<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?>
<rss version="2.0"
     xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" 
     xmlns:db="http://www.w3.org"
     xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
     xmlns:ysrv="http://www.progressnowaction.org">
  <channel>
    <title>Michael Darling Blog</title>
    <link>http://www.progressnowaction.org/page/community/blog_rss/michaeldarling</link>
    <description>All manner of thought and reference. Educate me. Inspire me.</description>
                        <item>
            <title>Denver VA Medical Center is now NOT being built anew at Fitz</title>
            <description>How is it that after the un-fabulous IG report from a few years back that all but recommended closing the DVAMC asap, and after years of hearing about the new DVAMC at Fitzsimmons, that the decision to not build a new hospital gets no press? 
 
I&#039;m unclear on the details- but will I really have to move to another state to continue relying on the VA ? 
 
My current understanding is that the VA will lease space in the new UC Hospital. Sounds like a sure way to cut expenses- and also services. 
 
Details to follow. 
 
Please reply to me directly if you wish to be added to my email list for this issue. (I&#039;ll never share you r inf with anyone- nor spam you). 
 
Mike Darling</description>
            <link>http://www.progressnowaction.org/page/community/post/michaeldarling/CqsB</link>
            <comments>http://www.progressnowaction.org/page/community/post/michaeldarling/CqsB/commentary#comments</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 08 May 2008 13:10:23 MDT</pubDate>
            <guid>http://www.progressnowaction.org/page/community/post/michaeldarling/CqsB</guid>
            <dc:creator>MDarling</dc:creator>
                        <db:profile>
                <db:picture>http://www.progressnowaction.org/page/community/profile_picture/eec4455190d3e3fb22_m1x0mvvgx.jpg</db:picture>
                <db:author_name>MDarling</db:author_name>
                <db:school></db:school>
            </db:profile>
            <db:comment_count>0</db:comment_count>
            <wfw:commentRss>http://www.progressnowaction.org/page/community/comment_rss/CqsB/</wfw:commentRss>
        </item>
                    <item>
            <title>CNN /You tube edited out GLBT military question</title>
            <description>If I didn&#039;t find it so disappointing I&#039;d find it amusing that CNN and the Republican candidates think that American voters are so squeamish about either the subject or the possibility that a question came from a (gasp!) democrat or Clinton supporter that they edited it out of the now available debate footage.   
See  Media Matters  
 
CNN clearly is not concerned that GLBT soldiers or voters will find out that their GLBT orientation is an issue.  Likewise, but sadly, they also are not concerned that this is a legitimate question for the potential commander in chief. 
 
As a veteran (retired USAF officer, and a combat vet) I can say I neither cared nor knew about the sexual orientation of others at my base or in my units.  And I cant imagine how or why I&#039;d care if I did.</description>
            <link>http://www.progressnowaction.org/page/community/post/michaeldarling/CqFN</link>
            <comments>http://www.progressnowaction.org/page/community/post/michaeldarling/CqFN/commentary#comments</comments>
            <pubDate>Sun, 02 Dec 2007 12:36:02 MST</pubDate>
            <guid>http://www.progressnowaction.org/page/community/post/michaeldarling/CqFN</guid>
            <dc:creator>MDarling</dc:creator>
                        <db:profile>
                <db:picture>http://www.progressnowaction.org/page/community/profile_picture/eec4455190d3e3fb22_m1x0mvvgx.jpg</db:picture>
                <db:author_name>MDarling</db:author_name>
                <db:school></db:school>
            </db:profile>
            <db:comment_count>1</db:comment_count>
            <wfw:commentRss>http://www.progressnowaction.org/page/community/comment_rss/CqFN/</wfw:commentRss>
        </item>
                    <item>
            <title>Is the era of cheap oil over?</title>
            <description>I don&#039;t know but the Saudi&#039;s tried to increase production last year and the year before- couldn&#039;t do it.  70 rigs?  170 rigs isn&#039;t going to matter if the oil isn&#039;t in the ground. 
If they do manage to increase production- buy the dips. 
 
 
 Link </description>
            <link>http://www.progressnowaction.org/page/community/post/michaeldarling/C27F</link>
            <comments>http://www.progressnowaction.org/page/community/post/michaeldarling/C27F/commentary#comments</comments>
            <pubDate>Sat, 01 Oct 2005 00:14:07 MDT</pubDate>
            <guid>http://www.progressnowaction.org/page/community/post/michaeldarling/C27F</guid>
            <dc:creator>MDarling</dc:creator>
                        <db:profile>
                <db:picture>http://www.progressnowaction.org/page/community/profile_picture/eec4455190d3e3fb22_m1x0mvvgx.jpg</db:picture>
                <db:author_name>MDarling</db:author_name>
                <db:school></db:school>
            </db:profile>
            <db:comment_count>0</db:comment_count>
            <wfw:commentRss>http://www.progressnowaction.org/page/community/comment_rss/C27F/</wfw:commentRss>
        </item>
      </channel>
</rss>