Whose words?

Many are happy to interpret recent election results, but to me it's simple. People are out of work and taking it out on their elected officials.

According to my statistical analysis of past elections, the unemployment rate has been responsible for about a third of switched congressional seats. Further, when the unemployment rate is above about 7 percent, that contribution leaps to somewhere between half and two thirds.

When unemployment is high it is a huge factor in house seats being lost by the president's party. When unemployment is low, other factors come more into play.

Based on this theory, you could have predicted that Democrats would lose at least 40 seats in the House without looking at a single news story, poll result, party platform, or campaign ad.

But there's more to this story.

[more]

Scary Monsters

The Republicans have been working on their Halloween costumes for weeks. This year they are dressing as Founding Fathers.

Last month they introduced their "Pledge to America," giving the rest of us a frightening vision of their costume.

The basis for this pledge is the idea that the citizens of this country do not consent to our government and its actions. It echoes back to the Declaration's explicit dissolution of our bounds to Britain. Why is that frightening? Our nation is a representative democracy that depends on peaceful elections and transitions of power. Talk of revolution pretends that process is optional.

It's not. That process has held this country together for over 220 years.

[more]

Gut Check

It's not easy being logical in forming opinions. We humans are wired to make decisions with our guts, and to manufacture a rational world around those decisions.

We are easily manipulated. A news story with lots of blood convinces us that a minor issue is the problem of the day. For example, the Camera front page has a story about an accident at a flashing crosswalk, and suddenly flashing crosswalks are death traps. We conveniently ignore the fact that most traffic accidents do not happen at these crosswalks.

Then you throw in peer manipulation. One person says that pedestrians don't look before crossing the street. Pretty soon it is common knowledge that pedestrians in Boulder have a death wish and always walk out directly in front of cars without even a glance, an opinion that, if examined logically, couldn't possibly be true.

[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.

Liberal Guilt

My wife and I are pretty darn serious about minimizing our impact on this planet.

We proudly put out one orange bag of whatever trash we can't recycle, reuse or compost about every six weeks. Our water usage is an order of magnitude smaller than our city-assigned budget.

We bike and bus and walk, and Caron rides her hot pink scooter so we don't drive much. Our old cars work fine, thank you; the energy to scrap and replace them with a shiny new hybrid would be more than we'd save in years of use.

[more]

No, You May Not Have this Test for Cancer!

A bunch of Republicans are pointing out that the new suggestions that mammograms and pap smears are overused means that under government health care they would be rationed.

The Republicans much prefer the current system in which the insurance companies ration services like this.

How Soon they Forget

Lance Armstrong had surgery today to repair the clavicle he broke while racing two days ago. Said Lance, "It's the biggest setback I've ever had in my cycling career." This from the man who quit the sport when cancer almost killed him.

Also on Monday, infamous Boulderite Ward Churchill took the stand in defense of his $94,000 per year teaching job at CU, saying, "When you bring your skills to bear for profit, you are the moral equivalent of Adolf Eichmann." You nailed it (and yourself) Ward.

The Bush Tax Increase

One of John McCain's biggest campaign issues this election, and a favorite talking point among conservatives is the so-called Obama tax increase. But what I don't get is why they are blaming Obama, when it was their own man George W. Bush who signed the tax increase into law.

That's right. Our very own President Bush signed into law the tax plan that will result in taxes increasing after he leaves office. The only way he could make the budget math even sort of work was to put an end date on each of his tax cuts, expiration dates at which taxes would increase. Otherwise, the fiscal damage would have been even more obvious at the time and they never would have passed Congress.
And now the conservatives are blaming Obama for raising taxes even if he does nothing and lets some of the tax cuts expire. That's just plain dumb. George W. Bush and the Republican Congress are totally responsible for raising taxes.
So, Bush is a tax hiker. And we already know that John McCain is as well.
Barack Obama is proposing to follow the Bush tax plan -- letting the Bush tax cuts expire as Bush put into place. Meanwhile, John McCain has proposed a brand new tax (his tax on health care benefits). But don't worry, he tells us, it will only be a net increase on 5% of people, the people who can most afford it.

I smell hypocrisy here.

Sarah Smile

When asked about her insight into Russian actions, Sarah Palin said:

They're our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska.

Now that's pretty impressive. I've certainly never seen Russia from Colorado. But here's the shocker: Notice how carefully she worded that statement. She never actually said she had ever been on that island, on a clear day, and looked in the direction of Russia. So, we really can't be sure she has actually ever really seen Russia. And, if she hasn't seen Russia, how can she really be sure that "they are our next door neighbor" or that we really need to have a "mutually beneficial relationship"? I think we need to see some proof. Maybe a snapshot on her cell phone, a picture on her MySpace page showing Russia in the background. Only then will I really be confident in her foreign relations credentials.

Oh, and did you watch her when she was talking about foreign policy with Charlie Gibson? She repeatedly said she wouldn't blink, but I counted at least twenty blinks during the times when she was talking about not blinking. Which is it, Sarah? Can you stare down those godless terrorists or not?

Winkin'

Blinkin'

Nod

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

McCain Claims his Tax Increases will Hurt Economy

Senator McCain has told us that Senator Obama's planned tax increases will harm the economy. And he's promised us that he, himself, Senator McCain will raise taxes on nobody.

But here's the rub. Just like President Bush, McCain has proposed raising taxes as part of his health care proposal. The only thing is, he doesn't call it a tax increase.

It's not just a tax increase. The Senator from Arizona has proposed a whole new tax. In McCain's plan, employer-provided health insurance will be taxed as income. He has also proposed a tax credit to offset the cost of health insurance. But if an employer provides a really good plan, that tax credit may not be enough to offset the new tax.

Even McCain has admitted that some some people will see increased taxes because of his plan. But, he denies that this qualifies as a tax increase, since there are compensating tax reductions.

Consider, though, that Senator Obama's "tax increases" that "will hurt the economy" also decrease the tax burden on a large majority and increase on a small number. And, both plans claim that the tax increases are offset by the tax cuts.

So, Senator McCain, you have to tell us. Are you going to admit that you are proposing a tax increase just like Obama? Or are you going to give Obama a pass, because in reality he is proposing nothing different than you are?

Or are you going to continue these silly word games?

Pander to the People Right On

Last week we went to hear a band called The Panderers. They were pretty good, and between songs the band members would tell us how great our town, club, neighborhood, audience members, etc., were. Kind of funny.

However, it's not so funny when the people we elect do the same thing. I was reminded of this when I saw John McCain's latest health care "reform" proposal. It was as if the band had given everyone in the audience free t-shirts or CDs or drinks, and funded it through a mandatory ticket surcharge at the door.

Here's how McCain's plan would work. Somehow, without raising taxes, he is going to give everybody $2,500 (or $5,000 per family) to buy health insurance. I imagine this is going straight into our deficit, which means, of course, that it is coming out of my eventual Social Security and Medicare payments. That's it. Oh, yeah, he wants to "promote" lots of other feel-good stuff, like insurance for people with preexisting conditions, healthy lifestyles, convenience, and competition. Where's the meat?

Kind of like the recent stimulus package, which similarly took from our future financial stability to help people who can't control their spending to pay down their credit cards.

Or kind of like the proposals being floated around to have a "gas tax holiday" for the summer, encouraging people to drive even more while not fixing crumbling bridges.

Does this stuff actually work? Meaning, of course, are people more likely to vote for a politician who writes them checks, even though they must know that the money is coming out of the government's ability to provide some other service that the recipient is likely to continue to expect? It's sad, but I have no doubt that it does.

Maybe if the band had handed out free t-shirts to the audience members, and built the cost into the price of the CD we were expected to go out and buy because we appreciated the free t-shirt so much. That would be pandering like a pro.

Combatting Illiteracy

Every place has its loose cannon, and Colorado is no exception. Ours is Douglas Bruce, who was appointed late last year by his party (the Republicans) to fill a vacant seat in the State Legislature. However, I'm sure there are now many Republicans who regret making that mistake.

Bruce's theatrics have been going on for years. He is the author of the so-called Taxpayer's Bill of Rights (TABOR), which has single-handedly done more to cripple the state government than anything else. His goofiness in the State Legislature started even before he was sworn in. He delayed his swearing in ceremony a few days past the opening session just so he could exploit a loophole in Colorado's term limit law and get the opportunity to run for one extra term. Then, he applied for per diem expenses for the days prior to his delayed swearing in! (He later introduced a bill to eliminate per diem payments.) Since then, he was censured by the legislature for kicking a photographer who was taking his picture during a session. He was the sole member of the legislature to vote against honoring our veterans and military, and lost his post in the Veterans and Military Affairs Committee as a result. He's come out against many aspects of his party's agenda, including a pine beetle mitigation fund and specialty license plates. And the list goes on.

It had been a while since we'd heard from Bruce, so it was reassuring to find out about this recent controversy. In his arguments against a bill that would have allowed additional agricultural guest workers from Mexico, Bruce famously said, "I don't think we need 5,000 more illiterate peasants in Colorado."

Of course, his microphone was figuratively turned off, but he has continued to defend his remarks (as have his supporters.) It seems that he checked the dictionary definitions of "illiterate" and "peasant", and didn't see what all the fuss was about, since the migrant workers clearly fit the definitions of both.

Well, Mr. Bruce clearly has problems with the English language himself. The word "illiterate" refers to someone who can't read or write. What evidence does he have that the migrant works fit that description? According to my research, 91% of all Mexicans are literate, and there is no reason to believe that the agricultural workers he refers to are any different.

Bruce is having a hard time why people are offended by his words. Well, according to the Concise Oxford Companion to the English Language, "illiterate is pejorative when used to describe people who can read and write, but not to a level acceptable to the speaker." Yes, the word is commonly used as an insult by people who think they know more than someone else. You can't use a word that is a common insult and then feign surprise when people get upset.

Similarly, the word "peasant" is a mask for something else here. Its true definition is family laborers who work on a small plot land they lease from a landlord. Again, the word is often used as an insult by people who feel superior to poor farmers.

In fact, you'd think that Bruce would have a better understanding of the word "peasant", as he himself is a landlord. He has been cited on several occasions for poorly maintaining his rental properties. Oh, and by the way, he recently refused to recuse himself and voted against a bill that would crack down on landlords like himself. Pretty cool, huh?

Wait, there's more. Just a couple days ago, Bruce was the subject of a sexual harassment complaint at the legislature and ordered to stay away from the accusing woman.

Class clown, maybe. But somehow I don't see Bruce maintaining his seat much longer. He's up for reelection this year, and facing stiff competition for the Republican nomination from Iraq war veteran Mark Waller. I predict the headlines from the state capital are not going to last much past the next general election.

They Say It's Your Earth Day

I was going to write about Earth Day a few days ago, but got distracted when the earth decided to take things into its own hands.

I noticed that lots of companies are really focusing on cashing in on the green thing. Earth Day sales were very popular this year.

So which of the following do you think is a joke:

• A super market chain offered free reusable shopping bags if you bought a case of single-serving bottled water
• Another company is holding an Earth Day drawing in which the prize is a (hybrid) SUV and an all-expense-paid airline trip to Yellowstone National Park
• For this Earth Day, an appliance store is having a special on side-by-side refrigerators

The answer, of course, is that they are all jokes, but they are all true.

You've got to have a sense of humor if you want to survive in this world. Unfortunately, the joke is on all of us.

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?

Be Prepared (for Coronary Heart Disease)

It's time for my annual rant against the Girl Scouts' sale of cookies with misleading health claims. I got the call from my niece today asking me to buy some of these cookies, and I can't turn her down. But that doesn't keep me from whining to my loyal readers.

As I've reported for the past two years, the cookies are advertised by the Girl Scouts as having zero grams of trans fats. But if you read the ingredient lists carefully, you will find partially hydrogenated oils in them all. This means they claim zero grams on merely a technicality -- the FDA's rule that companies can say they have none even if they have up to a half gram per serving. And they get to determine the serving size. This means that the typical real-life serving likely has a gram or more of trans fats.

Message to the girls: It's ok to lie to make a sale, as long as that lie is sanctioned by the U.S. government.

Trans fats are not in any way required or beneficial to health. They have been strongly linked by research to coronary heart disease. There is no safe level of consumption -- any increase leads to a corresponding increase in risk of heart disease. 30,000 people die each year because of trans fats. Therefore, the National Academy of Sciences has recommended that consumption be as low as possible.

In addition, trans fats have been linked to increased obesity, liver dysfunction, and infertility. Questions have been raised, but links haven't been proven, relating to cancer and diabetes.

Message to the girls: Making money for the troop is more important than the health of the customer.

Girl Scouts of the USA, I call on you to force your bakers to reformulate your cookies to actually and totally remove the trans fats from your cookies. Teach your girls that you don't have to lie to make a sale, and stop contributing to the heart disease and obesity epidemics in this country.

By the way, if you read the ingredients closely, you'll notice that partially hydrogenated oils are listed before cocoa, peppermint, and everything else other than flour and sugar. But they clearly don't advertising the cookies as having zero chocolate or zero mint.

Act of Congress or Sidetracked and Pompous?

A couple of weeks ago, the New York Times ran an ad by MoveOn.org calling General Petraeus "General Betray Us." Shortly thereafter, the U.S. Senate passed a GOP resolution, sponsored by Texan John Cornyn, by a 72-25 margin, condemning the ad. Several of the Democrats who voted against that bill had earlier voted in favor of a bill condemning the ad along with several earlier GOP-originated attack ads.

This week, our very own Democratic Representative, Mark Udall, introduced legislation condemning Rush Limbaugh for comments he had made about phony soldiers. Colorado Senator Ken Salazar has publicly said he would support a censure vote against Limbaugh if one were proposed.

A while back, a group of kooks and rebels led an effort to try to interfere with the free speech rights of Cornyn, Udall, and Salazar. They weren't happy just arguing publicly against them. No, they had to try to amend the U.S. Constitution to make the Congress members' speech illegal.

Oh, these kooks and rebels had names like Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, and James Madison. Their proposed rule was part of the very first Amendment, and it read, "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of ... the press."

And the First Amendment was adopted.

So, apparently, Senators Cornyn and Salazar and Representative Udall, you don't get to do that. So, please go back to arguing about the war in Iraq or whatever it is you do when you aren't getting your feathers ruffled by what someone in the media says.

These guys have all vowed to uphold the Constitution, but apparently they haven't even read it!

Tenure's After

So, a bunch of Republican state legislators got together and demanded (yet again) that Ward Churchill be fired. That seems rather stupid to me.

It's not that I'm not sympathetic. Apparently Professor Churchill has proven himself a terrible scholar and probably should be fired. It's just that, by demanding that the University bypass its own policies, they are encouraging the view that this entire thing is merely a political firing. That will only increase the likelihood that Churchill's inevitable wrongful firing lawsuit will succeed.

If we're going to fire people for making up facts and taking credit for other people's ideas, then I think we should take it further. We need to apply the same standard to our politicians. Let's investigate the lies by State Senate Minority Leader Andy McElhany and his buddies casting stones at the University's glass house. Let's make a list of all the times they have taken credit for someone else's work. Then, we'll pick someone who knows nothing about the situation to publicly demand the ouster of the offending politicians.

Oh, and while we're at it, we should also demand the firing of any media pundits who are doing similar things. That means you, Bill O'Reilly.

Or maybe all we need to do is admit that, whether you are a university professor, a politician, or a pundit, being self-righteous does not make you right.

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?

Directionally-Challenged Hate

Nationally-syndicated columnist Deroy Murdoch recently wrote a diatribe against liberals. It seems that, after the right-wing Tennessee Center for Policy Research took Al Gore to task for using too much electricity, a bunch of leftist kooks sent particularly venomous emails in response.

Murdoch writes: "Such anti-intellectual intimidation reflects the high-octane hate that fuels so much Leftist discourse."

I can't decide if Murdoch is stupid, or if he is deliberately fanning animosity between political groups in this country.

Deroy, I don't know about you, but I learned back in grammar school that just because some Xs are also Ys doesn't mean that all Xs are Ys. Sure some liberals are unthinking jerks. But that doesn't mean that this reflects liberalism in general.

What if I were to use Deroy's own argument to define the right-wing mission based on the unthinking hate spewed by people like Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly (and, apparently, Deroy Murdoch). I might just say that such anti-intellectual intimidation reflects the high-octane hate that fuels so much Rightist discourse.

But that wouldn't be fair to my conservative friends, who in general are smarter than that.