Walter In Denver

A Very Good Year

It was for me, anyway. Tragedies and successes, both in abundance.

While some people are quitting blogs more popular than this one, I'm still pretty happy with this. Steadily my readership grows, and perhaps I'm getting a little better at it.

Thank you all for the last year and here's to much more in '04.

Unspeakable Evil

Not-so-funny Colorado news. As expected, federal prosecutors have been harrassing medical marijuana users in Colorado - you may remember voters have declared it to be legal here, and the feds don't like it. In October they seized Don Nord's marijuana. Don lives in Colorado and uses MJ to fight cancer and other ailments. The feds took his medicine.

Routt County Judge James Garrecht ruled the feds have to give the drug back to him, but according to today's Rocky, they refuse to do so.

DEA spokesman Bill Grant said the agency wasn't bound by the order.

"Federal law supersedes state law, and the federal government does not recognize the medicinal use of marijuana," he said.

It's hard to find printable words to describe these people, so let me just say if there were any justice in this case the DEA agents would be looking at jail time themselves.

Love and Bloggers

Jay Solo is vacationing in California. Something to do with Deb Yoder and socks. Jay says, "I highly recommend meeting people through blogging."

Well sure, if more bloggers got results like that blogging would be that much more popular.

It's Here!

RMBR II is up, courtesy of Andrew. Better than version I, since more bloggers are participating. At this rate the endeavor will be a big success. Thanks to Andrew Olmsted and all who participated! Look for the next edition in two weeks. We aleady have some volunteers to host, and anyone else who's interested needs only to drop me a line at walter@walterindenver.com.

Colorado News Update

From the Denver Post via AP:

GLENWOOD SPRINGS - All Chuck Cole wanted was someone to install a carpet. His newspaper ad brought him so much more.

The classified that ran in the Glenwood Springs Post Independent last week inadvertently left out the words “Carpet layer wanted.” Instead, the ad read: “3 hour quickie! Extra Christmas $. Cash upon completion. Glenwood. Ready right now!”
[...]
“One woman said she thought she could ’help me out,”’ he said. “I started to feel like something goofy was going on so I said, ’Are you a carpet layer?’ She said, ’Well, whatever.”’

“I thought that was odd, so I asked her if she had a kicker and an iron and she just hung up,” Cole said.

More updates as events warrant.

More Explaining

Next time you hear some moonbat arguing outside the realm of logic you might want to remember this line (scroll down to the comments):

"[T]hinking outside of the mind."

That certainly explains a lot.

Wonder No More

Did you ever wonder where some of those really bizarre crackpot theories come from? Eric Scheie tracks down an important source:

Perhaps I spent too much time living in Berkeley, California, but I am always interested in the origins of popular hysteria and crackpot ideas. This latest outburst -- that the Iranian earthquake was triggered by the United States military (aka "Bush") (via InstaPundit) -- seemed certain not to disappoint.

If you follow the links to the source, you'll be unable not to notice that the military-as-villain thesis emanates almost entirely from one person: activist Dr. Rosalie Bertell.

There's lots more info at Eric's place.

Don't Hold Back

Bob Ewegen, deputy editor of the Denver Post editorial page, has his end of year column in today's paper. Titled "Highlights, Lowlights of 2003," it's the sort of light throwaway thing you'd expect, except...Whoa!

Lowlight: Howard Dean. To quote Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen: "Appearing on a radio show earlier this month, Dean was asked why the president might be suppressing information about what the government knew before the (Sept. 11) terrorist attacks. Here is what he said:

I knows, Howard - and so does every American voter who is not a permanent resident of the Far Left Funny Farm and Paranoia Palace. Dean's incredible canard accomplished the seemingly impossible feat of taking American presidential politics to a new low.

Ewegen's not exactly a raving right-winger. He strikes me as a pretty much a straight shooter.

Rocky Mountain Blog Roundup II

It's almost time. Andrew Olmsted is hosting, so get your submissions to him soon.

All Colorado bloggers are welcome, even those in temporary exile. See the first RMBR here.

Menu

The holiday gives me an excuse to cook, which is a favorite pastime. The Christmas day dinner was South Dakota wild pheasant and Italian sausage in a cabernet sauce over mashed potatoes, simple hearty food. Mrs. In Denver, expecting our first child, asked for Schwan's vanilla ice cream with chocolate syrup for dessert.

Tonight's follow-up is buffalo chili, made with Breckenridge Pale Ale. No beans, of course. That's also a request. How could I refuse?

Differing Worldview

Eric Alterman's latest explains how Howard Dean is a threat to Washington:

Saddam Hussein may be out of his spider hole, but Washington's real enemy is still at large. His name: "Howard Dean"--and nobody in America poses a bigger threat to the city's sense of its own importance.

I wish that were true. Of course it's not, or Dean would have my vote. As the article makes clear, when Alterman speaks of Washington he's talking only about the press. Here's the final paragraph:

We've all been to this movie before, of course, just one election ago, and it's therefore no surprise that the anti-Dean media fury has increased exponentially with Al Gore's brave, antiestablishment endorsement. In the meantime, the question of the Democratic nomination has come down to this: Will this election be about turningout your base, or winning over swing voters? Gore did the latter but not the former. He won the election, but, thanks to Ralph Nader's megalomania (with an assist from the SCLM--So-Called Liberal Media--and Gore's own crappy campaign), not by enough to prevent the Supreme Court from handing it to Bush. Today, the nation remains no less divided than four years ago, with about 20 percent of the vote up for grabs. The punditocracy has chosen its side. Perhaps it's time the rest of us choose ours.

Dean, sadly, has every intention of increasing and consolidating the real power in Washington, that of the Federal government. The pundits are there to be close to power, not because they are the power. They won't go anywhere during a Howard Dean presidency.

Oh, Christmas Tree

Kevin Drum notes that 72% percent of Americans are now displaying artificial trees at home. One more sign of the declining American character, I suppose. Congress should do something. A heavy tax on artificial trees should do it. The all-powerful tree lobby can't be denied.

Seriously, I have yet to give in to the artificial tree. The past few years we've come up with a new tradition. We drive up to the mountains, and for a measly ten bucks the Forest Service will issue a permit which allows us to cut a tree. The permits are good only in designated places where they want the trees thinned, often in areas adjacent to the big fires of the last few years.

It's a popular activity here in Colorado, so all the best trees near the roads are gone, and we have to hike a ways into the forest, usually through deep snow, to find a better tree.

Better is a comparative term. The tree still winds up looking like something Charlie Brown would have. But it's tall enough to reach our ten-foot ceiling, it's fresh, and it smells great. Plus, like a homely dog the tree has charm all its own.

Gifts

You've probably heard this before, but it's Christmas, and you're probably getting lots of things you already have. So here's a quote from Claire Wolfe, because it's the season:

"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."

And a merry Christmas to you, too.

In Addition

Alex Tabarrok must have been reading here when he wrote this:

Brad DeLong writes that "the core problem of modern liberalism" is "how can one support the idea of an activist government when half the time that government will be run by malevolent or incompetent Republicans?

I agree with but the change of one word. "Republicans" should be replaced with "politicians." Change that one word and you move from a naive, partisan view of the world to a principled, non-partisan and correct view. Note that it is not necessary to believe that every politician is a knave or even that half of them are. The core problem is that knaves can do much more harm than angels can do benefit.

A day before I wrote this concerning the same DeLong article:

This caught my attention as it's similar to something I've thought for a long time. Neither the left nor right would be so eager to push for government expansion if they would just stop to envision their political adversaries running the government.

Tancredo Again

Colorado U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo gave an interview to conservative Frontpage Magazine. It seems when he loosens up and talks to a conservative outfit the results are always entertaining. Here's a quote:

One of the problems in Mexico and in many South and Central American countries is that there is an enormous amount of corruption, and it goes from the cop on the beat to the highest levels of government. That will always stymie their attempts to improve their economy. But it also is something that’s happening on our own border. I talked to a man who headed up a gang unit out of Los Angeles. He told me that there were five cities -- Compton, California, near Los Angeles, was one -- that were completely taken over by the Mexican Mafia. He said they had taken over the city council, the mayor’s office, the police chief…it has become simply another place for illegal drug activity in an institutionalized fashion. He said they couldn’t bust anybody in town. They can't talk to the police in these towns. And the same thing is happening in places like Douglas, Arizona, which I think was rated as the most corrupt town in the country by one magazine recently.

I have some personal experience in this area, having spent a few years living in Texas border towns. The corruption charge is believable. It doesn't have much to do with illegal immigration, but everything to do with the drug trade. I don't suppose Tancredo would do anything to solve the problem, such as push for legalization. I'll have to ask him some time.

Also, have you ever seen a congressman accuse entire city governments of being corrupt? Has anyone in Compton or Douglas responded to these allegations?

Tancredo isn't done yet:

So what we are seeing is a phenomenon that is really disturbing and it’s all about numbers. People talk about illegal immigration being a problem. It’s not just illegal immigration: it is immigration both legal and illegal, on a massive scale.

You heard it straight from the horse's mouth. Legal immigration is a problem.

Also in that interview, Tancredo mentions the Aztlan movement, a Mexican separatist group which wants to establish a Mexican territory in the southwest U.S. It's a radical group with about zero influence among immigrants and hispanic residents, but Tancredo seems to take it seriously.

Stay Tuned

This blog doesn't stop for holidays.

A Thought

I've been mean (again!) to the leftists lately so I'll make amends by praising this article by the Decembrist, which describes Bush as a 'Nixonian liberal.' Here's the start:

For a long time, I've argued that there wasn't much profit to talking about Bush as a conservative, right-wing, or extremist President. Sure, he betrayed his promise to "change the tone" in Washington. But conservative isn't a word loaded with bad connotations, unlike "liberal," and more importantly, it concedes too much: Bush is not conservative in the least, certainly not in the Burkean sense in which conservative means respecting a pre-existing order and our duty to future generations, or even in the vulgar sense of merely favoring a smaller government.

Those definitions of liberal and conservative differ in important ways from my preferred definitions, but the comparison to Nixon is valid.

I found that article through Brad DeLong, who comments on the same:

The highly thoughtful Decembrist puts his finger on the core problem of modern liberalism. How can one support the idea of an activist government when half the time that government will be run by malevolent or incompetent Republicans?

This caught my attention as it's similar to something I've thought for a long time. Neither the left nor right would be so eager to push for government expansion if they would just stop to envision their political adversaries running the government.

Like the idea of a government security force to combat terrorism and other crime with enhanced detention powers? You know, like the ability to declare anyone a terrorist and then hold that person indefinitely, or conduct secret wiretaps at will. Fine. Just think of that with Hillary Clinton calling the shots. Doesn't sound so good now, does it?

How about universal healthcare? You and I might disagree on the economic impact, but you'd have to agree that such a government program would have to have control over health care in general, deciding who gets what treatment and when. Now imagine John Ashcroft running the thing. Hope you don't mind him seeing your medical records.

Feel free to come up with your own examples. The possibilities are endless.

Go!

The Paranoia Periodic is up!

Ugly Little Story

Did you ever want to know why marijuana is illegal? Pete Guither has written a very concise history of the subject. Here's a sample:

However, the first state law outlawing marijuana did so not because of Mexicans using the drug. Oddly enough, it was because of Mormons using it. Mormons who traveled to Mexico in 1910 came back to Salt Lake City with marijuana. The church was not pleased and ruled against use of the drug. Since the state of Utah automatically enshrined church doctrine into law, the first state marijuana prohibition was established in 1915. (Today, Senator Orrin Hatch serves as the prohibition arm of this heavily church-influenced state.)

When Montana outlawed marijuana in 1927, the Butte Montana Standard reported a legislator's comment: "When some beet field peon takes a few traces of this stuff... he thinks he has just been elected president of Mexico, so he starts out to execute all his political enemies." In Texas, a senator said on the floor of the Senate: "All Mexicans are crazy, and this stuff [marijuana] is what makes them crazy."

It will be well worth your while to read the rest.

Sports Break

The ol' alma mater has made a big, big, move.

UTEP Hires Ex-Alabama Coach Mike Price

EL PASO, Texas (AP)--Mike Price was hired as football coach at Texas-El Paso on Sunday, seven months after he was fired by Alabama for a night of partying at a strip club.


Good. I thought Price got a raw deal at Bama, and it turns out the story that got him fired was probably not true, anyway. Price will have a good chance to win a lot of games at UTEP.

Repeat It Often Enough II

Speaking of untruths spoken as fact, a few weeks ago I mentioned some counts of the Denver homeless population were probably bogus but were being used to decide matters of policy. David Kopel noticed the same thing and mentioned it in his weekly Rocky Mountain News column. Yesterday he had an update:

I guess there must be some people at the News who don't read my column. On Nov. 22, I wrote about the factoids of exaggerated numbers of people living on the streets in Denver. Then, on Dec. 13, the News' Extra! feature announced that there are "6,885 people living on the streets in the Denver area." The cited source for this statistic was the "Metro Denver Homeless Initiative survey."
[...]
Did the survey report that all 6,885 of these persons were "living on the streets," as the News asserted? In response to the question, "Where are you staying now?" 620 people said they were staying on the streets, and 263 said they were camping out or sleeping in a car.

The rest of the people whom the News claimed were "living on the streets" were actually (in descending order) staying with family or friends, staying in an emergency shelter, living in a hotel or motel, or in a domestic violence shelter.

Those numbers are in line with what I wrote November 23rd. At least 6,885 is a smaller lie than 10,000.

Repeat It Often Enough

One of the biggest obstacles in debating government budget policy is the wealth of misinformation spread by the pro-spending sides of the debate. I don't necessarily want to blame everyone for using untruths, some of them are so pervasive the person using them doesn't even know he's not being truthful.

Reading Atrios this morning I ran across this article by Brad DeLong discussing Bob Rubin's (and Pres. Clinton's) economic policy. He sets up the article by looking at the Reagan years:

The "Reagan Revolution" did not shrink the size of the federal government: in 1980 when Ronald Reagan ran for president federal spending (gross of offsetting receipts) was 22.7% of GDP; in 1992 when Bill Clinton ran for president federal spending was 23.2% of GDP. The "Reagan Revolution" did change the shape of federal spending: one-third of domestic federal spending outside of the entitlement programs went missing between 1980 and 1992, replaced primarily by debt interest and secondarily by higher military spending. (A truly amazing fact, and testimony to the strength of the military-industrial complex: defense took a higher share of GDP in 1992 after the collapse of the Soviet Union than it had taken in 1980). Higher debt interest came from the huge debts run up to finance Reagan's unfunded tax cuts.

(Emphasis mine) The American political left might still be operating under the delusion that Reagan cut spending, but I can't recall anyone else making the claim.

Note the language in the highlighted portion. The tax cut was 'unfunded.' Using that term says a lot about the writer's political ethics. Where some might think the taxpayers fund the government, he takes the opposite view, that government must fund a tax cut. Also, when comparing spending during the Clinton and Reagan administrations he uses numbers as percentage of GDP. Since GDP grew faster than inflation that means spending has gone up considerably more than the .5% you see in those numbers.

But most importantly let's look at the relationship between the tax cuts and deficit spending. A little on-line searching found this chart, product of a joint effort by the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution. The chart shows total federal income and spending by year. Here are some relevant numbers:

Federal income, 1981: $599,272,000,000
Federal income, 1989: $991,190,000,000
Add the first Bush administration and you're up to $1,154,401,000,000 in 1993.

I don't think I can call that anything but a substantial increase. During the intervening years only once, from '82 to '83, did federal revenue decrease, and that was followed by a sharp jump in '84. By now you've probably guessed, the only reason the deficit grew is because spending grew even more. Here are those numbers:

Outlays, 1981: $678,249,000,000
Outlays 1989: $1,143,683,000,000
Outlays 1993: $1,409,512,000,000

Yup. Sure enough the deficit grew. Toward the end of DeLong's article he adds:

Rubin's policies made it possible for George W. Bush to return us to the budgetary ground zero of 1992 through enormous tax cuts for the $200,000+ a year crowd and through big boosts to federal spending--a lot of which looks like Republican pork...

Once again, he's half right. It's all about the spending. I would substitute the word 'puny' where he uses 'enormous,' but again that has a lot to do with a person's set of ethics.

A shorter version of DeLong's article is set to run in the American Prospect.

Update: Fixed math error, 11AM. Didn't put enough zeroes in the earlier version.

One Year

Randy Paul has been blogging for a whole year now. I, however, have only been reading for a fraction of that time. I was late to the party.

Here's to many more!

"The Space Age is About to Begin"

In case you don't read Samizdata regularly, (and if not, what is wrong with you?) you should know about this. A private company has built a rocket-engined reusable spaceship. They just had their first powered test flight, hitting Mach 1.2 without leaving the atmosphere.

In a follow-up post Dale Amon makes several crucial observations about the endeavor:

Those supporting the government position have said high costs are inherent in space flight. The short time scale, low costs and aggressive testing program of Scaled Composites should be an eye-opener to those nay-sayers. What I and others have been writing for nearly a quarter of a century is correct. The rocketmen are not underestimating the cost of space. It is the government and government contractors who have been "ripping the arse" out of the public purse.

Yes, who'd have thought a private company could do more interesting things than NASA and do them at a much lower cost? Oh yeah, each and every libertarian.

Clarity

How often do you hear some one of influence say the U.S. is trying to export democracy to countries around the globe? We usually take that to mean we want to see them have the things we have, namely freedom. But freedom and democracy are distinct concepts, not incompatible, but not synonymous either.

Case in point, a province of Pakistan has implemented sharia law. A local official defended the change by saying it was decided democratically, and he's right in that point. Jim Henley argues:

Ooh, democracy! And it's true, they held a vote, and the bigger team won. The smaller team now may not charge interest, must teach more Koranic instruction in schools, cover its wicked wicked cheekbones if it is female, and all that.

I really regret the way we toss the term "democracy" around in our foreign policy rhetoric. It gives people the idea that the most important thing in politics is voting. But the most important thing in politics is freedom. The American model is not "democracy," it's constitutionally-limited government with a democratic component (even still). Far, far more important than the fact that Americans get to vote is the large category of things on which Americans don't get to vote. Locking up people who write bad things, jailing people for worshipping the wrong gods, compelling self-incriminating testimony in criminal cases, issuing bills of attainder and other items on an admittedly shrinking list. Even here, it's shameful that people can vote to prohibit behaviors that a sane country would call "making an honest living." But we had the idea right. Then we go an screw up explaining it to everyone else.

I guess it's just too much of a chore to say we want individual rights to be protected. Let 'em have democracy instead.

While I Was Away

I took yesterday afternoon and evening away from computers and news and sure enough, something big happened. The Ninth Circuit ruled that the feds cannot prosecute medical marijuana users in states where use is legal.

You've probably heard about this by now, but I'd like to point out a couple of items of good news. First, the link above points to the Volokh conspiracy, a group legal blog, where the lawyer who actually argued the case writes about the ruling. The internet still has a sort of a 'wow that's cool' factor for me that way.

Secondly, the Ninth Circuit is the conservatives' favorite whipping boy, as a radio talk show host will confirm. The court made the ruling based on the federalist concept of states' rights, an idea much favored by conservatives, and in my opinion the court applied it correctly here. It will be fun to watch conservatives argue against states' rights as they appeal this ruling to the Supremes.

Initial Casualties

Jesse Walker finds that the first people to be hurt by campaign finance reform could be the people who have supported reform the most:

Say you've spent years crusading against the role of money in politics, all in the face of a judiciary that insists your program would injure freedom of speech. Finally, just as you decide that political cash might do the body politic some good, the Supreme Court embraces the arguments you spent all that time advancing. As ironic endings go, it's not exactly O. Henry material. But it's not bad for the gray columns of The New York Times.

I think the irony is jucier than Mr. Walker does, but that might be just a matter of taste.

There have always been rich people willing to fund liberal and even radical causes, and the intersection of big money with the left should not come as a surprise. But the drive to depose Bush has spread this appreciation for high finance to formerly skeptical realms. This doesn't mean that every Democrat has changed her mind about the role of money in politics, nor that many who did change don't see such spending as a necessary evil to be abolished once the right people are in charge. But they've still been put in the unfamiliar position of defending the intervention of multimillionaires in public life, while establishment Republicans have found themselves taking the even less sustainable stance that Soros' funds are sinister in a way that Richard Mellon Scaife's are not.

Fewer financing sources means fewer participants in the political arena. Not so hard to understand, is it?

Another

Here's the story of another innocent killed in a drug investigation, via Drug WarRant:

Warren Beaulah was driving the SUV in which 39-year-old Kenneth Walker was riding on Interstate 185 at around 9 o'clock Wednesday night. According to Beaulah, he and his passengers were doing nothing wrong when he observed blue lights in the rear view mirror.

Five to ten seconds later, Beaulah says he heard a single gunshot. At the time the shot was fired, he says, there was "lots of screaming and yelling."
[...]
The Muscogee County Sheriff's Department has confirmed that Walker was unarmed at the time of the incident and blames the fatal incident on faulty information from an informant in a drug case.

As I've noted before, drug witnesses are notoriously unreliable, sometimes fingering completely innocent people to avoid being prosecuted themselves. Naturally, it's hard to avoid tragedies like this given the way drug investigations are conducted.

When you read Drug WarRant's story be sure to scroll down for the link to Jesse Ventura's debate with a representative of the ONDCP. Guess who wins that argument?

Added: I should update a feature of this blog, which is an informal tally of this sort of incident. So far my Drug War Bystander Casualty Count stands at twenty dead, four wounded.

I think the wounded number is so low because it takes a fatality to make the news.

I've Got Answers

Jim Henley asks, "Who lost Russia mail[?]" Well that's some awkward grammar there.
I don't know the answer to his question, but I do know that here in America the Post Office loses the mail, just as nature intended.

Rocky Mountain Blog Roundup!

Yeehaw, it's the premier edition. Save it, it'll be a collector's item.

Much thanks to the bloggers who participated. Here's what they sent, in order of receipt.

Recently revived blogger Matthew Edgar (um, that's his blog that was revived) notes that when it comes to foreign aid, some needs are more basic than others. There's an interesting point about regulation in there, too.

Matt Moore beats The Man. Fight the power!

Talkleft sends a good-news story from right here in Colorado. That's the sort of thing that makes a person happy to live here. Hope it sets a national precedent.

Colorado Luis thinks U.S. immigration policy might get a much needed dose of common sense. And for me, this RMBR thing has already paid of because Luis has a good blog that I hadn't read before.

Tim Berglund reports on Christmas Pageant '03. He's got pictures! 9.5 on the cuteness scale. Warning: includes the term, 'kerygma.'

Andrew Olmsted has an analysis of the casualty estimates from the Samarra ambush. I think Andrew's article got some play around the 'sphere, so be sure not to miss it.

Dave Cullen has been stuck in Chicago. Does he miss Denver? Is that possible? Send him your condolences.

Jed at FreedomSight writes about distractions, risk, human nature, and coping with it all. Remember to turn all that stuff off. You'll have to read it for an explanation.

Zombyboy lives in Colorado. Now you're asking yourself, does a Zomby live anywhere? The answer is, it depends how you spell it. He sent this post about the limits of the separation of church and state. Peanut butter is mentioned.

Andy at the World Wider Ant didn't think any of his recent posts stood out, but that's because they're all top quality, which is why that site gets a bajillion readers. Every day. I liked this post about a security failure at Denver's airport. I meant to write about that myself.

VodkaPundit Stephen Green has this post about Saddam's capture, and what's to learn from it. I picked that for him, too.

Well, if you've made it this far, you might as well go over and read what I wrote about campaign finance reform and how it hurts democracy.

There are some other very good Colorado bloggers out there, (Gary, are you listening?) so tune in a couple of weeks from now, when Andrew Olmsted hosts the next exciting episode of The Rocky Mountain Blog Roundup.

I think this is conclusive evidence that Colorado has the most blogging talent of any spot on the planet, at least on a per capita basis.

Got Him

Saddam is in custody. Let me say as a non-hawk, anti-right, anti-left blogger, that this is just unadulterated good news.

Anyone whose first reaction is something like, 'Yeah, this is good news BUT...' has earned my suspicion. And I've already read a few things like that this morning.

Update, 10:54 AM: In case I wasn't clear about it, and sometimes I'm not, this is what I'm talking about.

I Dunno

You are Dr. Bunson Honeydew.
You love to analyse things and further the cause of
science, even if you do tend to blow things up
more often than not.

HOBBIES:
Scientific inquiry, Looking through microscopes,
Recombining DNA to create decorative art.
QUOTE:
"Now, Beakie, we'll just flip this switch and
60,000 refreshing volts of electricity will
surge through your body. Ready?"

FAVORITE MUSICAL ARTIST:
John Cougar Melonhead

LAST BOOK READ:
"Quantum Physics: 101 Easy Microwave
Recipes"

NEVER LEAVES HOME WITHOUT:
An atom smasher and plenty of extra atoms.


What Muppet are you?
brought to you by Quizilla

Fun quiz anyway.
Via Jay Solo, of course.

Paranoia Periodic

This is entertaining. Here's a teaser:

I heard of this website, which claims that SARS - the evil disease - was actually a social experiment to reduce the population.

A customer, demanding to speak to the manager on duty last night, which thankfully was me, talked to me for thirty lovely minutes about this problem and how he thinks the store and the company that owns the store should "fight the nasty spread of social experimentation". I should mention that during this thirty minute conversation, it became apparent to me he also objected to the use of soap.

Announcing

The first Rocky Mountain Blog Roundup. You all are familiar with the format, think of the those carnival-of-the-this-or-thats you've seen around the 'sphere. If you are a Colorado blogger please send me a link to your best post from the last week so I can include it on the list.

a1bee[at]aol[dot]com

I'll try to get this done this weekend, so get them to me ASAP.

Thought for Today

Money does not corrupt politics. Politics corrupt money.

Why It Matters

Perhaps lost in the outrage over the SCOTUS campaign finance decision are the real nuts and bolts of the issue.

It's true that the decision was a blow against the 1st Amendment. It is a slippery slope, as it seems successive courts make more and more outrageous decisions allowing the government to enact more and more restrictions on the actions of citizens. It doesn't look like it will be too long before the court declares the Constitution itself to be unconstitutional, as decisions like this fly in the face of the plain language of the document.

But lets look at what McCain-Feingold and other campaign restrictions actually do. The idea of campaign finance reform is to lessen the impact that campaign contributions have on the campaigns. The restrictions have varying degrees of success, as these are government actions with all the clumsiness that implies. But suppose these things are successful, and it becomes even harder for candidates to raise cash. Candidates who can't raise cash have to rely on others to spread their message. Some of these others are party bosses, influential people in the established political parties who can bring a candidate to prominence just with an endorsement. And the rest are members of the press.

Until the press is restricted in coverage of campaigns, (could happen the way things are going) press media outlets will play a large part in the public perception of candidates, as they already do. The ability to raise and spend cash in a political campaign is the most effective way to circumvent a press which doesn't pay attention to a particular candidate. In other words, if you can't get the press coverage you need, you can raise money for advertising and get the word out yourself.

Making it harder to raise money makes the established press that much more powerful.

Behold, serendipity. In an unintentional effort to illustrate my point, Talkleft posted this article yesterday:

ABC News has pulled its reporters from the Kucinich, Sharpton and Mosely Braun campaigns, according to this Kucinich press release:

This appears to be another instance of what Kucinich criticized at the debate, namely the media trying to pick candidates, rather than letting the voters do so. In a democracy, it should be voters and not pundits or TV networks who narrow the field of candidates.

And campaign finance reform makes it more difficult to circumvent the press.

Spam

The comments spammers have finally found this blog. I saw a lot of blogs with this problem a number of weeks ago, and frankly, I felt left out that they didn't think my blog was worthy. Looks like I've made the big time now!

Supreme Court Reactions

A sampling of some initial reactions to the Supreme Court's decision to uphold The Incumbent Protection Act McCain-Feingold.

Andrew Olmsted:

It's official. The Supreme Court has upheld the limitations on free speech enshrined in the 'Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act.' It is now illegal for people to speak out on elections except through government-approved venues. For me, this seems to violate that rule about government making no laws abridging freedom of speech, but it has been clear for some time now that the Constitution is no longer a binding document as far as this court is concerned.

And:

As an aside, how long before someone goes after a blog as illegal campaign speech less than 60 days before an election?

Matthew Edgar:

It seems the US Supreme Court failed to remember key pieces of the US Constitution in making the decision regarding so-called campaign finance reform. But there is an argument outside the pesky Constitutional argument:

The money issue is less annoying, in some respects, than the limit on advertising. What is wrong with a little competition between candidates and between ideas? Oh, there is the problem, it is competition. One more attempt to limit the presence of that nasty feature of capitalism. Just like a business in the free-market, political campaigns should be allowed freedom to compete. This would be like telling Sony that in competing with Microsoft they were not allowed to advertise their products.

Real Campaign reform.org, in an e-mail:

The Supreme Court ruling came down today. This is the
moment we've been waiting for. At first glance, the
decision is very bad for our country -
to our liberty.

Cato's John Samples:

Far from protecting political freedom, a slim majority of the Court has now expanded the power of Congress to regulate and to harass individuals and groups who criticize incumbents. The question remains whether the Court in the future will enforce any constitutional protections for the funding of political activity challenging the Congressional status quo.

More to come.

Bad News

In a major blow against free speech and grassroots politics, the Supremes have upheld major portions of McCain-Feingold.

More on this later.

I Live Here

It snowed yesterday and into last night in Denver, as it is wont to do. This morning Gary Farber noticed:

LOVELY. Crispy snow everywhere. Flakes whipped into a blizzard this morning. Impractical. But invigorating.

Someone once observed that the weather in Denver is 'benign, without being boring.' I don't know who and in this case Google doesn't shed any light.

Evenhandedness

Since I said something less than flattering about leftists yesterday I feel compelled to do the same for the right today. For these purposes the Bush administration will play the part of the political right. Here goes.

Arthur Silber notes the Bushies are officially discouraging Taiwan's independence movement:

Let's be absolutely clear about this: the administration tells us that it is dedicated to the spread of "democracy" and freedom, and that it will wage war and spend billions of dollars -- money belonging to American citizens -- to "nation-build" in the Middle East.

But when it comes to speaking up for a long-time ally and friend -- and for a country which embodies freedom and liberty despite truly formidable odds -- the same administration will cower in fear before a despotic, dictatorial regime, a regime known far and wide for its human right abuses and its despicable record of crushing freedom. And not only will the administration cower like a miserable little rat, it will actively seek to placate and curry favor with tyrants, while putting the freedom, and the lives, of the Taiwanese at great and terrible risk.

I think that takes care of it. I could add that I doubt a Democratic administration would do better but that might force me to say additional bad things about Republicans, and who knows when this might end.

Covers?

Jim Henley's been discussing cover songs, in a series of entertaining posts. His latest lists some of the really bad ones, the kind of you'll wish you'd not been reminded.

Through the entire series I haven't seen anyone cite the Lemonheads' version of Mrs. Robinson, one of my favorites. Eve Tushnet did have the presence of mind to bring up Siouxsie and the Banshees version of Passenger, the best that very good band did.

Not-So-Angry Liberals

I know not many take Molly Ivins seriously, but sometimes she's just too funny to ignore:

For a while, I fretted over Dean being angry, or at least appealing to the political anger that is normally manipulated by right-wing radio jocks. Anger makes liberals uncomfortable: We prefer peace, reason and gentle persuasion. Beloveds, it is way past time for us to get mad -- social, economic and political justice are being perverted by the Bush administration.

Keep that in mind next time you visit here, or here, or here. If anger makes those people uncomfortable than we can only assume that they are the ultimate masochists.

Unless Ivins meant to say that there's nothing liberal about those leftists, which is what I've contended for a long time.

Yippee!

Matthew Edgar is back to blogging. Says he:

And in case you care:

-I am still working two jobs, one part time and one full time
-I am applying for graduate school
-I am still an insomniac
-I am still dreaming of free markets, but realizing more and more how silly those dreams are, because I doubt the markets will ever be free

That's what we all missed, the unrelenting optimism.

Well Deserved Lawsuit

Seventeen Goose Creek students, the school subjected to the drug raid a few weeks ago, are suing. As well they should.

Individuals named as defendants in the suit, filed Friday in U.S. District Court in Charleston, include: Stratford High School principal George McCrackin; Berkeley County school superintendent Chester Floyd; Goose Creek police Chief Harvey Becker; and Goose Creek police Lt. Dave Aarons.

Each of those named in the suit should be unemployed by now. None are, to my knowledge.

What Do You Know?

"Four in ten Americans say the Bible is the 'totally accurate' Word of God, but only three in ten say it is the ultimate authority in matters of truth.

-- Thomas C. Reeves, "Not So Christian America"

Taking those numbers at face value, that would mean one in ten believes the Bible is God's word, yet it isn't the ultimate authority in matters of truth.

Can you believe in a God who doesn't know what He's talking about?

via Josh Clayborn.

The Bubble is Burst

Even with all the talk about 'South Park Republicans' of late, I failed to remember an important fact, until Jeff Trigg reminded me.

Trey Parker joined the Libertarian Party.

Don't Forget

Mail Call

I just opened this.

Dear Mr. Schlomer,

Our records show we have not yet received your 2003 Republican National Committee (RNC) membership contribution!

Oh boy. They say memory is the second thing to go. They must have forgotten...

As Treasurer of the RNC, I know our Party's success depends directly on grassroots leaders like you...

All this time I've actually been helping them. I feel like such a dupe. Where did I go wrong?

Politics Matter

Yesterday's NY Times op-ed noted that in spite of selling a lot of oil and having few inhabitants, Angola is still a place of widespread poverty.

Although Angola is finally at peace after decades of catastrophic civil war, its oil riches don't appear to be doing the country much good. Despite the production of almost a million barrels of oil a day, the vast majority of Angola's 10.7 million people live in grinding poverty. Government officials and oil executives live in villas behind security walls and barbed wire. But most Angolans — even here in Luanda, the capital — stay in crumbling cement-block huts without electricity or running water. Along the streets, children pick through mountains of roadside garbage while their parents hawk sundries from car to car or sell produce in the dirt alongside open sewers. The average life expectancy is around 40; the country has one of the highest infant mortality rates in the world.

To which Randy Paul adds:

Angola, like the Democratic Republic of the Congo, is extraordinarily rich in natural resources. Poverty should simply not exist there.

Which reminds me, again, that poverty and wealth in any given country have little relationship to the natural resources present. As one might suspect, Angola has a national oil company, Sonangol. That government officials and oil company executives are both living well, then, is no coincidence.

Contrast Angola with Hong Kong, with no natural resources to speak of, and draw your own conclusions as to the sources of wealth and poverty.

Overheard Conversation

Two women in a 7-11 this morning.

"Do you want to share a pack of smokes?"

"No! You know I turned Christian."

"Christians can smoke!"

Hard to be a Libertarian

Jeff Trigg informs us that the Ohio establishment is making life hard for the Libertarians.

I don't think many people realize how hard the established parties make it for minor parties. In many states it takes tens of thousands of dollars and scores of volunteers just to secure a spot on the ballot. Usually there's not a lot of resources left for actual campaigning. And that's the way Dem/Repubs like it.

New Blog

Sometimes libertarians are libertines, too. Warning; Rated NC-17. Or so.

Vouchers Lose

The NEA, continuing their campaign against disadvantaged children, won a round in the voucher battle today:

A state judge shut down Colorado's fledgling school voucher program today, saying it unfairly stripped local school boards of their authority. Experts said the same argument may be used to scrap voucher plans across the country.
Colorado's pilot program for low-income children was the first in the nation to be enacted after last year's U.S. Supreme Court ruling upholding a voucher program in Cleveland.

It's likely that the legal battle is just heating up. The Republican governor and the Democratic AG both promise to challenge the ruling, and the Institute for Justice, the legal aid group that fought the case, all promise to support an appeal.

In an interesting aside, the AP article identifies the IJ as a "conservative law firm." It's not. It's libertarian.

Really?

Colorado is your state. If you don't already live
there, you should. Lots of tourists...just
ignore them. If you can take the cold winters,
you'll be just fine there.


What State Is Perfect For You?
brought to you by Quizilla

A revelation.

Via Jay Solo.

It's the Way You Say It

The Angry Economist:

Let's get this out of the way fast: any minimum wage law is wicked, and should be immediately abolished.
If that alone doesn't convince you, then let's get into details. A minimum wage law says, in effect, that anybody whose labor is not worth the minimum shall not be employed. Nobody would support a minimum wage law if it were written that way.

True, and he goes on to explain in detail why we have minimum wage laws and how the do their damage, to which I'd like to add one more point. the best argument against minimum wage laws is the current minimum wage, which, if I remember, is $5.15 per hour. If that sounds pitifully low, it is. And that's why here in Denver, like most parts of the country, almost no one makes that wage. The company my wife works for hires some of the most unemployable members of the workforce. Immigrant women, mostly. Their English skills are often lacking, they are often a little older and not able to do heavy manual labor. And guess what? Their starting wage is well above $5.15, because the market demands it. So the federally set minimum wage has benefited from benign neglect, and has fallen into irrelevance, at least in this area. If it disappeared overnight it wouldn't have any effect on what most people earn.

Ecstasy Study Redux

The flawed study on the dangers of ecstasy, the one I mentioned here, is again the subject of a NY Times story. Bully for the Times, this is a subject that deserves a lot of attention.

Via Dave Cullen.

CSPAN Debate

Pete Guither has taken on what must have been a very time consuming task of transcribing last week's drug policy debate, featuring Bill Bennett and Charlie Rangel v.s. Gary Johnson and Kurt Schmoke. It's good entertainment, reading the logical contortions necessary to make a pro-drug war argument, not to mention Rangel's semi-lucid remarks. Who's on drugs there, anyway?

And I think we owe Pete for the effort.

Well, He Was Kinda Old

This made me laugh. Out loud. But hey, I'm sick like that.

Found via Jay Solo.

A New Record

Don Watkins quit his blog. A real shame, but he started it back up 5 hours and 51 minutes later. Thankfully.

I'm pretty sure that sets some kind of record.

Voting GOP

Everybody's favorite Republican, Zombyboy, expresses his frustration with out-of-control GOP spending and government expansion:

We Republicans own the responsibility, in essence, for turning in another massive social spending plan that has the potential (like Social Security) to end up bankrupting our nation. And this time we have no one to blame but ourselves.

This year, my single most important issue is the continued war on militant Islam. There is nothing more important in my mind than that. This doesn't mean, though, that we in the Grand Old Party should sit back and allow our elected leaders to continue down a path of which we do not approve. The question, though, becomes not one of a message that we want to convey ("Hey, people, control the spending and return to the roots of the Republican party!"), but how best to convey that message.

This would imply that he would vote for a Democrat who would prosecute the war. How else could you send any message? Re-election means telling Bush and congress to just keep on going as they have.

I miss gridlock.