Walter In Denver

Could Get Interesting

Here's a live webcam aimed at Mt. St. Helens.

This Post Sponsored By...

I drove by the Fillmore today, and the place was crawling with Salazar for Senate banners and such. Tonight Don Henley and Glenn Frey are playing a benefit for the candidate.

What was interesting was the marquee, which carried the bill as sponsored by Coors Light.

I wonder what Mojo Nixon is up to these days?

Update: Westword has the photo, read more....

Vouchers in Colombia

I notice that school vouchers have been reported as a success in Colombia. I am, in part, a product of a Colombian grade school, so I suppose you'll all be happy they are showing some progress now.

Yes Yes Yes

I've never mentioned how much I like Virginia Postrel's writing, so let me make amends:

It's true that many bloggers, including Glenn, [Instapundit, you already know -Ed.] do a lot of media criticism. Media criticism is relatively easy, and Web links are ideally suited to it. But it's hardly true that "the political blogosphere is to a large degree about media criticism." Many of the best policy blogs have almost no media criticism, nor do they go looking for political scalps. They don't even constantly write about the superiority of blogs. That's why you almost never read about them. Reporters and media critics are bored, bored, bored by the very sort of discourse they claim to support (a lesson I learned the hard way in 10 long years as the editor of Reason). They, and presumably their readers, want conflict, scandal, name-calling, and some sex and religion to heighten the combustible mix. Plus journalists, like other people, love to read about themselves and people they know.

Hence, newspapers don't writes stories about how blogs like Volokh Conspiracy elevate the debate over legal issues or how blogs like Marginal Revolution improve the public's understanding of economic scholarship. You won't read any articles about comparing the military policy discussions on Intel Dump and Belmont Club. Education blogs, science blogs, and foreign-policy blogs all engage in excellent issue discussions, but you'll never, ever hear them held up as examples of the blogosphere at work. Even Glenn forgets they exist.

Could you imagine if every voter would read Marginal Revolution, how that would change the political landscape? How about Catallarchy?

The mind boggles.

Amendment 36

Ari Armstrong wrote a bit about the proposal to allocate Colorado's electoral votes proportionately to the popular vote, but Jed beat me to the link. He has more links and articles, too, so go see him.

Voting Accuracy?

Much blogging in the last week on John Fund's new book on voter fraud, and rightly so. NRO has the intro online, including:

Some of the sloppiness that makes fraud and foul-ups in election counts possible seems to be built into the system by design. The "Motor Voter Law," the first piece of legislation signed into law by President Clinton upon entering office, imposed fraud-friendly rules on the states by requiring driver's license bureaus to register anyone applying for licenses, to offer mail-in registration with no identification needed, and to forbid government workers to challenge new registrants, while making it difficult to purge "deadwood" voters (those who have died or moved away). In 2001, the voter rolls in many American cities included more names than the U.S. Census listed as the total number of residents over age eighteen. Philadelphia's voter rolls, for instance, have jumped 24 percent since 1995 at the same time that the city's population has declined by 13 percent. CBS's 60 Minutes created a stir in 1999 when it found people in California using mail-in forms to register fictitious people, or pets, and then obtaining absentee ballots in their names. By this means, for example, the illegal alien who assassinated the Mexican presidential candidate Luis Donaldo Colosio was registered to vote in San Pedro, California — twice.

This is a subject that concerns me greatly. I think voter electon fraud is so easy that it's almost inevitable that someone will attempt it.

In 2000 I ran for the State House seat in my Northeast Denver neighborhood. Running as a Libertarian I know I had little chance of being competitive, but I gave it some effort anyway. One of the things I did was campaign door to door, using the voter registration lists so I could cover the neighborhood more efficiently. What an eye opener that was.

The voter lists were wildly inaccurate. It seemed that about a third of the names were incorrectly listed. I found multiple people with different last names registered to single small apartments. There were people registered to vacant houses and empty lots. Some had moved out years ago.

None of this proves that there was any fraud, but it wouldn't have been terribly difficult for someone to vote multiple times using the names on the voter list. The district is heavily Democratic, many precincts voting 90% that way. If someone did manage to vote a few hundred extra times no one would notice on account of a lopsided vote, since that's so normal.

Colorado now requires identification for voters at the polls, but that still leaves the problem of absentee ballots.

Diagnosing Russia

Latest news:

MOSCOW, Sept. 17 - A thousand rubles, or about $34, was enough to bribe an airline agent to put a Chechen woman on board a flight just before takeoff, according to Russian investigators. The agent took the cash, and on a ticket the Chechen held for another flight simply scrawled, "Admit on board Flight 1047."

A string of procedural breakdowns that let the two female suicide bombers board the planes last month brought home how deeply bribery, extortion and negligence are ingrained in Russia's security system. Many Russians consider their law enforcement authorities to be as crooked as the criminals they are supposed to catch.

This sort of behavior is the hallmark of a third-world country. As Putin centralizes power expect things to get worse.

It's odd that Americans readily recognize that Moscow grabbing more power is clearly a move toward a less free society, but have no problem with candidates who try to centralize power in Washington.

Hugh, What Are You Thinking?

In an update to the post referenced below, Hugh Hewitt responds to Tom McGuire, who sensibly argues,

The WaPo, for example, will realize that, although this week it is CBS that has a problem with forgeries, next week the WaPo could have a problem with a story where a few anonymous leaks were the source for an Administration-basher. If Administration spokepeople deny the story, should the Republican-controlled Congress have hearings to see whether the WaPo sourced it properly, and vetted the hidden agendas of its sources? Ridiculous, yes. Impossible, if we encourage a Congressional investigation of CBS? Maybe not.

Hugh responds to that and the rest of Tom's post,

McGuire wonders whether I would feel the same way if Congress was investigating the content of radio talks shows. Congress has investigated the content of radio talk shows, and it didn't bother me at all, and it didn't chill the way I do my show, and if they investigate bloggers, I won't mind either. It is just another television appearance, another part of the great conversation. If you think you are right, and you aren't lying or cheating, there's nothing to worry about.

If you're not guilty, you have nothing to fear? Please. You trust these people far too much. Congressional hearings are not about justice, they're about politics. If CBS is guilty of promoting a forgery there may be some criminal or civil penalties. Those would be matters for a court to handle.

From the Dept. of Very Bad Ideas

The only national radio talk show I can stomach is Hugh Hewitt's, palatable largely because of the number of bloggers he entertains as guests. But as I listen tonight he's trying to cajole Rep. Chris Cox into supporting congressional hearings into the CBS forged memo scandal.

This is astonishing coming from anyone who supposedly favors limited government. Congress has repeatedly demonstrated its incompetence to deal with such matters. Put your partisan goals aside, and think of what the press would look like if it were subjected to fact checking by congress. Republicans, if your having trouble with that, imagine Hilary Clinton chairing the committee investigating your favorite blog or talk show host.

Do not set that precedent.

Guns

If you read the libertarian blogs regularly (like the one you're reading) you've heard the pro-RKBA rationales. Here's a less enthusiastic stance, from Colorado Luis:

So to me, the best gun policy is not a lot more stringent than the one reflected in the assault weapons ban, regulating gun show sales, and the like -- maybe a tax on ammunition for the types of weapons that are more likely to be used just for killing people. I'd actually be in favor of rolling back sentences for crimes involving guns, because I don't see how keeping people in prison for ever-longer periods is helping us in any way. Neither a total gun ban, which simply could never happen in this country, nor a society where everyone can carry any weapon they want, has any appeal to me.

There's more there.

Update: Link, doofus, link.

Right Wing Blogging

Sure would be fun to be a right wing blogger these days, with the CBS meltdown and all. As they crow over the achievement and wait for Dan Rather to topple -- a bit premature, I think -- there are some observations worth noting.

First, some questions, does anyone really think Dan Rather personally vets all, or any, of the stories he reads on air? That's what staff is for, isn't it? If the allegedly forged memos were verified by the CBS crew why would he double check them? How could he, anyway? Is he some kind of expert? So much of the criticism of the story is aimed at him, but whatever problem exists there is systemic and won't change even if he resigned.

The entire affair has been good for blogs of all political stripes, and seeing some lefty blogs try to defend the memos has been a bit perplexing. After all, Bush skipping guard duty and using family influence is pretty much a non-story. Most of us non-partisan observers, shoot, even the partisan ones, assume that Bush had it easier than the average Joe. We all got past it four years ago.

It occurs to me that the Bush ANG story isn't really important to the Left at this point, either. It's just difficult for them to admit that the great pillars of American journalism are solidly behind their guy. If the broadcast networks and major papers are actively and even unfairly favoring Kerry then shouldn't he be much more popular as a candidate? But if these memos are as fake as it seems then they are tangible evidence that CBS is working in tandem with the Kerry campaign. Indeed, it makes it more likely that they recieved them directly from a Kerry partisan, and since they consider the Kerry people partners they took the memos at face value. The Kerry folks are professionals, right? They wouldn't give us obvious forgeries, would they?

I'd like to think this whole thing will make for a more careful press corp in the future, but I'm not holding my breath.

Stanley Story Winding Down

Constitutional activist Rick Stanley was sentenced to six years in prison Friday. Seems harsh. From the Rocky:

"When you really analyze it, this is an assault on the very system of justice in this country," said presiding Judge Joseph R. Quinn, a retired state Supreme Court justice.

"They've made a monster out of him," Davies said.

Judges might not like it when you threaten other judges, and I think this one overreacted.

Backgound information here.

Did I Mention Our Mayor Owns a Brewpub?

Denver Post columnist Bill Husted:

Jay Leno took notice last week of Denver being named America's Drunkest City by Men's Health magazine. In a skit, he interviewed William J. Fredricks, Under Assistant Lieutenant Secretary of Denver, played by a very drunk Fred Willard, gulping a martini. A taste:

"Yes," said Willard. "I just discussed this very problem with our Republican candidate for Senate, Pete Coors. He assured me everything was fine. His slogan is 'Four More Beers! Four more beers!"'

Like that's a bad thing.

They Should Pay Me

Plugging the latest issue of Reason Magazine, just 'cuz it's so much fun...

Why Vote

Brian W. Doss:

As much as I’ve dissed Badnarik (and probably will continue to diss in the future), it is likely that I’ll vote for him anyway2, primarily to make libertarian voters seem worthwhile targets to either party3, and thus perhaps tempt some of the major candidates to make political concessions to buy woo these ’splitters’ back into a fold. That’s why I hope libertarians, if they vote at all, vote Badnarik this time around rather than Kerry. Because as I explained above, the system only registers votes “for", not votes “against". If you vote for Kerry, Kerry will think you are for him, not simply anti-Bush. If you vote Badnarik, you are counted as “none of the above, with this set of preferences". A loony set, perhaps, but at least you’re counted separately from the socialists and chickenshit interventionists who want Bushism but with different targets.

Republicans vs Bruce

One of the very few people in politics that I can admire is Doug Bruce, the Colorado Springs activist who wrote the TABOR Amendment mentioned below. It's an amendment to the state constitution prohibiting government spending from expanding beyond the combined rates of inflation and population growth. It's not a terribly radical thing, but it's one of the only laws in the nation that explicitly limits the growth of government.

As I've mentioned before, big government types hate it. Most Democrats, to be sure, but it turns out a surprising number of Republicans do, too.

Enough Republicans, in fact, that his effort to run for a legislative seat a few years ago was thwarted in the primary. Not many Republicans of such prominence would lose in a primary, but party leaders just don't want him around.

This year Bruce is aiming for a more modest goal, a county commissioner's seat. Reader Jason sent me a link to this Rocky article, GOP Effort: Stop Bruce.

COLORADO SPRINGS - Douglas Bruce, the anti-tax activist who has battled government from the outside, is poised to take in on from the inside.

But in an unusual development, his fellow Republicans have launched a last-ditch effort to keep Bruce on the audience side of county commission meetings come January.
...
He wants to sell off the county's rodeo arena and the Performing Arts Center, reduce the salaries of county administrators, and end financial subsidies to the county fair and the senior citizens' center.

"I don't think it's the job of government to entertain old people, young people, horse owners or concert goers. That's not what the government's about. My two priorities are law enforcement and roads," said Bruce.

See why I like him?

But Bruce's unending quest for less government is viewed as too extreme even for El Paso County's conservative mainstream Republicans, and they're trying to stop Bruce's ascendance to elected office.

Rocky writer Dick Foster fails to mention names of any of these Republicans except the one running a write-in campaign against Bruce, one Robert Null. I think local small government advocates deserve to know.

And they should remember their names for a long, long time.

Elected officials "all through Colorado are upset about Doug Bruce and the effects of his tax-limitation policies on government at all levels," (Colorado College Poli Sci Prof Robert) Loevy said.

Elected office attracts a certain sort of individual, and Doug Bruce doesn't fit in with them. Best of luck to him.

Taxin' And Spendin'

Radley Balko:

...the all-too-typical way state and local governments handled the '90's boom -- they jacked up spending to win favor with constituents, and paid little heed to the inevitable -- that the economy would eventually slow down. And so would tax receipts. In this case, San Diego city council members deciced they'd reward city employees by doubling the size of their pensions. The average San Diegan city employee now gets a check for $306,000 when he retires, plus an additional $50,000 per year thereafter. The city now faces a $1.1 billion deficit, and a bond rating lower than that of Los Angeles.

Colorado has been largely immune to this, even though we've had a huge economic boom in the last decade. The TABOR Amendment went a long way toward forcing the state government to be more responsible with its budgets, since spending increases were limited even if tax revenues grew rapidly. You don't hear many government types thanking Doug Bruce, though.

Ingrates.

Quotable

From Samizdata:

If pigs could vote, the man with the slop bucket would be elected swineherd every time, no matter how much slaughtering he did on the side.
- Orson Scott Card

New At WID

A bunch of new reciprocal additions to the blogroll, including Howard Bashman. He's linked to this site for who-knows-how-long now.

My philosophy for blogrolling has been to keep it short, but with so many good blogs linking here these days I'm giving up on that idea.

The DEA Are the Bad Guys, Again

Ari has the story of a local fellow, taking marijuana legally under state law, who had his medicine taken by the DEA. Under threat of court action, the DEA has returned the fellow's growing equipment, which may be the first time they've ever returned the stuff they've stolen.

I don't think a person with a functioning conscience could work for the DEA.

Question

How many people think we should intervene in Sudan but not have invaded Iraq? How about vice versa?

Yes, I know the two situations aren't completely analogous, but I'd like to hear the rationales behind either position.

Negative Campaigning

Comedy moment of the week, the reaction to the Zell Miller stemwinder:

Democrats said they were certain the senator had crossed the line and would hurt Bush, in much the same way that commentator Pat Buchanan's fiery 1992 convention speech frightened independent voters. Democratic vice presidential nominee John Edwards at a campaign rally called the speech "venom." Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack (D) warned in an interview that " 'angry' doesn't sell well in my neck of the woods."

Certainly we haven't heard any venom or anger from the Kerry camp.

More than just hollow criticism, the idea that we shouldn't have negative campaigning is undesirable. Politics and government are inherently negative forces - the foundation of government is brute force and politics is the art of managing government. Together they are destructive forces.

Any meaningful debate of politics should naturally be very negative. Bushites should be saying, "Kerry refuses to privatize social security, and makes it more likely that millions of Americans will live in poverty."

Kerry supporters, "Bush has lead the country into a bloody war that has unnecessarily cost thousands of lives."

You can make the same sort of statements on numerous issues. Political decisions are often weighty, and bad politics can mean disastrous results for many people.

If you don't think your politics are clearly superior to your opponents than there's not much reason for you to be in the political arena. Defining your opposition's problems in large part defines your own politics.

And no, I don't think there's much difference between the two major parties.