquids; the latter can only be exploited through costly, environmentally hazardous techniques, and often result in a product which must be heavily processed before refining can even begin.

The simple truth of the matter is this: most of the world’s easy reserves have already been depleted — except for those in war-torn countries like Iraq. Virtually all of the oil that’s left is contained in harder-to-reach, tougher reserves. These include deep-offshore oil, Arctic oil, and shale oil, along with Canadian “oil sands” — which are not composed of oil at all, but of mud, sand, and tar-like bitumen. So-called unconventional reserves of these types can be exploited, but often at a staggering price, not just in dollars but also in damage to the environment.

In the oil business, this reality was first acknowledged by the chairman and CEO of Chevron, David O’Reilly, in a 2005 letter[pdf] published in many American newspapers. “One thing is clear,” he wrote, “the era of easy oil is over.” Not only were many existing oil fields in decline, he noted, but “new energy discoveries are mainly occurring in places where resources are difficult to extract, physically, economically, and even politically.”

Further evidence for this shift was provided by the International Energy Agency (IEA) in a 2010 review of world oil prospects. In preparation for its report, the agency examined historic yields at the world’s largest producing fields — the “easy oil” on which the world still relies for the overwhelming bulk of its energy. The results were astonishing: those fields were expected to lose three-quarters of their productive capacity over the next 25 years, eliminating 52 million barrels per day from the world’s oil supplies, or about 75% of current world crude oil output. The implications were staggering: either find new oil to replace those 52 million barrels or the Age of Petroleum will soon draw to a close and the world economy would collapse.

Of course, as the IEA made clear back in 2010, there will be new oil, but only of the tough variety that will exact a price from us all — and from the planet, too. To grasp the implications of our growing reliance on tough oil, it’s worth taking a whirlwind tour of some of the more hair-raising and easily damaged spots on Earth. So fasten your seatbelts: first we’re heading out to sea — way, way out — to survey the “promising” new world of twenty-first-century oil.

Deepwater Oil

Oil companies have been drilling in offshore areas for some time, especially in the Gulf of Mexico and the Caspian Sea. Until recently, however, such endeavors invariably took place in relatively shallow waters — a few hundred feet, at most — allowing oil companies to use conventional drills mounted on extended piers. Deepwater drilling, in depths exceeding 1,000 feet, is an entirely different matter. It requires specialized, sophisticated, and immensely costly drilling platforms that can run into the billions of dollars to produce.

The Deepwater Horizon, destroyed in the Gulf of Mexico in April 2010 as a result of a catastrophic blowout, is typical enough of this phenomenon. The vessel was built in 2001 for some $500 million, and cost around $1 million per day to staff and maintain. Partly as a result of these high costs, BP was in a hurry to finish work on its ill-fated Macondo well and move the Deepwater Horizon to another drilling location. Such financial considerations, many analysts believe, explain the haste with which the vessel’s crew sealed the well — leading to a leakage of explosive gases into the wellbore and the resulting blast. BP will now have to pay somewhere in excess of $30 billion to satisfy all the claims for the damage done by its massive oil spill.

Following the disaster, the Obama administration imposed a temporary ban on deep-offshore drilling. Barely two years later, drilling in the Gulf’s deep waters is back to pre-disaster levels. President Obama has also signed an agreement with Mexico allowing drilling in the deepest part of the Gulf, along the U.S.-Mexican maritime boundary.

Meanwhile, deepwater drilling is picking up speed elsewhere. Brazil, for example, is moving to exploit its “pre-salt” fields (so-called because they lie below a layer of shifting salt) in the waters of the Atlantic Ocean far off the coast of Rio de Janeiro. New offshore fields are similarly being developed in deep waters off Ghana, Sierra Leone, and Liberia.

By 2020, says energy analyst John Westwood, such deepwater fields will supply 10% of the world’s oil, up from only 1% in 1995. But that added production will not come cheaply: most of these new fields will cost tens or hundreds of billions of dollars to develop, and will only prove profitable as long as oil continues to sell for $90 or more per barrel.

Brazil’s offshore fields, considered by some experts the most promising new oil discovery of this century, will prove especially pricey, because they lie beneath one and a half miles of water and two and a half miles of sand, rock, and salt. The world’s most advanced, costly drilling equipment — some of it still being developed — will be needed. Petrobras, the state-controlled energy firm, has already committed $53 billion to the project for 2011-2015, and most analysts believe that will be only a modest down payment on a staggering final price tag.

We love oil drilling in the Artic National Wildlife Refuge

Artic Oil

The Arctic is expected to provide a significant share of the world’s future oil supply. Until recently, production in the far north has been very limited. Other than in the Prudhoe Bay area of Alaska and a number of fields in Siberia, the major companies have largely shunned the region. But now, seeing few other options, they are preparing for major forays into a melting Arctic.

From any perspective, the Arctic is the last place you want to go to drill for oil. Storms are frequent, and winter temperatures plunge far below freezing. Most ordinary equipment will not operate under these conditions. Specialized (and costly) replacements are necessary. Working crews cannot live in the region for long. Most basic supplies — food, fuel, construction materials — must be brought in from thousands of miles away at phenomenal cost.

But the Arctic has its attractions: billions of barrels of untapped oil, to be exact. According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the area north of the Arctic Circle, with just 6% of the planet’s surface, contains an estimated 13% of its remaining oil (and an even larger share of its undeveloped natural gas) — numbers no other region can match.

With few other places left to go, the major energy firms are now gearing up for an energy rush to exploit the Arctic’s riches. This summer, Royal Dutch Shell is expected to begin test drilling in portions of the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas adjacent to northern Alaska. (The Obama administration must still award final operating permits for these activities, but approval is expected.) At the same time, Statoil and other firms are planning extended drilling in the Barents Sea, north of Norway.

As with all such extreme energy scenarios, increased production in the Arctic will significantly boost oil company operating costs. Shell, for example, has already spent $4 billion alone on preparations for test drilling in offshore Alaska, without producing a single barrel of oil. Full-scale development in this ecologically fragile region, fiercely opposed by environmentalists and local Native peoples, will multiply this figure many times over.

Tar Sands and Heavy Oil

Another significant share of the world’s future petroleum supply is expected to come from Canadian tar sands (also called “oil sands”) and the extra-heavy oil of Venezuela. Neither of these is oil as normally understood. Not being liquid in their natural state, they cannot be extracted by traditional drilling materials, but they do exist in great abundance. According to the USGS, Canada’s tar sands contain the equivalent of 1.7 trillion barrels of conventional (liquid) oil, while Venezuela’s heavy oil deposits are said to harbor another trillion barrels of oil equivalent — although not all of this material is considered “recoverable” with existing technology.

Those who claim that the Petroleum Age is far from over often point to these reserves as evidence that the world can still draw on immense supplies of untapped fossil fuels. And it is certainly conceivable that, with the application of advanced technologies and a total indifference to environmental consequences, these resources will indeed be harvested. But easy oil this is not.

Until now, Canada’s tar sands have been obtained[pdf] through a process akin to strip mining, utilizing monster shovels to pry a mixture of sand and bitumen out of the ground. But most of the near-surface bitumen in the tar-sands-rich province of Alberta has now been exhausted, which means all future extraction will require a far more complex and costly process. Steam will have to be injected into deeper concentrations to melt the bitumen and allow its recovery by massive pumps. This requires a colossal investment of infrastructure and energy, as well as the construction of treatment facilities for all the resulting toxic wastes. According to the Canadian Energy Research Institute, the full development of Alberta’s oil sands would require a minimum investment of $218 billion over the next 25 years, not including the cost of building pipelines to the United States (such as the proposed Keystone XL) for processing in U.S. refineries.

The development of Venezuela’s heavy oil will require investment on a comparable scale. The Orinoco belt, an especially dense concentration of heavy oil adjoining the Orinoco River, is believed to contain recoverable reserves of 513 billion barrels of oil — perhaps the largest source of untapped petroleum on the planet. But converting this molasses-like form of bitumen into a useable liquid fuel far exceeds the technical capacity or financial resources of the state oil company, Petróleos de Venezuela S.A. Accordingly, it is now seeking foreign partners willing to invest the $10-$20 billion needed just to build the necessary facilities.

The Hidden Costs

Tough-oil reserves like these will provide most of the world’s new oil in the years ahead. One thing is clear: even if they can replace easy oil in our lives, the cost of everything oil-related — whether at the gas pump, in oil-based products, in fertilizers, in just about every nook and cranny of our lives — is going to rise. Get used to it. If things proceed as presently planned, we will be in hock to big oil for decades to come.

And those are only the most obvious costs in a situation in which hidden costs abound, especially to the environment. As with the Deepwater Horizon disaster, oil extraction in deep-offshore areas and other extreme geographical locations will ensure ever greater environmental risks. After all, approximately five million barrels of oil were discharged into the Gulf of Mexico, thanks to BP’s negligence, causing extensive damage to marine animals and coastal habitats.

Keep in mind that, as catastrophic as it was, it occurred in the Gulf of Mexico, where vast cleanup forces could be mobilized and the ecosystem’s natural recovery capacity was relatively robust. The Arctic and Greenland represent a different story altogether, given their distance from established recovery capabilities and the extreme vulnerability of their ecosystems. Efforts to restore such areas in the wake of massive oil spills would cost many times the $30-$40 billion BP is expected to pay for the Deepwater Horizon damage and be far less effective.

In addition to all this, many of the most promising tough-oil fields lie in Russia, the Caspian Sea basin, and conflict-prone areas of Africa. To operate in these areas, oil companies will be faced not only with the predictably high costs of extraction, but also additional costs involving local systems of bribery and extortion, sabotage by guerrilla groups, and the consequences of civil conflict.

And don’t forget the final cost: If all these barrels of oil and oil-like substances are truly produced from the least inviting of places on this planet, then for decades to come we will continue to massively burn fossil fuels, creating ever more greenhouse gases as if there were no tomorrow. And here’s the sad truth: if we proceed down the tough-oil path instead of investing as massively in alternative energies, we may foreclose any hope of averting the most catastrophic consequences of a hotter and more turbulent planet.

So yes, there is oil out there. But no, it won’t get cheaper, no matter how much there is. And yes, the oil companies can get it, but looked at realistically, who would want it?

Michael T. Klare is a professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College, a TomDispatch regular, and author of the just published The Race for What’s Left: The Global Scramble for the World’s Last Resources (Metropolitan Books). To listen to Timothy MacBain’s latest Tomcast audio interview in which Klare discusses his new book and what it means to rely on extreme energy, click here, or download it to your iPod here.

Follow TomDispatch on Twitter @TomDispatch and join us on Facebook.

Copyright 2012 Michael Klare

Related: As Economic Growth Fails-How Do We Live Part I Part II Part III

Posted by Gypsy Chief

Follow @GypsyChief

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Posted by Gypsy Chief

Follow @GypsyChief

From CO Coalition Against Attacking Iran

Initial Call for a Colorado Statewide Peace Conference to Oppose Attacking Iran

(note: This is an initial call for the conference. It is meant mostly for people living in Colorado; but hopefully those of you living elsewhere might do likewise)

Dear Friends,

The cry for an attack on Iran has reached unprecedented, near-hysterical proportions in certain well known quarters.

Like the period before the attack on Iraq, many of the same themes are at play with many of the same players trying to drive our country to war again: creating or greatly exaggerating a threat; vilifying the country’s leadership to suggest that they are `crazy’ and capable of anything; the pliant media that swallow pro-war propaganda and spit it out as truth.

Far from preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons, an attack would justify their pursuit and will in all probability trigger a regional if not world war, in anticipation of which oil prices have spiked and threaten to a global recession if not worse.

Our elected representatives both in the Oval Office and in Congress who succumb to this propaganda are complicit in dragging us once again down the path to death and destruction as they have in Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen and Somalia.

We must stop this madness

With this in mind, the Colorado Coalition Against Attacking Iran was formed recently with representatives from Boulder, Ft. Collins and the Denver Metro Area.

The Coalition is already active:

One of our first steps is to organize a conference on Saturday, May 12, at the First Unitarian Society of Denver Church (14th and Lafayette) in Denver from 9 am to 5 pm. The goal is to organize a Colorado statewide campaign to oppose attacking Iran and for re-orienting our country’s priorities toward rebuilding our fragmented and devastated communities. (Detailed program will follow)

We, the undersigned, long-time Colorado peace activists, endorse this conference and urge you to help build the conference and the campaign to stop yet another insane step toward the abyss. Please contact the Coalition to invite speakers to your area or organization to build the Conference and Campaign.

You can contact the coalition at:

https://sites.google.com/site/cocaati

or contact:

Tom Mayer: Thomas.Mayer@Colorado.Edu

Ibrahim Kazerooni: mikazerooni@gmail.com

Rob Prince: robertjprince@comcast.net

Yours,

Ida Audeh

Clair Cafaro

Stuart Chase

Cheryl Distaso

Bill and Genie Durland

Nancy Fey

Ron Forthofer

Alan Gilbert

Nader Hashemi

Pat Hewett

Ibrahim Kazerooni

Bob Kinsey

Leslie Lomas

Tom Mayer

LeRoy Moore

Rob Prince

Michael Rabb

Tom Rauch

Ken and Mag Seaman

Cheryl Stevenson

Doug Vaughan

Ernesto Vigil

Evan Weissman

Dan Winters

Phil Woods

Gypsy Chief’s comment: Why do we always have enough money for war but never enough for public transit, kids nutrition, alternative energy, etc?

Posted by Gypsy Chief

Follow @GypsyChief