Andrew Sullivan On My Mind

Reading Andrew Sullivan's blog, I came across this entry about an initiative in Colorado put forth by a group called Colorado for Equal Rights to amend the Constitution to state that,

The term "Person" or "Persons" shall include any human from the time of fertilization.

In the post, Mr Sullivan attacks the initiative saying,

Do they have any idea how many such persons die of natural causes in one fertile woman in a year?

Normally I find Mr Sullivan to be very bright and reasonable. And I also get that the very nature of a blog is "real time" so ideas and sentences don't always match up (I can vouch for this personally, every so often I'll reread posts and think, "That's not at all what I was trying to say), so I'm inclined to work with Mr Sullivan here.

However, I humbly submit that I would like to die of natural causes, and I also like having my rights as a person. I'm not really sure why Mr Sullivan holds these ideas as mutually exclusive. There are many ways to debate the merits of this particular bill, but Mr Sullivan badly misses the mark here. I think we can all agree that Mr Sullivan is right, many fetuses die in the womb, no one argues otherwise. I believe this bill is an attempt to stop the artificial ending of a life in the womb. Just like many people die of natural causes everyday, but we still have a law against murder. No one shrugs and says, "Look, people die of natural causes everyday, so a law against murder is just silly. Ha ha, silly people trying to save lives." Not only is his argument bad, it's also aimed at nothing.

Foreclosures Silver Lining

Looking beyond the Silver Rainbow *(you won't know if you're coming or going) at foreclosures, sure they're killing the economy, yes they're up 75% (hey, at least some segment of the market is up, right?), sure you lost your shot at the American dream, OK you have to move, yes now you're credit is ruined and the cross default provision in your credit card agreement is killing your interest rate, but don't be so "me" oriented.

One man's trash is another man's treasure! First, a little back story. WJS asks how to recession proof your job. Interesting reading, and they left of the tried and true, "Be an apple polisher " (we're a family blog, you can use another term if you wish). But the WSJ left off a biggie...

Work for the Government. Yup, can't beat working in an industry with unlimited revenue. No one says, "ooooh, times are tough, where can we cut back. OK, we'll set the thermostat to 68, only go out to dinner twice a month, and go with basic cable. Oh, and lets not pay taxes. There, now we can keep the house." Which brings us to Colorado's latest move (and finally, the point of this little post).

Due to the high number of people losing their homes, how very inconvenient for everyone, the Colorado Senate has decided to give those poor saps who handle foreclosure auctions** a raise. Hooray! Foreclosure's bad for you, but good for the person who deals in your misery. See, like Jerry Seinfeld, it allllll balances out. So when you're thinking about how bad things are for you, get off the "me train" at big picture station and rest happy (but not in your home) in the idea that you created the extra work that led to the extra pay of another person. It's like Christmas (but again, not in your home).

But, just for kicks lets look back at that WSJ article and compare private industry tactics with Government work.

• WSJ says, "work harder." Government says, "working harder, poor little fella, here's a raise."
• WSJ says, "be a good sport. Do extra work." Government says, "doing extra work, well surely you need extra pay."
  
• WSJ says, "take a pay cut." Government says, "hah, what are you kidding me? A pay what? Here, take more money."

Wow, I knew Murdoch would hurt the WSJ's reporting but this is ridiculous. They missed the easiest and most surefire way to not only survive a recession but to actually prosper. Go to work for the Government. Look around, who else is talking about raises in this economy? Looks like I owe my more liberal friends and apology, Government really is the answer.


*Only you know if you should be pumped or sad if you actually knew this reference...

**A free subscription to the H-Blog to any reader who can tell my why the State of Colorado handles these auctions and not the private market anyway.

Twas SWAT, it twas

Interesting news going on in Colorado. World Net Daily report on a Garfield County Sheriff's use of SWAT to break into a home and take a boy, Jonathan Shiflett, from his parents to receive medical care.

Gist of story, some kids were playing, and the young by slipped and hit his head. His father, Tom Shiflett, a former paramedic immediately took the boy inside and checked him out. Decided he was OK and gave him ice and pain relievers (remember this plot point). A neighbor called 911, and according to the article,

The paramedics were allowed to see the boy, and found no significant impairment, but wanted to take him to the hospital for an evaluation anyway. Fearing the hospital's bills, the family refused to allow that.

Paramedics told two friends, who told two friends and so on, until Garfield County Magistrate Lain Leoniak decided to issue a seizure warrant. SWAT was called. Then hilarity ensued.

Oops, my bad. Not so much hilarity, as bungling abuse of power. According to the Mother, Tina, what ensued was,

One (officer) grabbed my daughter Beth (18 years), who also had a gun to her face, slammed her down and kneed her in the back and held her in that position… My sons Adam (14) and Noah (only 7) lay down willingly, yet they were still forced to put their hands behind their backs and were yelled at to keep their heads down.

"My daughter Jeanette was coming out from the back bedroom when she was grabbed, drug down the hallway, across a couch and slammed to the ground," she said. "The officers then began throwing scissors and screwdrivers across the room (out of our reach, I suppose) and going through our cupboards.

"I asked if I could make a phone call and was told, 'no.' My daughter asked if that wasn't one of our rights. The reply was made, 'That's only in the movies,'" she said.

While I like He Said/She Said as much as the next guy, that's not really the point of this post. I just have the following questions.

One, if you're forced to get medical attention, do you still have to pay for it? By the way, and this is important, the net result for the boys medical attention? You guessed it, ice and painkillers. This is important. According to the article, the Paramedic's called in to the scene, were satisfied that the boy was OK, but wanted to give him a ride to the ER for evaluation anyway (look above for the quote silly). At this point I have two sub questions. On who's dime is this "what the heck" evaluation made? Two, the net result of all this is that the Paramedics essentially ordered Tom to allow them to take his child to the ER (with the now implied use of force to back up this order). Do we really want Paramedics to have that kind of authority? Shouldn't the parents have that authority, with the Paramedics giving recommendations?

Two, was SWAT really necessary? According to the Sheriff, Lou Vallario, what prompted him to call in SWAT was Mr Shifletts comment to "bring an army" if the cops come back. Really? Are we now at the point where "you and what army?" isn't really a cheap boast, but a command? (Yes, Mr Shiflett also allegedly chased someone with an ax years ago, but there was no arrest). OK, but SWAT? Busting in the house and taking the boy at gun point? Guns and confinement for the other children? Really? Aren't we supposed to trust our safety professionals to find better solutions, especially solutions to problems that didn't really exist?

Three, why does Garfield County even have a SWAT team. Must be the incredibly high number of violent crimes in this county of 44,000. What's that? 130? Per day, right? No...that's for all of 2004. Hmmmm, well no wonder they called in SWAT. Those SWAT guys must be bored out of their feakin' minds. I'm surprised they don't get called out to deliver parking tickets.

Four, I wonder if a mandatory ER trip and psychoanalysis was ordered for the other kids after the invasion?

Bottom line? I have great respect for our police officers. I dig being safe, a lot. And I absolutely know that without the police, that would not be the case. I also don't claim to know exactly what happened here. But this whole incident seems rife with individuals wielding outsized power with outsized toys. This event should have been left to the parents. That's what parents do, decide what's best for their children. There was no prior indication of abuse, nor was there an immediate indication as the Paramedics only advised a trip to be sure that their initial examination (which agreed with the parents) was correct. It's not like the the boy was delirious, paralyzed or bleeding out. A parent and a homeowner has rights. Even, ultimately, the right to be wrong.

Little Brother is Watching Them.

The City of Denver will pay Evan Herzoff $8,500 because Mr Herzoff was arrested for asking Police Officer Jeffrey Morgan for his business card. Apparently,

Herzoff was walking home April 8, 2006, when he saw police arresting an individual. He filmed the arrest with a small camera and was approached by Officer Jeffrey Morgan, who asked Herzoff for his identification.

Morgan examined Herzoff's ID and was told he was free to leave. When Herzoff asked Morgan for his business card, Herzoff was handcuffed, arrested and forced to spend a night in jail.

Mr Herzoff is a volunteer with a group called Copwatch.

Again, this is an example of how technology can increase democracy. Copwatch could not exist without the internet. A random event in Denver, hits the world, and this blog because of said internet. City organizations now know that they face immediate and complete scrutiny of their actions and have to act accordingly, which only helps the citizens. Cameras are getting smaller and better (not to mention camera phones) which enable everyone to be a reporter, and again, the internet gives everyone a venue.

Bottom line, I don't think Mr Herzoff would have received his $8,500 30 years ago. Lots of people are afraid of technology, fearing that the government will use it to increase its power. In reality, time and again, governments fear technology because it erodes their power.

Non Smoking Cigar Bars? Only in America

CO, in the midst of an anti-smoking fury, will now make it illegal to smoke in cigar bars. See there are three kinds of poor ideas, misguided, dumb, and radically stupid. This ban falls into the "radically stupid" category. While I've written before on smoking bans (one, two, three), I couldn't let this pass.

"Cigar Bar" folks, the name says it all. If you don't want to be around smokers, it's hard to imagine a better warning label than "This is a cigar bar." I also have a hard time imagining that non-smokers (like me) feel like their favorite cigar bar is being ruined by the smokers.

Yes, the article says that some bars will try to abuse the exemption. But look, if you're doing $50,000 in tobacco revenue, or even 5% of your total revenue, no matter how you slice it, your customers are smokers. It's really hard to imagine that such places are running off their non smoking customers. Either they don't have many, or the non-smokers don't care (more on this).

Then there's McLieberman's comment to another entry.

The right to smoke is one thing, there is however, a legitimate case to made for protecting employees. It is one thing to socially avoid establishes that allowed smoking but without a smoking ban, barteneders and waitresses will be in unhealthy environments in order to make a living.

This is a very typical reason for the ban, its just not a good one. First, no one is forcing anyone to work in a smoking establishment. You could say that in a high unemployment environment, people will choose jobs that are physically damaging because they have to eat. One, that's just not the case today, nor really, ever. Second, if you close cigar bars, your taking jobs out of the market. Just no way to argue against that, and how does that help. But here's the thing. This well intentioned argument overlooks one simple question, "What if the employee doesn't care?" Or for that matter, what if the non-smoking customers don't care? Everyone in the country (except for Mr Malone) knows that smoking is harmful, yet there are millions of smokers and some of them even have non-smoking friends. They've all made a choice. Why take that choice away from employees and customers? An employee/friend/customer may not care, may not believe, or may be aware enough to know that if the damage of actual smoking can be reversed after a year of quitting, then surely the damages of second hand smoke can be reversed too. Speaking of, the dangers of second hand smoking are hardly proven, so why eliminate jobs that people want just because you happen to be worried? Why mess with the market? Why should your whim matter that much? If enough people are worried about working in a cigar bar, then the cost of labor will have to go up until it reaches a point where people will take the job. Its a self-correcting mechanism. Honestly, if McLieberman really believes his argument he should be looking to ban smoking period. He should be worried about spouses, children and friends of the smoker.

Look, I think smoking is a nasty habit. I think it will greatly increase your chances of not reaching your natural age. I think smokers are pawns to a very well thought out advertising campaign that makes it seem rebellious to do exactly what billion dollar multi-national corporations want you to do. That's just genius. But I also like it because its the closest thing to an "I'm a moron" sign that I can get people to wear. In any group, scan the room, pick out the smokers, and you'll find your morons. It saves loads of time.

However, smoking is legal and smokers are legal. The anti-smoking movement is slowly making a legal product illegal without ever tackling the issue head on. The tactic is underhanded and dangerous. Just because you may not be a smoker, doesn't mean that you can or should look the other way.

By the way, rented "Thank You for Smoking." Great movie. Also a great book.

Golf Clap for Salazar

Ken Salazar (D-CO) made a nice little move recusing himself from a panel that was looking into the dismissal of New Mexico's Federal Prosecutor David Iglesias (why we're involved in the goings on of foreign nations is beyond me, seems like the focus should be on the American prosecutor scandal. Sheesh.).

Anyway, Sen Salazar in his former capacity as CO AG worked with Mr Iglesias so the good Sen felt that the best thing to do was to remove any appearance of impropriety. Nice move. While I'm sure Sen Salazar could remain objective, he understood that appearances do matter, and that people must have faith that the system is fair and unbiased.

Not a huge deal in any sense, but I like his move here. I would like to see more action like this from our leaders (I'm looking at you Antonin).

Hop off the Bus Gus

A bus driver in the town of Basalt, CO (a town fresh off of being named one of America's to 50 places to live) kicked 13 preschoolers and three teachers off the bus. The crime, not paying the proper fare. But here's the kicker, the driver never told the teachers, instead she just radioed the police. From the article,

The bus driver refused to communicate with the teachers or to transport them, according to Soliday, and had the police called instead.

Who says small town values are dead? There are high schools with more people than Basalt's 3000ish citizens.

The good news is that the bus agency is appropriately dismayed.

"I apologize for this unpleasant, unfortunate, regrettable situation," said RFTA CEO Dan Blankenship. "We have been focusing on driver shortages, the X Games, inclement weather and whatnot and got caught flatfooted here. Based on the information currently available, I question whether the involvement of the police was either necessary or appropriate in this situation," wrote Blankenship in a letter of apology sent to the parents of the students involved. "This incident ... highlights the need for ... better trained (bus drivers) to differentiate between real emergencies that require police intervention and others that require tact and diplomacy. I will put this type of training at the top of our priorities."

Seriosly, what is wrong with some people. All that I can think of is that driver was too shy to deal with it, not wanting to be the bad gal, so she called the cops. And speaking of, I can't imagine how the poor cops felt. Generally, police thrive with outreach to the little kids, escorting them off a bus, with no real provocation, must have felt, well...wrong.

I'm not big on calling for the heads of working folks, but this lady's got of explaining to do. The way I see it, if she handles something like this so incredibly poorly, how would she handle and actual emergency? And given that her judgment is obviously flawed, should she the lives of the bus passengers be, literally, in her hands?

"Will someone please think of the children?" - Helen Lovejoy

A CO bill requiring helmets for all minors on motorcycles passed the state House, but is stalled in the Senate. Apparently it was all set to go until some Dems unexpectedly voted against it. Obviously they hail from the "Children Haters" bloc of the Democratic Party (we already know that the GOP hates children, so this is nothing new from them).

Before getting worked up over the political meaning of the bill, I keep looking for actual stats on non-helmeted kids and their injuries. Honestly, as near as I can tell the only kids affected would be kids who don't have mother's and who's father's are idiots. Because no way, no how does Mrs. Unknown Blogger let me ever, ever take Unknown Blogger Jr. for a ride on a motorcycle if he's not wearing a helmet. Period. And if I did, I'd need a helmet to reenter the house. Not only that, but every motorist I passed would give me a major stink eye for blazing down the highway with a helmetless Jr on the back of my ride. You just couldn't pull this off. Which leads me to the question, just how many kids would this this bill really affect? Usually in these types of bills you get things like, "Passing this legislation will help save the lives of the 1000 kids who show up in Colorado emergency rooms each day for not wearing a helmet while riding on the back of a motorcycle." But we're not getting that, we're getting much vaguer comments like this one from Sen. Peter Groff (D-Denver)

The issue here is the safety of kids. We have a responsibility to save them. Yes, it's an inconvenience on the family, but the issue is it will save lives."

No mention of how many, how often, or how anything. A Rocky Mountain News editorial gives lots of stats on general motorcycle incidents, but nothing on children in motorcycle accidents, especially non-helmeted ones. You'd think the editorial board would at least get to the meat of the matter. Score another one for shoddy journalism.

I get the feeling this bill is like passing the "Protecting Children from Martians Act of 2007" or passing a law banning letting children play in the middle of highways with magnets. Both are no brainers on as far as protecting the children, but are they necessary?

By the way, I'm nominating Helen Lovejoy as the official spokesperson and symbol of the Nanny State. Way to go Mrs. Lovejoy and congratulations.

The Union's weird move in Denver

The AFL-CIO has issued a public challenge to both Colorado and the DNC, and if it doesn't get it's way, it says it will "strongly urge the Democratic Party to relocate the convention." As you can imagine this news sent Colorado democrats scurrying to make the union happy.

Real quick hullabaloo background here.

Anyway, the Denver Post's update outlines Colorado Democrat's rapid response to union Demands. Democratic Governor Bill Ritter, the man who vetoed the bill the AFL-CIO's all panty bundled about, is in full panic mode. Say's his spokesman, "The governor understands that the AFL-CIO and other labor organizations are upset. He welcomes the dialogue." While, CO House Speaker Andrew Romanoff (D-Denver) said he would rather spend the rest of the session "focusing on issues of common ground, like education and health care." The way they're bowing to union pressure is just embarrassing.

Which begs the question, "What exactly is the union doing?" I've been sitting on this post trying to figure out the union's goal. Having a public fit makes no sense. There's no way, zero, that the Dems can bow to the union after this public calling out, as doing do would kill them in 2008. Not only that, but the Dems best chance for victory lies in making inroads int he west. Bowing to union pressure and reneging on the decision to have the convention in Denver would set them back years, if not decades. Not only that, but the Dems are poised to retake the White House, why rock the boat now? As for the Dems, their only hope to avoid directly letting the union down is for CO to capitulate, which just isn't going to happen. This isn't Michigan, it's not like there's a huge union base in CO that will rally around the call. Not only that, but a Democratic Governor vetoed the bill. Plus, people in the west just don't like other people telling them what to do, know your audience. Maybe they wanted to create media around the veto of the bill, but one, CO's moved on and didn't really care the first time around. Two, by putting itself in the position of inevitable failure, the AFL-CIO, already struggling, looks weaker and comes off even worse. The union's best chance on all this was to work behind the scenes, maybe get some kind of concession about using union labor on the convention, or some kind of assurance that the bill will be re-introduced so that the union can put together another, better, campaign to get it passed. But now that this is public, everyone is forced to dig in their heels. The DNC and CO have the hand here, and they'll use it. The union is the weak link, and they'll be broken (good thing there's no union prohibition against mixed metaphors).

But this "public pressure" tactic reflects the union's longing for yesteryear, when they could dictate policy. In order to survive, the union's must accept that they just aren't the player they used to be, work the margins, get subtle, get better at "behind the scenes" negotiations, and make themselves powerful by aiding, not threatening Democratic initiatives. They did a great job getting rid of private ballots, and had the chance to build on that. Instead, they fell back into their hamfisted ways with CO and are getting publicly spanked.

CO gets tough on Drunk Drivers

CO State Rep Joell Judd (D-Denver) is introducing a new bill aimed at increasing the penalty for Drunk Driving. His bill would

• Mandatory revocation of driver's license for anyone convicted of vehicular homicide or vehicular assault.

• Revocation for one year for first violation, four years for second offense and six years for third DUI offense.

• Revocation for two years for first offense, six years for the second offense and eight years for the third offense, if the driver refuses to take a blood-alcohol-content test.

Here's my bias alert. I despise drunk driving. You can drink yourself stupid and I won't think a bad thing about you, but when you get behind the wheel you become a real problem. I have no issue with taking someones privilege to drive. Yes it sucks, but you made your decision when you got behind the wheel. So I favor this bill, and here's some more reasons why.

One, again driving is a privilege. Abusing it sends you to the bus. Don't want to ride the bus, don't be an idiot. Just like if you're an idiot at the mall, they ban you for life.

Two, this bill doesn't set up more random checks or any other mechanism/idea that infringes on the rights of ordinary citizens. The way I read it, the only way for the penalty to occur is upon conviction.

Three, it doesn't increase jail time or fines. It goes after the problem, driving. I prefer laws like this.

Now what I don't like. I assume that if you're busted the state takes the car. Don't like that, but it is an assumption.

Two, I'm not entirely comfortable with the notion of the breathalyser in the car. I get that using it is voluntary (but how voluntary is it really?) but I don't like where the concept could lead. I'd rather leave that door closed. Just come up with a penalty and go with it.

Just a quick aside, if I were Rep Judd, I would have reworded it to read that the penalty was two years/six/eight unless the individual elects to take the breathalyser route. Thus it would appear that rather than increasing the punishment for opting out of the breathalyser, you could instead decrease the punishment through your actions. Sort of like time off for good behavior.

UPDATE: Lafayette Marijuana and Judge

Quick update on a recent post about Lafayette Judge Leonard Frieling's decision to step down in protest of the city's decision to increase the penalty for possession of less than one ounce 10 fold from $100 to $1000 and up to one year in jail.

First the Honorable Judge Frieling responded to our post, meaning much like the Libertarian party boasts on and on about their sheriff, we can now claim an actual Judge among H-Blog readers!

Speaking of Judges, on to the update. As Judge Frieling says in his now famous reply to the post, the City of Lafayette reversed course and withdrew the Ordinance. Judge Freiling's decision to step down, and not "work from the inside" (really bad comment on my part, since when have I not championed the bold gesture?) was clearly the catalyst. The resulting media attention and resulting local outcry killed the ordinance. We at Hydrablog humbly accept our small role in this action (the great thing about a group blog like Hydrablog is that those contributers who don't support an action pressed by another, are along for the ride. So while the rest of the H-blog gang may not support the Council's Ordinance withdrawal, we're all in it together. Much like when Stalin finally pulls off replacing the Star Spangled Banner with Twisted Sister's "We're Not Gonna Take It" as our national anthem, I'll be dragged along with him.).

Some fun facts.

53% of Lafayette citizens supported Colorado Amendment 44 , which would have decriminalized possession of less than that very ounce that the City Council wanted to increase the penalty for holding. Much like the South Dakota Abortion Bill, this shows a real disconnect between legislators and citizen.

"Lafayette Judge Marijuana" gets 123,000 hits on Google. Again, Judge Frieling's decision to step down was the correct one.

Again, with the disconnect between the city council and the citizens, all it took was the right catalyst to get everyones attention. 123,000 Google hits was more than enough to alert the Lafayette citizens that their legislators weren't acting in accordance with their wishes. And the the 123,000 hits came from on man's decision to take action. This is also the time to congratulate the City Council for reversing course rather than stubbornly continue down a path at odds with the citizenry. Believe it or not, this is roughly how a democracy is supposed to work.

Speaking of Tobacco

Two smoking bills in the CO, one would the use of a legal product in designated areas of nursing homes, the other would allow local taverns to pay $500 a year to exempt them from the smoking ban.

As I said in my recent abortion post, I'm against these "soft" bans. Smoking is legal if you're over the age of 18. Change that, or leave it alone. I don't smoke, never have, and back in the day, I didn't frequent places that allowed smoking. You can choose to smoke, you can choose to allow/disallow smoking in your establishment, and I can choose my way. So while I do believe that smoking is an unhealthy decision, I also think you're free to make it. We were all getting along just fine, we don't need the government to get involved, especially when it says you may consume this legal product in a one square foot area of the state.

But what's striking about these bills is that legislators are playing God (I know that that sounds strong, but if you believe that these legislators are innocently acting on a good intention of saving people, then they are clearly deciding who gets "saved" with this mishmash of banned areas), and their choices are interesting.

Lets go through the exemptions.
Apparently casino employees aren't as important to keep alive as restaurant employees. Not exactly sure why the CO legislature feels that casino employees should die slow cancer related deaths, maybe all the casino employees pants the Legislature back in Middle School.

It also looks like nursing home employees deserve a half-death by cancer. Since smoking is only allowed in well ventilated places, I assume that the Legislature feels that this decreases but does not eliminate nurses from the pale stench of their own death. Or maybe they figure that working in a nursing home they're used to it.

Overall, says Sen. Peter Groff, D-Denver,

"The bill we passed last year is uneven, but we need to spend our time bringing establishments into the act rather than exempting them."

Or maybe, his time is best spent letting Tavern owners decide how best to run their business.

However,Sen. David Schultheis, R-Colorado Springs, clearly a H-Blog reader counters with a near flawless argument

This really shows the unintended consequences of the bills we run up here, I opposed the smoking ban. As long as tobacco is a legal substance, we have no business of legislating it out of existence."

Genius

Judge steps down due to increase in Mary J peanalties

Leonard Frieling, a Lafayette municipal court judge, resigned his position because,

"I cannot in good conscience sit on the bench while being unwilling to enforce the municipal ordinances," Frieling said in a resignation letter to city officials.

"Specifically, since you have seen fit to increase the penalty for cannabis possession from a $100 fine to a $1,000 fine and a year in jail, I find that I am morally and ethically unable to sit as a judge for the city."

Good for Judge Frieling. One could suggest that Judge Frieling stay on the bench and work for change, but I respect his stance.

CO Abortion Update

Tough day for CO pro-lifers, and I find myself conflicted. While it may surprise most of the H-Blogs readers (that would be two out our three) I'm Pro-Life. As such, I support most laws looking to restrict abortion. Once such bill (Senate bill 143) failed today in the CO senate Judiciary Committee meeting, 4-3 (no big surprise, no way this bill was going to pass, honestly I didn't even bother researching it).

What I did like was that Senate Bill 60, which requires hospitals to inform rape victims of all their options passed unanimously (yes, including abortion). This is somewhat controversial in CO but I strongly support the bill for two reasons. One, every abortion bill contains the "rape or incest" clause, even the "restrictive" one that just failed. Two, and more importantly, abortion is, in fact, legal today. Since it is, I cannot support any measure that would hide a legal remedy from a citizen. So while I'm personally opposed to abortion I support disclosing it as an option to anyone and everyone. I don't like playing games with legal rights and issues. I'm also very against smoking, but I'm also against the advertising ban. Legal products have the right to advertise. These "soft" bans are damaging. Legal is legal. Deal with it or make a strong stand and clearly change the law.

The pharmacist issue briefly mentioned at the end of the article is another one. If you're a pharmacist and your company sells "abortion" drugs, you should have to distribute them. If you don't like it, start your own company or work for one that shares your views. This is like a sales clerk refusing to sell tobacco or alcohol. No dice. If you don't like it, don't take the job.

To summarize, I'm pro-life, but I'm against all these soft measures that create a pseudo pro-life environment. I'm an enigma.

CO Electoral College Update

I know that H-Blog readers are riveted by CO Senate Bill 46, the Bill that would allocate CO's electoral college votes to the winner of the nationwide popular vote, if enough other state's join the fun passed the Senate along party-line votes. Again, I'm a fan of this bill. The article says that the ideas prospects in the CO House are uncertain, but I'm still optimistic.

I don't want to get off too far from the main idea, but I do want to take a minute to recognize that this bill passed along party lines. Interesting. I understand that this bill is controversial, but I don't see it as a party issue. Yes, the Electoral College/Popular vote quirk helped W, but who's to say next time it doesn't help the Dems? Maybe I'm wrong, but with something this nuanced, straight party votes tell me that at least some Senators on both sides of the aisle are making an emotional vote, not one based on their own reasoning. I'm also having a hard time coming up with any big interests who would pour money/influence into this issue. It seems nearly purely philosophical, which makes the party line thing even more...peculiar.

Wal-Mart savings account? Don't bank on it.

Colorado's intrepid elected officials are all geared up to protect its citizens, oops my bad, banks from the scourge of banking competition. The way I understand it, citizens elect politicians, and said citizens would clearly benefit from having Wal-Mart bring it's low cost model to the extremely profitable banking industry. However, Sen. Lois Tochtrop (D-Thornton) and Rep. Rosemary Marshall (D-Denver) both feel that they must protect those high margin banks and keep the scourge competition from helping the people of CO.

Here's what's interesting. Wal-Mart made it's name by servicing rural areas that lacked real competition. Most big-box retailers set their criteria for store openings, generally based on income level in a given area, at a level much higher than Wal-Mart. Back in the day, this formula gave Wal-Mart a huge hole in the geography to exploit, and they did. And while there is much caterwauling about the loss of small stores, they generally went out of business because Wal-Mart sold the same goods cheaper. Lack of competition allowed small stores to charge more for goods to the detriment of the customers pocket-books. Given that these were mostly rural folk who generally make less than big city slickers, a small savings from Wal-Mart meant a lot to the family's savings, so they shopped there.

So on to banking, where, "The community banks can not compete against Wal-Mart," said the wholly unbiased Barbara Walker, executive officer of the Independent Bankers of Colorado. But they can compete against large multi-national banks? Here's a secret, community banks exist to be sold to large multi-national banks. That's the game. It's like a feeder system. Set up a community bank, get customers, sell to larger bank, repeat. No real incentive for large MNC's to force prices down as they know that when they buy said community bank, and they will, they can charge the inflated price. Everyone wins (well, except for the customer). Wal-Mart blows the system. Wal-Mart doesn't buy the competition, they destroy them. And they do it by offering cheaper goods. Now everyone loses (well, except for the customers and Wal-Mart).

Even if you assume that MNC banks do actually push prices down in densely populated areas, you have to accept that there is little competition in rural areas (fewer customers, less expensive land, less expensive goods period, and fewer loan dollars). Again, this creates a large hole in the geography for Wal-Mart to exploit (to the benefit of the customers and the detriment of the community banks charging high prices). Personally, I think banking is an area where customer service counts, as does "trusting" who you're banking with. Trust and service aren't Wal-Mart's strong points. By the same token, anyone who's had a bank account over the last 15 years knows that banks are bought and sold constantly, and you never see the same people working in your branch for very long. They view us as a commodity, maybe it's time we did the same.

Quick aside. I was bidding out a business loan a few years back and it came down between a community bank and an MNC. The MNC had better terms, and I went with it. My contact at the community bank actually got upset and told me that I'd regret going with the MNC because, "You won't be working with the same person in a year, and I'll always be your contact. That matters." He was right about me losing my contact at the MNC (took longer than a year-but whatever). However, the transition to the new person was seamless and we never had a problem with them. My contact at the community bank? That bank was sold to an MNC, and he changed position in two years. My point? I don't know, probably something about the fact that community banks are largely myths and need about as much protection as the Loch Ness Monster.

Bottom line, there's no such thing as a "mom and pop" bank. Allowing Wal-Mart banking benefits CO citizens. Protecting inefficient banks hurts citizens. How does this fact escape a committee that passes the measure 6-1? Kudos to Sen. Jack Taylor R-Steamboat Springs for voting against and avoiding the knee jerk.

CO Courts say 1st Amendment need not apply

The Colorado Supreme Court, while overturning a 45 day jail sentence for contempt of court for wearing a T-Shirt with a picture of Stanley "Tookie" Williams (more on that later), says,

"...wearing a shirt bearing a political message in a courtroom is not protected under the First Amendment."

Meaning, the CO Ct believes that your First Amendment rights are valid everywhere but the very place set up to protect that right. Meaning, you can't make a political statement in court. This seems a bit off to me. When did the court become Cuba? I understand that Judges are, in effect, mini-dictators (patience, patience), but now they feel the need to quash political speech? Wow.

Now, on to the 45 days for contempt by said dictator. I've never fully understood how a judge can just accuse you of something and jail you without:

1. Arrest
   
2. Representation
3. Burden of guilt
   
4. Right to face accuser
5. Trial by jury

Judge says you did bad, go directly to jail, do not pass go. Yes, there is an appeal, but it comes not after a trial, but in effect is your trial, and you're not released on bond until said bizzaro trial. Get it? You're presumed guilty. Contempt skips kind of a key part of our legal process, in the very place set up to protect our legal process.

I find that...contemptible.