Going on a little rant...about those damned republicans

As I've mentioned before, I read a lot of [Colorado] news every day at work to stay informed about what's happening here at the state house. I read a lot of conservative opinion pieces, so that I know what those crazy Republicans are up to. It's good for me. But much of the time, it's also really, really irritating.

One of the most annoying topics is TABOR, the Taxpayers' Bill of Rights (I've also ranted about this specific issue many a time). This horrid piece of legislation was enacted in Colorado in 1992, when the state was very red. Well, the state isn't so red now (actually, it's rather blue). The legislation basically made the state go broke, and it's all-around just a crappy concept. Our state revenue is seriously limited by TABOR (mainly by what is known as the "ratchet down" effect), and funding for education and transportation are particularly impacted. Democrats keep trying to amend it, or make other legislative changes that would untie the hands of the state, but it's very difficult since all changes to tax policy must be put to the voters (that's a huge part of what TABOR does). Colorado is something like 47th in education funding nationwide, and if you've ever driven here, you know how bad the roads are. We need to change the way we handle our money, and increase our taxes (or at least let the state keep the money it collects to spend it how we need/want, rather than refunding it when we collect more than TABOR allows). It's hard to argue that we don't need more money for these things. Still, the conservatives hammer on and on about how we have TABOR and how great it is. Usually, the rants I read are so full of typos I think they're written by illiterates. That's part of the irony--people love TABOR despite the fact that they never learned to write under our poorly funded public school system--because of TABOR.

There's a point here (I think). I was reading an opinion piece in the Colorado Springs Gazette that criticizes the recent CO Supreme Court decision upholding a legislative mill levy increase from 2007. I'll be the first to admit that the democrats keep trying to make end-runs around TABOR, but they're not breaking the law. If the Supreme Court upholds the mill levy change using sound reasoning, then it's probably legal. So stop whining about it. Just because TABOR is law, that doesn't make it good. Lots of law is, in fact, bad. And lots more is simply badly drafted. The system IS broken, and we're just trying to fix it. And just because legislation was once enacted by the voters does not mean that we can't later amend or overturn it. In fact, that's why our legislators meet every year and why we vote--we are changing and adding laws all the time. I'm listening to laws being passed in the Colorado state house right now.

The biggest problem I have with the TABOR supporters who keep lambasting attempts to fix the budget problems we have, is the fact that they generally don't understand what a "fee" is. TABOR specifically prohibits changes to tax policy without a consent vote of the citizens of the state. However, it expressly allows fees to be imposed without a vote of the people. There is a distinction, and it's allowed under the law. Still, republicans keep complaining that we're "disguising" taxes as fees to pull the wool over. That's just not the case. THEY ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS, and are defined by TABOR (I could go into the difference, but I don't feel like re-living law school just now). Yes, it seems like an end-run by democrats to enact fees rather than trying to get taxes approved, so that revenue can be generated. But your beloved TABOR allows this, so stop crying foul when democrats are just using the legislative process, and doing so legally, to raise money so that our bridges are safe and our kids learn how to read.

I think I'm done ranting for now. In case you want to see an example of a couple of republicans' grammatical challenges and difficulty with spelling, check out this blog posting, and look too at the comment by calGone.

Because Global Warming IS Real

"President-elect Barack Obama, in strongly-worded remarks to a gathering of governors and foreign officials on Tuesday, said he had no intention of softening or delaying his aggressive targets for reducing emissions that cause the warming of the planet." (here)

Thank goodness we are actually going to get some change. I know the economy is extraordinarily important now (I'm accepting a job that pays $10/hour, and is only part-time, and I will have a doctorate), but this is also very important. I'm so happy we elected someone who will really act on the climate change problem. That is all.

The never ending job search

"The slowdown also has made it much harder for lawyers looking for work to find positions, said Robin S. Miller, a principal at Corrao, Miller, Rush & Wiesenthal Legal Search Consultants in New York." (NYT)

I'm graduating from law school next month. I haven't been able to find even part-time work, despite having been looking since last April (well before the downturn). Everyone I talk to says, "oh, it'll be fine. You'll find work." Well, I'm here to say that there is a good chance I won't, at least not for a while. So stop annoying me by painting a rosy picture with your eyes closed. Things suck for lawyers right now, and I'm about to be at the bottom of the totem pole. Last year's grads are still looking for work, and they are licensed.

"You know things are bad when even lawyers are getting laid off." The same article, refuting the constantly posed comment that, "people always need lawyers." Well, they don't need 'em if they can't afford to hire 'em.

I just hope the economy turns around. Soon, and dramatically. Otherwise, I'll be looking for a box on Colfax avenue to call home.

Republican National Convention (Part I)

Here are some of my observations from watching last night's RNC events on CNN:

Fred Thompson was talking about the “economic downturn” and how Obama wants to raise taxes during this time—wasn’t it McCain who said the economy was fine? So what’s this Republican talk suddenly about problems with the economy? Plus, Obama will only raise taxes on the rich folks who don’t notice the problems with the economy. Hypocrisy much?

Thompson also made a comment about how Republicans will protect newborns. What exactly is it that Democrats are doing to endanger newborn children? Encouraging infanticide?

I love that the Republicans complain that Obama is a “celebrity,” and that’s the only reason why he’s appealing to Democrats. But I put this to you—Schwarzenegger, Jesse Ventura, Ronald Reagan… Republicans LOVE celebrities. Where are all of the elected Democrat celebrities?

Another problem I have (though this is one you’ve heard over and over)—Obama’s inexperience is one of the most common reasons Republicans decry Obama. But Palin has WAY less experience. Somehow, when it’s a Republican, it doesn’t matter.

The audience tried to get a USA chant going, but Lieberman shut them down. When I was at the DNC, we chanted USA full-force, and no one stopped us. Who are the patriots now, I ask you?

I saw a sign in the audience that read “Democrots for McCain.” Seriously, if that’s evidence of your intelligence level, go right ahead. Because you don’t even know which way is up.

And here are a couple things gleaned from listening to NPR:

McCain badly wanted Lieberman for his running mate, but chose Palin because some Republicans were threatening to bring a competing nominee at the convention. He chose Palin only to avoid an insurrection at the RNC. Because the party is in enough trouble as it is.

How are you a huge supporter of family values when your teenage daughter is getting knocked up? If you were such a great mom, wouldn’t you be able to instill your values in your girl so that doesn’t happen? I thought only low-class welfare mothers got “knocked up.” Maybe they have a nicer term for it when it’s rich people?

Caffeine, my hero

I'm a coffee drinker. I'm one of those people who is utterly dysfunctional until I've had 16oz of strong coffee. I try to balance it with water, because I never manage to drink enough non-diuretic fluids, and am therefore constantly dehydrated. Or so I thought. Today, my favorite news source revealed that caffeinated beverages, unless they are extremely high in caffeine, count towards the body's need for hydration and are NOT diuretics (coffee's caffeine level is below the diuretic level). SERIOUSLY. Which means I can drink as much sweet, sweet coffee as I want and not feel guilty that I'm depriving my body of much needed water. Not only that, but the article touts several other POSITIVE (or neutral) health aspects of the glory beverage, debunking several myths about the tolls caffeine and coffee can take on one's health. So, I'm raising my mug in a toast to coffee. Starbucks, here I come.

Separation of Church and State, anyone?

I am strongly opposed to any shift away from the separation of church and state as it was intended. Which is to say, I think that the separation should remain (nay, be more so) clearly demarcated with no blurring of the lines. Giving federal funds to faith based groups is, to me, an evangelical right-wing conservative action, one that I think other liberals like myself abhorred when Bush proposed more of it. Luckily, he proposed such action but it never really took root--it was one of those things designed to appease his evangelical constituents but lacking any cognizable result. Unfortunately, Obama announced that he supports this program and intends to expand what Bush started. While Mr. Obama assures the American people that there will be checks on the system to ensure that the line between church and state doesn't become too blurred, I think that this is a truly awful stance. I thought that Obama was nominated to be the Democratic nominee. So why is he proposing that our federal government utilize religious groups to perform the work that would otherwise be performed by state run agencies? It is not just the addition of religious programs, it is giving the money that could otherwise go to existing state programs, to religious ones. If we didn't have state run programs, and it would be too onerous to create them, I might understand. But shifting activity from government to churches when we clearly have the programs in which this activity could be improved? That I have a problem with. A BIG problem.

I want to be www.paris.paris

Icann, the Internet gods, decided to add more suffixes for web addresses (to expand on the familiar .com and .org). Paris, France is the home of Icann, and they want to add .paris to the system. If they add a .paris web address, I vote that I should get to have the web address www.paris.paris. Wouldn't that be awesome? My computer even just turned that address into a link automatically--like it was meant to be.

Tidbits from Monday night television

I have to admit to watching too much television. It's still far less than the average American, but for someone who watched little or none for about 10 years...well, American television is pitiful in any amount (for the most part). There were, however, a few choice morsels:

"You pretty much told me my penis would shrink if I didn’t eat organic food."

"That’s not bickering, that’s being a good friend!" [From Bones]

And from Fox News: (Yes, I watched some Fox News. I haven't sprouted horns. Yet.)

Stunted growth—usually used to refer to a failure to grow to full height. On Fox News? It means being killed. “A 21-month-old who’s growth was stunted when he was killed.” Well yes, growth does tend to cease at death.

We ALL need a vacation

So it's a major long shot, but there is a plan to introduce new legislation next year that would require Americans to get paid vacation time. Not only that, but three weeks of paid vacation time. Every year. It's still less than other industrialized nations, and we are currently the only industrialized nation with no paid vacation, but it would seem so outrageously generous to overworked Americans. Of course, the downside is that the legislation is not expected to even come close to passing. It's a nice thought, though.

Here is the NYT article that mentions the legislation and talks about the benefits of vacation. As though we didn't know.

Native Americans' "Plight" of drug abuse

I mean "plight" in the best of ways, and don't know how better to phrase it. You may have imagined that I am referring to alcoholism, but I am in fact referring to drug addiction, namely heroin, in particular. This post is based, as they often are, on a NY Times post about the excessively high numbers of addicted people on an Indian reservation in New Mexico (in the study of the West, we do call them Indians, I know it seems/is politically incorrect, but it could also be un-PC to say Native American in this circle). It's striking to me because most articles are about alcoholism or addiction in general, but this high number of opiate/heroin addicted American Indians in one place is striking, especially to someone so obsessed with such things (me). This country has little or no resources to really deal with the drugs/drug problems that we have, but we fight one that locals in the area proclaim to help to some degree: Narcan. Narcan is a drug that helps in the event of an overdose of heroin, and can thereby save lives in the absence of EMS or other medical personnel. Granted, it can be argued that a drug that can save an overdosee abets drug abuse, but I argue that it is for the best. Drug abuse is a disease (yes, I subscribe to that philosophy, after reading hundreds and hundreds of pages on the subject), and anything we can do to help is GOOD. The argument that a drug that saves people from overdose is bad is fatally flawed; those overdosing need help and are more likely to seek it after such a close call. The other situation is that they are still using (having not overdosed) or are dead. The argument that they are better off dead is heartless. Just imagine your brother/sister/mother/father/uncle/aunt/cousin/best friend as the addict. I promise if it was them you'd care, and agree with me.

America doesn't do drugs

Tuns out, if you're British and you've been convicted of a crime involving drugs (or anything else that implicates moral turpitude, a phrase that governs lawyers too and that I hate), you will not be permitted to enter this country without a visa. Brits can typically come to the states without one (just like we can go there without one). But they are literally turned away at the U.S. airports at which they land if they have drug convictions, or if they simply admit to having been a drug addict at one point. I get that we want to protect our country from villains and the like, but this is silly and absurd. Just because a person has done drugs, we turn them away. Murder, by the way, is not a crime involving moral turpitude, so I assume that convicted murderers in without a question. Because they're less dangerous? A British memoirist, who was arriving at Newark to attend a book party and book tour to promote his book, was deported straight away for this reason. I guess we'd rather get rid of him than read a book?

Transgender...gaining acceptance?

This is an incredibly long article about transgender and other gender identity issues (it occurs to me that the clinical term is gender identity disorders, but disorder sounds so wrong), but it's definitely worth reading. The article highlights the fact that, at least in some circles, the notion of fluid gender identities are acceptable or gaining acceptance. The article is touching and gave me chills--this is an issue that we have been tragically slow to accept, and that has caused a lot of suffering from our ignorance. While I post this article because I see it as somewhat encouraging, the article points out that employment discrimination laws in this country persist in excluding gender identity as a protection in seeking and maintaining employment. We may be on the path to acceptance, but we've got a long way to go.

Cute + Cuddly Article, to brighten things up a bit...

It's real because it was on CNN: A dolphin rescued whales from beaching themselves! It's too cute for words. This should break up the cynical, perpetually bitchy tone of my blog a little. Makes me want a pet dolphin...or perhaps a whale.

Prisons...

This country is f***ed, and our prison population proves it. One in 100 adults is behind bars, which is a full 1% of the population in case you're bad at math or too lazy to do it. It's closer to 10% for African Americans, varying by subsets of that population. What does this say about us, as a country? And for the love of god, how much money are we throwing away incarcerating people who could be treated? It's horrid.

I am a grammar nerd

Two grammar stories are circulating out there, and since I am a serious grammar enthusiast, I feel obligated to share them.

The first one, from the New York Times, is outstanding. It's about the decline of the semicolon in American usage. I happen to love the semicolon, and use it liberally [as liberally as proper grammar will allow, perhaps even more so].

The second one is not as good, probably because it's from CNN, but it still has some grammatical relevance. It's about computers and grammar, particularly apostrophes and how they make computers go bonkers because of poor programming. I post it because it points to declining use of proper grammar in the technological age, shown here in how programmers failed to take account of grammatical constructions in last names when creating online forms in which one enters a last name.

Colorado's Ban on Gay Marriage

Here's a lawsuit I support: one brought by a lesbian couple here in my home state to overturn our ban on gay marriage. This amendment to the CO constitution was one of the first causes that Rex and I championed together, but alas, Coloradoans did not agree with us that we shouldn't put a ban IN THE STATE CONSTITUTION. It was a ridiculous amendment, evidence of the mass hysteria felt by some people when they think of marriage applying to gays. Colorado is only one of many states that have such constitutional bans, and I am glad to see that we are challenging it [or that this couple is, anyway]. Their challenge is under the equal protection clause, so the real question is whether a judge will find sexual orientation to be a protected class. I hope so. The right to marry is sketchy because the Supreme Court has found such a right to exist, but not as to what that entails in terms of the couple's gender makeup.

Remember the Urban Legend about Stolen Kidneys?

Well, it happens in India. Here is an article (in the NYTimes, of course), about people who were either selling their kidneys, or were having them stolen, like in the urban legend. It opens with the story of a day laborer who woke up in a clinic with a bandage on his side and the armed guards told him he had had a kidney removed. The racket doing this, apparently, was quite huge. So, it's not an urban legend after all (though it doesn't appear that anyone woke up in a bathtub full of ice).

Flesh Eating Bacteria

Does anyone else remember when flesh eating bacteria was extremely rare, and pretty much just the stuff of science fiction? Well, it's baaack, and apparently a new vicious and increasingly common strain is affecting gay men in disproportionate numbers. NYTimes has the article, here. Is it just me, or does it sometimes seem like the conservatives have some power to control things they don't like? The world is sh**ting on an already disadvantaged population. AGAIN. And given that this can transmit through simple touching and even touching contaminated surfaces, why is it attacking gay men? I would understand if it were only transmitted through anal sex, but that is only one way in which it's transmitted.

"Free" Trade

Free trade zones have always been scary to me. Sure, they sound good. People think that they encourage global trade and grease the wheels of commerce. Perhaps, but there are too many negative consequences that people either overlook or are woefully unaware of. "Free" in free trade means unregulated, which means you don't know what the hell you're getting when it comes from or through a free trade zone. These zones are the antithesis to FAIR trade, which is something that I personally spend time championing and educating people about (it helps that my mom has a store stocked with lots of fair trade goodies, and that she is VERY opposed to "made in China"). Fair trade, for those of you who are unaware, means that the person/people making the goods are paid a living wage in their country of residence, and that they are treated fairly and ethically. Slave labor and child labor are huge problems in the world (this country is not excepted, by the way), and people need to be made aware (though I'm not sure I can do anything about the rampant apathy that people feel toward the children who weave their rugs - small fingers!).

Anyway, here is a New York Times article about free trade zones that raises yet another concern, related to counterfeit drugs. I know a number of people who order their drugs from Canadian pharmacies, and it's scary that the drugs they need to survive could be counterfeit, thanks to the black hole of free trade zones. It's such a shame that our country has not figured out how to serve its citizens so that we don't have to take such risks, but I know that the reason my friends use Canadian pharmacies is that they might otherwise have to choose whether or not to take their drugs at all, because they are so expensive here. I'm a relatively healthy 25-year old, I exercise, I eat well, I sleep enough, but still the drugs I take my mom pays for, because otherwise I would be making the choice- drugs or food? And she knows that, and sucks it up for me. What a country!

Puppy Mills, my kitty

Popular in the media, here is an article about the rich and famous getting their dogs, via an expensive Bel-Air retailer, from puppy mills. I hope this raises awareness, because I am surprised to know many people who know nothing about puppy mills and the deplorable conditions therein. EVERYONE should get their puppies and kitties from their local humane society, or at the very least from a local, knowledgeable, hobby breeder (who knows about inbreeding and health, but who doesn't breed 100s of puppies or kitties that then need homes. I have the world's greatest kitty, her name is Lucy, we got her when she was 6 from the Humane Society of Boulder Valley. I didn't even like cats before Lucy, and now I think she's the greatest pet ever. Also, we got an older cat, and that means we didn't have to go through all the training. That was reason enough not to get a kitten. So, that's my plug for shelter pets.