Boulder Election 2011

Given recent local election coverage, you'd think the only things we're voting on were municipalization and corporate rights. However, Boulder has no fewer than eight ballot issues this year.

Issue 2A allows the city to sell $49,000,000 in bonds for critical infrastructure needs, including maintaining streets, bridges, buildings, and recreation facilities; upgrading software, the main library, and police and fire equipment; and improving transportation connections and streetscapes. It's hard to argue with those priorities. The bonds will be paid back using existing revenue streams. Plus, the work will generate local jobs, helping the local economy.

Issue 2B allows the city to extend and increase the utility occupation tax levied on Xcel's customers to further investigate the feasibility of a municipal power utility. Question 2C authorizes the city council to create a power utility, if it proves it can do so in a cost-effective manner, with rates and reliability comparable to Xcel's and a plan for more renewable energy.

David Miller, in his guest commentary a week ago, rightly pointed out that there are many unanswered questions related to this proposal. We don't know how much it will cost, nor how much additional renewable energy will be feasible. However, we can't know these answers without approving both measures. So, the real question is whether we want to know, or whether we will continue to trust Xcel to work in Boulder's best interest.


[more]

Still fearful after all these years

Raise your hand if you remember where you were 10 years ago today.

I'll bet almost all of you remember it like yesterday. I sure do. Watching thousands of people murdered on live television is not something you can easily forget.

It was a time of strong emotion: confusion, fear, grief, anger. We mourned together as one country, and we plotted our revenge together.

But it has not been satisfying, nor have we obtained closure. We attacked two countries, but saw mostly quagmire. The economy has never regained its pre-attack strength. The unity after the attack was quickly replaced by the bitterest partisan bickering this country has seen in a long time. Even the taking down of the 9/11 mastermind, Osama bin Laden, didn't generate more than a momentary sense of satisfaction.

Thirty-two years ago, a President gave a speech in which he talked about our country's malaise. The voters hated him for it, choosing to fire Carter and bring in the optimist Reagan. But today, politicians are competing not to deny the malaise but to pin it on the other guy.

What happened to us 10 years ago? Why can't we get out of this funk? Did we take a bite of the apple, lose our innocence, and get tossed out of the garden? Or are we suffering from PTSD and showing symptoms of depression that just won't disappear?

Does Why Matter?

A pair of recent local convictions brought up the issue of how laws against bias-motivated crime relate to free speech protections.

Joseph Coy was convicted of both second-degree assault and bias-motivated crime for his racially motivated attack on Nigerian CU student Oluyibi Ogundipe. Zachery Harris was convicted of bias-motivated harassment for using racial slurs against Ogundipe and his Saudi friend, Ahmad Abdulkareem.

The First Amendment was designed to protect expression that may not be popular, even expression that makes people angry. Yet, even the Supreme Court has ruled that it has limits. Some speech may be regulated within the confines of free speech.

Coy won the lottery with his two-for-the-price-of-one crime. Clearly, there was evidence to convict him of the assault. Was the bias-motivation a separate crime, worth doubling his punishment?


[more]

Vote No

Colorado's constitution is ridiculously easy to change. To pollute our fundamental governing document with your own poorly written special-interest trash only requires convincing 50 percent of voters in one marketing blitz.

There may be some hidden benefits among this year's Colorado ballot measures, but to make things easy and make a point I'm voting against them all.

The crème de la crème of over-the-top ballot issues is the group of Amendments 60 and 61 and Proposition 101. Their sheer complexity is reason enough to reject them. Funded by people hiding in the shadows, the goal of these measures is nothing less than destroying state and local government in Colorado.

[more]

Gunning for Guns

The University of Colorado Regents are trying to preserve their right to ban guns on campus. They say they decide who gets to do what on university property.

Meanwhile, gun rights activists are telling us that guns are necessary on campus (and elsewhere) because you never know when a random killer is going to attack. Someone with a concealed gun can take out that killer and prevent mass casualties.

By my calculation fewer than two lives per year would have been saved in this country since 1966, even if every university shooter had been killed by a legitimate gun owner at the first shot.

School shootings have gone up in the past decade, but still, fewer than five lives would have been saved per year in that period.

Clearly, more than five additional deaths would occur each year with the presence of legal guns due to gun accidents, escalation of arguments, stolen weapons, and other types of mortality.

And yet, the U.S. Constitution, as recently confirmed by the Supreme Court, guarantees the right of the people of this country to have weapons and to carry them.

[more]

Black Hawk: The Definition of Arrogance

I looked up arrogance in the dictionary, and this is what I found:

1. Banning a legal activity (cycling) inside your city
2. Exempting your own residents from the ban and only applying the ban to people passing through and likely unprepared
3. Not posting adequate signs warning people of the ban
4. Claiming the ban is for your citizens, and then defining those citizens to be the biggest companies in town, not the real residents
5. Making sure the ban covers a nationally-known cycling route
6. With no reasonable alternate route
7. Which is in violation of state standards
8. And federal standards
9. Claiming the ban is for safety, with zero history of bike safety issues
10. Without consulting any cyclists or cycling groups
11. Rebuffing any attempt by cycling groups to even participate in the discussion or offer alternatives
12. Ignoring state statutes that limit the ability of municipalities to modify state vehicle codes
13. Modifying the standard model vehicle code to give yourself the right to ban bikes
14. In the law giving yourself the right to ban bikes, citing non-existent research
15. In the law banning bikes on specific streets, citing non-existent research
16. In the research does exist, using a measurement technique that is designed to increase use of bikes
17. When the measurement technique didn't produce the desired results, fudging the numbers to make it appear the roads are less usable by bikes than in reality
18. Telling cyclists they have to walk their bikes, which causes a larger impediment to traffic
19. And causes the traffic impediment to last longer
20. And less safe, because cyclists walking their bikes are less maneuverable than cyclists riding
21. Writing the law so poorly that it bans bicyles, not cycling, and in effect would even ban walking your bike or carrying it trough the streets.
22. And the latest, banning bikes in your resort town, and then inviting the president of the League of American Cyclists to host events there.

Enforcement under the Radar

Recent letters to the Camera have questioned the city's photo radar locations, suggesting that vans are placed to maximize ticket revenue. However, the city lost $21,000 on the program last year. Perhaps something else is going on.

Photo radar, as part of Boulder's neighborhood traffic mitigation program, is designed to decrease speeding violations in neighborhoods and school zones, a laudable goal. It has indeed reduced speeds.

In 2008 the city got heat for its radar site on North Broadway; the van was stationed in a no parking zone, spewing noxious smoke into the adjacent bike lane. In response, the city added a sign under the no parking sign excluding police vehicles and replaced the van with a less stinky one.

There is another reason to question the North Broadway location, which is 50 yards short of where two lanes merge into one. Although drivers should be prepared to merge without speeding, local factors can make obeying the speed limit difficult. The lane loss is not marked well in advance, and occurs shortly after a pedestrian crossing and a steep hill with limited sight distance.

[more]

Terrorist Cell Phonies

By U.S. law, "terrorism" is "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents." But ask 100 people and you`ll get 50 different definitions. One man`s terrorist is another`s freedom fighter. As Justice Potter Stewart said regarding pornography: "I know it when I see it."

Just as most Muslims don`t want to blow up airplanes and most anti-abortion advocates don`t want to kill abortion doctors, plenty of people who are sympathetic with the Tea Party goals condemn violence in furtherance of those goals. Clearly, membership in these groups is not sufficient to earn a label as a terrorist. The Tea Party movement is not a terrorist group.

But something scary is going on.

[more]

Immigration Woes (Gringo Ir a Casa)

Immigration reform has been in the news lately. On my recent Mexican vacation, I saw the seriousness of the problem from the other side of the border fence.

Tens of millions of folks from north of the border are crossing into Mexico every year. A million Americans are living there, more than half illegally.

Many Americans move to Mexico because of its high quality, inexpensive health care system. Drugs are widely available and inexpensive. Drug dealers, called "farmacias," are on every street corner, anxious to sell the addict anything she thinks she needs.

[more]

Is that a Pumpkin on your Head, or are You just Happy to be Naked?

Here in Boulder, starting in 1999, some of our local crazies have been getting together on Halloween night, taking their clothes off, putting pumpkins on their heads, and streaking through the streets. Originally in South Boulder, then University Hill, in 2003 they moved this goofiness to the downtown mall.

Every year, the group has gotten bigger, and with it the publicity. Last year, the police were waiting, and ticketed several of the pumpkin runners, charging them under the state's indecent exposure law.

Unfortunately for the police (and fortunately for the runners), they were unable to get the charges to stick. Not one of the runners was actually convicted.

So, what will happen this year? Police Chief Beckner has promised his officers will be out again this year, and he promises to not just issue tickets but to arrest naked runners.

Beckner recently went on record saying that indecent exposure is not an appropriate charge for people participating in naked events like this. Yet, he has promised to arrest people under that law, because "we want to stop that kind of activity." In other words, he doesn't think these people are breaking the law as it exists, but he is going to arrest them anyway, because he doesn't like what they are doing.

I guess if I were the attorney of one of the folks Beckner promises to arrest, I'd love to be able to present that contradiction to the judge and see if that doesn't get the case thrown right out.

I Don't Like Mondays

Ten years ago...


Mondays from Mike Ellis on Vimeo.

No Room at the Inn

The cowboy sheriff of nearby Larimer County, Jim Alderden, has told the press that he is implementing a cap on county jail population. It seems his department can't afford all the people they are imprisoning, so they are considering releasing prisoners to stay within the cap.

I wonder if this means the good sheriff is going to stop his policy of jailing Boulder cyclists for the crime of not carrying ID? Or is going to set a drunk driver free so that a Boulder cyclist can be taught manners?

A Person's a Person, No Matter How Small -- Colorado 2008 Amendment 48

Amendment 48 was written for one reason -- to outlaw abortion. It tries to do this by defining the term "person" in certain sections of the Colorado Bill of Rights as "any human being from the moment of fertilization".

A couple of very basic problems with this approach. First of all, Roe vs. Wade was decided based on the U.S. Constitution. Changing a term in one state's constitution won't change that one bit.

Second, this definition is circular. According to my understanding of the terms, a person is a human being and a human being is a person. If I don't believe that a fertilized egg is a person, I certainly won't acknowledge that it is a human being. Therefore, this entire definition is either redundant or illogical.

There are plenty more problems. For example, the moment of fertilization is unknowable. There is no way to tell if one of these brand new people even exists, and therefore no way to guarantee its (his or her) rights.

People have been struggling with the definition of "person" for thousands of years. Philosophers, religious leaders, legal experts, everybody has an opinion. Science fiction writers have struggled with the question of whether robots, androids, and extra-terrestrials qualify. Some animal ethicists argue that great apes should have the rights of people. When is the start of life? When is the end of life?

Why is this the realm of the State of Colorado to define, and not the role of each "person" to define for himself or herself?

Suppose this amendment passes. About 50,000 babies are born in Colorado every 9 months. That would be 50,000 people immediately added to our population. How are we going to perform a census to catch all of these new people? Does this one percent increase get translated into the right to an additional Representative to Congress, and if so how would that be fair to the other states?

The Colorado Bill of Rights does not currently define "person", although it is defined elsewhere in the Colorado code. For example, it's not currently considered murder unless you kill a born person. Presumably, every place in the Colorado code that mentions "person" would be impacted by this. Has anybody done the analysis, to determine which laws now apply to 50,000 more people?

This amendment only applies to three specific sections of the Bill of Rights. Who decided which ones and how did they decide? Why wouldn't they have included the entire thing? Seems rather hypocritical to me.

Let's look at the specific sections that would be impacted:

Section 3. Inalienable rights. All persons have certain natural, essential and inalienable rights, among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; of acquiring, possessing and protecting property; and of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness.

So now a fertilized egg has the right to enjoy and defend its life. How? Do the supporters of this measure really believe that a newly fertilized egg can enjoy anything or defend itself? Are we going to provide them with teeny tiny knives to use in this self defense?

What about acquiring, possessing, and protecting property? Has anybody thought about the impact of allowing a fertilized egg to own property? What impact does this have on inheritance law?

How the heck is a fertilized egg going to seek out its safety and happiness?

Now the supporters will no doubt argue that the state will have the right and duty to protect the safety, happiness, life, and liberty of this newly anointed person. But who is speaking up for this entity and what it wants (as if "want" is even relevant)?

And, given that this fertilized egg is now a person, think of all the things that immediately become crimes against a person. The morning after pill, for one, is murder (a conspiracy between the pregnant woman and her doctor). If a pregnant woman drinks an alcoholic beverage she is committing child abuse. In fact, if a pregnant woman has sex, she and her partner are committing child sexual abuse, and will have to have their names added to that of other sex offenders.

Oh, and forget about in vitro fertilization or stem cell research. Those poor little people will be taking the doctors and researchers to court for damages.

Here's another:

Section 6. Equality of justice. Courts of justice shall be open to every person, and a speedy remedy afforded for every injury to person, property or character; and right and justice should be administered without sale, denial or delay.

So now a wronged fertilized egg can take you to court. Presumably that egg will not be taking the stand on its own behalf, so the concept of being able to face your accuser will require significant reinterpretation.

There will have to be a whole new bureaucracy added to the state and all local governments to provide legal and medical protection to all of these otherwise defenseless people. How much will that cost?

And finally:

Section 25. Due process of law. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law.

That's comforting. If someone were to, say, imprison this "person" for nine months, that kidnapper would have to have a court order.

What about all the rights that these new "people" wouldn't have, because the new definition only applies to those three identified sections of the Colorado Bill of Rights? They wouldn't have the right to determine the form of government, which I guess means they can't vote. I don't know how they would use those new electronic voting machines anyway. No religious freedom. This should be comforting to the supporters of this measure in that they will be able to impose their religious beliefs on their spawn without consequence. (They already feel comfortable imposing their religious beliefs on the rest of us anyway.) No speedy trials. No requirement for search warrants. No protection of their estates if they commit treason. No freedom of speech or press. No right to assemble (sorry, that means no twins) or petition. No right to bear arms. (So much for those teeny tiny knives.) No protection against eminent domain. No habeas corpus. No equality of the sexes. (Even for a fertilized egg? How can you even tell?) No prohibition of slavery. Yes, you can legally make a fetus work for you without compensation! And so on.

How ridiculous.

As you have guessed, I'm opposed to this measure.

Vote NO on Amendment 48.

Your Flag Lapel Pin Won't Keep You in Office Anymore

While digesting Congressional Digest
In the airport bathroom stall,
With a tap a flag with a pin on the back
was kicked under the wall.
I peeled that flag up off the floor
And stuck on my lapel,
And if I could have old Betsy Ross
I'd tell 'em all to go to Hell!

But your flag lapel pin won't keep you in office anymore.
They're already overcrowded with liars, cheats and whores.
Now Jesus don't like hypocrisy, no matter what the reasons for,
And your flag lapel pin won't keep you in office any more.

I popped in the Senate this morning
And the lobbyist said to me:
Said, if you vote for my silly bridge
I'll give you ten of them flags for free (plus a boat).
Well, I didn't hestitate a bit,
I took him up on what he said.
And I stuck those flags all over my suit
And one on my wife's forehead.

But your flag lapel pin won't keep you in office anymore.
They're already overflowing with lyin', cheatin' whores.
Now Jesus don't like thievin', no matter what the reasons for,
And your flag lapel pin won't keep you in office any more.

Well, I got my suit lapel so filled
With flags I could not breathe.
So when I wiped my nose upon my shirt
I poked my eye out with my sleeve.
By the time they calmed the doctor down
I was already dead.
And I'll never understand why the man
Standin' at the Pearly Gate said:

That your flag lapel pin won't get you in heaven anymore.
We're already overcrowded from your 100-year-long war.
Now Jesus don't like killin', no matter what the reasons for.
And your flag lapel pin won't get you in heaven any more.

And your flag lapel pin won't keep you in office any more.

Any your flag lapel pin won't get out of China
Any
More

Torture Me, Br'er Judge, But Don't Fling Me in that Virgin Patch

The man known as KSM and four of his good buddies all want to die. No, they're not depressed, they're giddy. They are not suicidal. Rather, they want to be rewarded for pulling a fast one over on all us evil Americans, and sent directly on the fast train to heaven.

Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and his cohorts are responsible for plotting the 9/11 mass murders. They are still greatly pleased with how that turned out. They will never be repentant. They are the picture of evil, and given the chance would do as much additional damage as they could. If convicted of their crimes, shouldn't they be put to death?

Think of it this way. In their belief system, as warriors for their evil cause there is no greater reward that to become a martyr. Giving them death penalty would be rewarding them for their actions. Not only that, we would be sending the message to potential recruits to their cause that even if they are captured they could become martyrs. What greater recruiting tool could there be?

So, if giving them the death penalty would reward them for their actions, would help recruit people to their cause, and would cause many people in the civilized world to feel more sympathetic towards them, what should we do to them instead if they are convicted?

Simple. Lock each one of them up in a small, dark room and don't let them out. Give them each a mattress to sleep on, a Koran, and a daily kosher meal. That's it. If there is particularly good news in the fight against their buddies, slip them a copy of the news, but nothing else. No other news would flow in or out. Make sure they get good health care, so they live long, unproductive lives. And give the Red Cross access to make sure they are not being tortured or otherwise mistreated. Let them fade away and out of everybody's mind. But make sure recent pictures are always available, so that the world knows what a man in permanent, earned solitary confinement looks like.

Speaking of torture, it's pretty clear that KSM and his gang were interrogated using "enhanced" techniques. What's up with that? Even if they got a confession (which they did), and even if it was legitimate, the judge (along with the rest of the world) is going to have to consider the validity of that confession, throwing the entire prosecution into question. What if we can't convict these evil people because their confessions were coerced illegally? Do we then let them go? Or continue to hold them without convicting them? This leads to some very bad options. Even if they are successfully convicted, many will not accept it because of the torture allegations. Why does our government insist on putting the punishment and imprisonment of these horrible people at risk? Why must they take a positive thing (capturing known terrorists) into a negative (we had to torture a so-called confession out of these people) with our own allies?

These actions are unconscionable and we should demand more responsible behavior from the people we trust to keep us safe.

Issue Drivers' Licenses Based on Emotional Age

Car/bike confrontations have been on many minds lately, including mine, along with articles and letters in the all the local papers. Not unusual for this time of year. Many folks (drivers) are angry at cyclists for taking up their space on the road.

Just this afternoon, I was riding on a Boulder street. I was in the bike lane, approaching a major intersection, and saw the light change to green. There were three cars in front of me, and all of them had their right-hand turn signals flashing. To avoid any question about whether they would have to wait for me to pass on the right, I pulled out into the lane where they could see me in their mirrors, and waved them on.

As a cyclist, when I pull into the traffic lane, I always pull well into the lane, so that there is no temptation for any driver behind me to pass when it is not safe. I moved to the left-hand side of the lane, and as the three cars moved through the bike lane to turn, I went by them on the left.

As I was moving back to the right side of the road, a guy in a large pickup truck roared by me, leaned over to his open passenger window, and angrily yelled at me, "Hey, stay to the right!"

Now, clearly I was riding legally, safely, courteously, and defensively. I had not caused the driver behind me a single second of delay -- in fact, I had probably reduced his delay by removing any possibility of confrontation between myself and the turning cars. In my mind I imagined that my taunter hates cyclists, but is lately worked up even more than usual by the likes of Larimer County Sheriff Jim Alderden. The sheriff, as a law officer, has made it ok to blame the cyclist, to assume the cyclist is always doing something wrong, and to take it upon yourself to correct the matter.

Vigilante justice never solves the problem. In fact it turns the enforcer into the criminal. In Boulder there is a "fighting words" ordinance, which states, "No person shall insult, taunt, or challenge another in a manner likely to provoke a disorderly response." Just as clearly as I was not violating any law in this incident, Mr. Pickup Truck was clearly using fighting words, and had he been charged and convicted he could have been given a fine of up to $1,000 and a jail sentence of up to ninety days. My only penalty would have been having to show up in court to testify against him, which I would have done willingly and via bicycle just to rub it in.

That is, had I been quicker on getting the license plate number off that pickup. Oh, well, at least I can vent here.

Here is some general advice for both drivers and cyclists. Don't get it into your head that you can or should enforce the law yourself, because you can't. If you see someone doing something that you think is wrong, you need to put yourself in their shoes first. If you can't see what they're seeing, if you don't know why a cyclist would be riding where that person is, well, then you need to give him or her the benefit of the doubt. There is probably a good reason that you just don't know. And there's a pretty good chance that the cyclist knows the laws that apply to cyclists better than you, as a driver, do.

I guarantee this. Your road rage will not make the situation better. Throwing insults or worse at cyclists (or at drivers if you are a cyclist) will not change their behavior in any way that you would see as a benefit. Rather, it will encourage them to be more obnoxious just to spite you. And there's nothing worse than having someone spite in your face while you're enjoying a nice drive or bike ride.

City of Boulder Mandates Emissions

I was idly perusing the Boulder Municipal Code the other day, when I discovered that I am the worst kind of scofflaw.

Yes, in a city where bikes are revered above cars, where the citizens voted to tax themselves for carbon emissions, where the city government provides dirt cheap bus passes to many of its citizens, and where the people glorify organic food, it turns out that I am breaking the law by not driving my car enough.

According to section 7-6-20:

1. No vehicle shall be parked upon any street for more than seventy-two hours without being moved or for the principal purpose of storage for more than seventy-two hours.
2. Proof that the vehicle's odometer shows movement of no more than two-tenths of a mile during a period of at least seventy-two hours shall constitute prima facie evidence of violation of this section.

Ok, ignore the fact that item (a) doesn't make sense, and item (b) seems to outlaw not driving your car at least 0.3 miles every three days (who writes these things!?). At a minimum, this law says that I can't leave my car parked on the street for more than three days in a row.

I'm fairly certain that the setbacks required by the city planning department would not allow a two-car garage to be built on our property. That means that one of the two cars in our family has to be parked on the street.

So, every time I bike to a meeting, every time I walk to the rec center, every time I take the bus downtown, every time I telecommute, I am compounding my crime. The penalty for this crime is a fine of $15. And the worst part is that there is a new infraction every two hours after the first one.

So let's see. If I leave my car parked for four days, the fines could be as high as $195. The last time I drove my car was last Tuesday, so I'm up to about $750 already. Over the winter when they don't plow our street and it turns into a skating rink, I've been known to leave my car for six weeks at a time. That adds up to a maximum fine of $7,575. Just because I'd rather crash walking than driving.

So, what are my choices? We could sell the second car, since gosh we could probably live with just one. Of course, it does happen reasonably often that we both need to drive somewhere. Or, I could put the car in a commercial garage ... and then walk or bike to the garage when I need to use the car. I could just give the city my credit card number, and tell them to fine away.

I guess my favorite idea is to picture myself as a modern-day Thoreau. I'm holed up in the city jail because of the parking fines that are piling high, and of course I refuse to pay them on principle. While in jail, I'd write a book about the simple life I live in Boulder in pure harmony with naturopaths, adventure racers, and tree huggers. And so would I build my credentials as the great American blogger and tax resister.

So, come and get me, Boulder parking enforcement office Rita. I have everything I need already packed, and it all fits very nicely into a single soapbox.

They do have wireless Internet access in the jail, don't they?

On Being Pro-Life

I consider myself to be pro-life. What does that mean? Simply put, I'm in favor of life. I think life's a good thing. All other things being equal, I'll support something that's alive over something that isn't.

I also believe in respecting the beliefs of others. So, for example, being pro-life I am also a vegetarian. However, when I go out to eat with friends who aren't I have no urge to try to convert them, and I expect the same respect.

Being pro-life, I also would never get an abortion. Of course, I'm a member of the approximately 50% of our population who will never be given the opportunity to test that resolve. I can't guarantee that, if things were different and I were able to have an unwanted pregnancy, I'd make the same decision. So, I consider it none of my business when someone else makes that decision, one way or the other.

Being a pacifist has been pretty easy for me. I'm at exactly the right age to have missed the draft for Vietnam, and I'm too old to ever have had to even register for the draft. So, I haven't been tested on that one. But it's hard for me to come up with many circumstances in which I war is the best answer. Iraq certainly doesn't raise itself over that bar. If someone wants to volunteer to go fight in a war I can't stop them. But if they are doing it for the wrong reasons (my country, my religion, my people are more important/better than others) they have lost my respect (for whatever that's worth).

Capital punishment is another problem for me. Besides the idea that we are almost certainly killing innocent people, there is the fact that it does not deter any crime and the fact that it costs more to kill a criminal than it does to lock him away.

Pro-life also means that I believe in supporting the other living entities on this planet, as well as the systems in which they thrive. Yes, just because they are there and they are alive. I believe we, as the dominant life form on this planet with the capability to destroy so much so easily, have a duty to protect the other life forms. I believe that, to the extent that the people and businesses on this planet don't do this, the governments on this planet have a duty to provide a voice to protect the planet and enforce that protection.

So, there you have it. I'm pro-life, and I refuse to let someone else co-opt a perfectly good phrase and make it mean something else, just to make their cause sound better. I'm pro-life, but you won't find me at any anti-abortion rally (on either side). I'm pro-life, but not because some religious leader told me to be but rather because I believe it's the right way to be.

Now, who's willing to take a stand and claim to be anti-life?

Gitmo For Life

Here are some fresh pictures from the prison that just keeps on giving:

The noble terrorist hunt:


There'll be none of this:


Every prisoner has access to his lawyer:


Victim of the shoe bomber (as confessed by Gitmo prisoner Khalid Sheikh Mohammed):


The prisoners are happy:


Professional, friendly prison guards:


Fun stress positions:


Humane interrogation methods:


Cultural sensitivity:

What Do You Call Eight Fired U.S. Attorneys at the Bottom of the Ocean?

A Good Start. (Falsely attributed to Alberto Gonzales.)

Here's the deal. There's no doubt that U.S. Attorneys, like all other political appointees, serve to pleasure the President. That means, among other things, that he can hire them (subject to appropriate confirmation) and fire them at will.

However, if a U.S. Attorney is fired in order to stop an investigation that the administration doesn't like, that is called obstruction of justice. This would certainly qualify as a high crime or misdemeanor.

The Senate is responsible for making this determination, and if there is any evidence of this crime it should be allowed to do so.