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.

What Do You Love and How Many Can You Kill Doing It?

The Daily Camera had the most horrible headline on a very disturbing story. It seems that three local kids (all in their early 20s) died after a spectacular one-car crash while driving over 100 MPH in Louisville. They were on their way home after a night of beer drinking.

It is tragic enough that they died in this manner. One of them was the mother of two young children and takes care of her father who has Alzheimer's disease. Another was the father of one with another on the way.

What really struck me was the quote from the sister of one of the boys killed. She said, "The thing that really makes me feel much better about this is they died doing what they loved to do -- they were drinking, they were going fast and they were together. It gives me comfort, it does, to know those three things."

It may give her comfort to know that these kids were out drinking and driving very fast on public streets, no doubt egging each other on to do more of the same. And the fact that her brother was recently killed in such a violent manner may excuse a certain bit of insensitivity. But they could easily have killed others along with themselves. The Camera certainly had no call to publish that quote as part of their sensationalistic headline: "Trio loved speedy cars: Families, friends remember three who died 'doing what they loved'".

Let me put this into a bit of perspective, perhaps with a bit of insensitivity of my own. Meredith Emerson from Longmont was murdered while hiking recently in Georgia, but at least she was doing something she loved at the time. There have been five deaths from heroin overdose in the past year in Boulder County, but at least we can be comforted by the fact that they all died doing something they loved. Seung-Hui Cho killed 32 people before shooting himself at Virginia Tech last spring, but at least he died doing what he loved.

The folks at the Camera may love these attention-grabbing headlines, but the circulation of the paper may die as a result of doing what they love.

What Are They Thinking?

One has to wonder who is making the decisions for the Writers' Guild of America. All negotiations in their strike have ceased. You'd think they would be looking for all the good press they could get.

Instead, they are busy back stabbing one of their biggest supporters (and members). Jon Stewart very clearly spoke out for the WGA. He renamed his show to illustrate that support. He even, according to rumors, volunteered to pay his writers out of his own pocket at their regular salary for their creative efforts in writing pro-union slogans for their placards.

So, how do they thank him? By making a deal with Letterman that allows the Pants Man to go back on air with writers, and refusing Stewart's offer to match what Letterman signed. Then, by taking those (reportedly) well-compensated placards and marching with them outside of the Daily Show's studio.

Well, here's what I've learned after two nights -- The Daily Show may have excellent writers, but Jon Stewart seems to do pretty well without them. By their refusal to deal with Comedy Central, the writers are pretty much showing us how irrelevant they really are. On one of the few television shows that non-insulting writing, we now know that the people responsible for that writing are not the ones holding up the anti-Viacom signs outside.

I think it's time to bring in Monty Hall and Make a Deal. Pick Door #1, Door #2, or Door #3, but please pick something.

Party Like It's 12.19.19.17.19

Betcha didn't know that Y2K was just practice for the real end of the world, coming at the moment of the winter solstice in exactly five years. That would be December 21, 2012, 4:11:23 AM MST. You see, it was all predicted by the Mayans, thousands of years ago.

How is this stupid? Let me count the ways:

1. This date is claimed to be the end of the Mayan calendar. But in actuality it is just the rollover from the date of 12.19.19.17.19 to the date of 13.0.0.0.0. Oh, yeah, those tricky Mayans used a modified base 20 in this particular calendar, and the fifth digit just happens to roll over from 12 to 13 on 12-21-2012. Kind of like our recent Y2K experience. Except in this case the worst we should expect to see is stone tablets crashing. (Look out below!)
2. Yes, the Mayan calendar keeps going. And, when it gets to 19.19.19.17.19, it will roll over to 1.0.0.0.0.0. I don't expect to be around to worry about that one. And in fact there are known records of Mayans quoting dates well beyond 1.0.0.0.0.0, 3,000 years in the future.
3. And, speaking of not being around, did anybody notice that the Mayan civilization is no longer around. Seems like if they were so smart, they'd still be here. There are still many Mayans around, but as far as I can tell the full intricacies of their calendar are only relevant in the study of ancient history (and end-of-the-world hoaxes). I'd say their fancy calendar is no longer relevant.
4. Of course, all this is based on the interpretation of a dead language and culture by scholars looking at its remnants. Some think the rollover date is December 23, 2012. Others think it is decades off (in either direction), or even centuries. In any case, all the people who know for sure aren't currently available to tell us.
5. Um, and nobody has any idea what the Mayans actually thought was going to happen at this interesting point in time. They actually used (according to scholars) several interwoven calendars, and the evidence is that they gathered at the end of each cycle to make sacrifices and see if there was going to be another one.
6. This thing about being coincident with the Winter Solstice is just somebody's idea of tying these two things together to make a bigger event out of nothing. But there's no evidence that the Mayans had enough information to predict when the solstice was going to be this far in the future. The precession of the Earth's rotation has changed slowly over the centuries, and there is no way they could have known how much.
7. Then there's this thing that people keep bringing up about how the sun is going to be in perfect alignment with the galactic equator on that date. Totally unrelated.
8. The galactic alignment is supposed to happen only once every 26,000 years. In fact, the sun orbits the center of the Milky Way Galaxy once every 225-250 million years, and oscillates up and down 2.7 times each orbit. That seems to me to imply that we would cross the galactic equator once every 41 million years or so. 26,000 years is approximately how long it takes the earth' rotational axis to precess through 360 degrees. People who confuse galactic orbital position with the precession of the earth's rotation don't understand astronomy.
9. In fact, if you use the precession calculation to figure out this galactic alignment thing, we crossed the galactic equator in about 1998, so that non-event already happened.
10. And non-event is what it was. There is not one bit of difference to earth whether the sun is a tiny bit above the galactic equator or below it. No change in gravity. No change in solar flares. No flipping of the earth's magnetic poles. No scorching of the earth by the sun, no gravitational surges, no more earthquakes and volcanos than normal. And the ancient Mayans didn't know anything about the Milky Way galaxy, anyway.
11. That's, of course, assuming that the concept of galactic equator can be accurately measured from here based on the relatively little information we've been able to collect in a few decades.
12. In any case, wouldn't 12-21-2112 be a numerologically better date for the end of the world?

So, go ahead and buy some bonds that mature more than five years out, and don't get an adjustable rate mortgage with a balloon payment in five years. Oh, and don't waste your money on any books or movies that try to convince you of this non-disaster, or waste your time listening to anybody who believes this crap.

Did You Brush Your Teeth?

Boulder has now installed a new crosswalk safety device that, I kid you not, vocally warns pedestrians to look before crossing. I'm pretty sure they hired my mother to record the warning. "Stop! Look both ways! Clean your plate!"

Ok, maybe not the last one.

We have a number of crosswalks where the pedestrian waiting to cross can press a button and lights start flashing, warning drivers that someone is crossing. Except, some people are not smart enough to look to make sure the cars are stopped before stepping out into the street. So now, my mom is going to remind them.

Then there are the folks who abuse these signals by barreling through on their bikes, completely surprising drivers who are looking for pedestrians traveling at walking speed. I guess Darwin had a word for this type of behavior.

Anyway, how about someone designs a new device to actually enforce these crossing areas. Something like, when the pedestrian presses the button, after two seconds a series of spikes comes up out of the roadway to pierce the tires of anybody trying to drive through. Or maybe something with a giant magnet.

Actually, I have an even better idea. When the pedestrian has the right of way, a cell phone disruptor could be turned on that will cause anybody driving through to lose their signal and drop their call. That would get their attention!

Here's a (semi-)serious question about this new device. Suppose a pedestrian presses the button, steps out into the street, and gets run over. Does the fact that the pedestrian was warned to use caution provide an argument that could be used in court that the pedestrian was at fault?

Luckily I don't often have to cross that particular street in that particular location, so I won't be the one to test out my question. Anyone want to volunteer?

Futilities Department

For a while now, I've had a problem with the City of Boulder's Utilities Department, as led by Ned Williams. But the latest fiasco with the City's new water budgeting system may just get him the kind of attention he doesn't want.

Whether you agree with the new rate structure or not, you have to admit that it was implemented extremely poorly. The idea of the plan was to charge a higher rate for water as people and businesses use more. Conserve water and pay a low rate. Waste water and pay more per gallon.

After the system was implemented, the first question was obviously going to be, "So, how much water are we saving?" But apparently when creating the new billing system they didn't think to create any reports to provide this fundamental information, or even the ability to quickly create such reports. I've been in the software business for many years, and such a blunder is inexcusable.

On top of that, one of the city's meter readers misread the water meter at an apartment building and sent out a bill for about $1.5 million. Then they announced that revenues were up by 50%. Again, inexcusable. Any system that relies on human data entry must have safeguards to check for such major errors. This one would have been easy: Any water bill with more than 6 digits to the left of the decimal point should be examined by a person before being sent out. Not hard. Again, go back to your Freshman computer science class and reread the textbook.

But Ned Williams and his gang of turf-building cronies have been haunting Boulder for a while. I first experienced them via my ownership of water rights in the Silver Lake Ditch and Reservoir Company. This is a group of folks who own rights to irrigation water in Boulder's watershed, and who still use that ditch water to irrigate their residential and business properties. Unfortunately, Mr. Williams didn't like that we owned water rights that he couldn't control. So, he sent the City Attorneys and the Planning Department after the ditch owners and literally started bullying them to relinquish their water rights to the city for a tiny fraction of what they are worth.

Fortunately, calmer heads at the City (City Manager Frank Bruno) forced him to temporarily stop the bullying. However, Ned's gang has been in negotiations with the ditch company for almost two years, and they have still been unable to resolve the differences. I'm not involved in the negotiations and don't know their current status, but I know that the City's going in position was that they didn't have to do anything, because they already owned the water rights (contrary to all of the written agreements).

In another case (in which I have no vested interest), the City has gone to court to force farmers in central Colorado in the South Platte River Valley to stop taking water from their wells. It seems that by pumping water from their wells the farmers are using water that belongs to someone downstream from them, and when those downstream users demand the water they can force the City to give up its more junior rights. Water rights in Colorado are very complex, but it seems to me that putting farmers out of business is not in the best interest of the City. There has to be another solution to this problem.

Back in the 80s, the city constructed Goose Creek, kind of an ugly channel for flood control purposes. What really mattered was the most efficient conveyance of water. Put a bike path next to it and call it a greenway. Well, Mr. Williams finally got religion and discovered some federal money that could be used to upgrade Goose Creek to a "real" creek. You know, make it look more natural, with realistic looking artificial rocks, pools for any goose fish that could figure out how to swim upstream from Boulder Creek, trees to keep the cyclist cool, etc. (Not that the cyclists aren't already cool.) It may not be the most efficient way to get water from here to there, but with all that extra Silver Lake and South Platte River water you're going to be getting any day now, it won't really matter.

Oh, by the way, the City recently announced that there is plenty of water in its reservoirs and snow pack this year, and there will be no watering restrictions. Just watch your water budget.

Bush's First Veto Proves Something

Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.
- Hanlon's razor, Anonymous

Today, President Bush issued the first veto of his presidency, killing a bill that would have eased limitations on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. He claimed the bill "crosses a moral boundary."

Consider this:

1. That moral boundary was not crossed when Bush allowed federally-funded research on cell lines created prior to August 9, 2001.


2. Bush supports fertility clinics, which generate the large number of embryos destined to be destroyed.

The President is obviously untroubled by the inconsistencies in his own argument. Going back to Hanlon, on the question of whether Bush is stupid or evil, I guess I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

How Much to Admit You're Stupid?

Timothy Strating of Montana is suing the psychic Natalie Roberts. It seems that over the course of about a year he paid her about $170,000 to fix his love problems. Well, his problems weren't fixed (in spite of the guarantee posted on her website), and now Tim wants his money back.

My question to this man: Is it really worth that much money to inform the entire world of how stupid you are?