Okay, so I'm lazy

So, as usual, I didn't write it. But Maureen Dowd is just so on top of things, why bother? Here's another good Dowd column. A dig at Sarah Palin. Go forth, and read!

P.S. My favorite line is the one calling Bristol Palin the "ambassadress of abstinence." Which is demonstrated by Bristol holding her son....who was, of course, conceived in abstinence.

Getting political

Since I'm still out of work, I figured I better do something with my time (in addition to looking for work, of course). So, I decided to teach myself web design and design websites for both of my parents, who are both self-employed, and who don't have websites (*gasp*). The real kind, not web-in-a-box--I'm looking to develop my skills here, people. Skill I seriously lack. And who doesn't want a web designing lawyer on staff?

The other thing I'm getting into (though both things are unpaid) is political. I always thought politics were hideous, horrid things. Not unlike the plague. The older I get, the more it turns out that I really like politics. So. I'm volunteering with a Democrat's campaign for my House District here in Colorado. It's a solid Dem district, the issue is beating the more conservative, more well-known candidate. I like a challenge. And I'll work for free. Looks like I found my niche (till my $700 in total assets runs out).

Ignorant people shouldn't speak

There is a blogger in Colorado who goes by the catchy title of Rossputin (his name is Ross), and he has spent a good amount of time debating the merits of House Bill 1299, which would enter Colorado into a compact to give our electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote, if and when enough states have entered said compact. I'm not here to discuss the merits of the bill, I think there are good arguments on both sides. I'm here to debate Rossputin's intelligence. So much more fun.
I have taken issue with a number of his constitutional arguments on my own time, but this simple inability to navigate the interwebs is my favorite. On his blog, in a posting made yesterday, 4/1, he has this to say:

"Not even 48 hours after my state Representative, Claire Levy, sent me a long explanation of her support for HB1299 which would nearly eliminate the important of small (and small-ish) states like Colorado in Presidential elections, Mrs. Levy has not only deleted that same note from her web site’s home page, but she has deleted the entire “National Popular Vote” page from her site. And she does not mention the issue on her “Current Issues” page."

Well, Rep. Levy's webpage was last updated on Tuesday, 3/31. As of today, there is an ENTIRE page devoted to the issue of the national popular vote and HB 1299. It's titled, "National Popular Vote," which isn't exactly subtle or difficult to find. I think it's the precise page Rossputin is referring to? The one he says isn't there? This page was up when the genius Rossputin wrote his posting about how she's a coward. Way to go, smart guy. Maybe surf the interwebs a tad bit before you go running your not-entirely-literate mouth!

Redistribution of wealth...

Republicans have long been carrying on about the redistribution of wealth that will occur at the hands of President Obama and all the other liberals who are now in charge. It's obvious that socialism is nigh... Right.

I saw this comment to an op-ed piece about the similarities between Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" and the new administration. While the article was written by a conservative, claiming that our county will come to ruin shortly, I really liked this response (grammar notwithstanding):

It is said that the money doesn’t go away it just gets redistributed. Under the Bush administration billions of dollars were reallocated to the wealthiest of the population. Mr. Andrews the “Economic makeover” the redistribution process has already taken place. As a result the middle class is slipping into poverty. I say Atlas has already shrugged and we are currently dealing with the consequences.

It's all a matter of perspective, and I agree with the commenter, who is named as "snowbow."

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.

Demons and crap

Reading some pretty ultra-conservative news today (I do it for my job, so I know what people on both sides of the aisle are thinking and doing), I came across two great nicknames for democrats. First, democraps. The other, demoncrats. How clever, eh? Both used in the comments to an article about Colorado's SB 09-170, which would give in-state tuition to illegal immigrants. I support the legislation, by the way. If I have the time, I'll share my reasons. In the meantime, here's a great article about the bill and immigration more generally.

Making fun of the misled, again.

High school students in Denver got a pair of Democratic legislators to back a bill that will impose a 6 cent fee on plastic bags at the grocery store (really, the language includes all very large stores), and ultimately require that the bags be phased out by 2012. Half the fee goes towards education on the eventual phase-out. The bill is a good one, though maybe not of the most pressing urgency.

The nay-sayers (conservatives) argue that the bill is bad because then we'll just use more paper bags, which require more resources to produce. Well, that is true about paper bags. It just completely overlooks the point--to get people to use reusable bags. Not paper bags, which also contribute to landfills and litter. High school kids aren't that retarded. Unless they're conservatives too, of course.

If you read the article, you might notice the comment that the bill implicates TABOR. Well, if the author knew the difference between a tax and a fee (knowledge absolutely essential to any discussion regarding TABOR), the article might read differently. TABOR specifically allows fees without a consent vote, and a fee is a flat "tax" (it cannot be based on income, for example) that goes to pay for a specific service. The 6 cents per bag is a flat fee (it doesn't depend on how much you spend on groceries, for example--that would make it a tax), and the bill designates precisely what the revenue is to be spent on--the service of educating the public about the bag phase-out. Looks like a fee to me.

All that aside, my favorite part of the op-ed piece is the comments submitted by readers. Naturally, they take the form of debate between those who support the bill, mostly liberals, and those opposed, mostly conservatives. My favorite comment is this one:

I refuse to recycle.
I flush the toilet multiple times.
I use plastic bags and throw them in the garbage.
I drive a car and only worry about emissions at inspection time.
I put used kitty litter in the trash.
I use paper towels.
I use old incandescent bulbs.
I intentionally try to put as much carbon back into the environment that I can.
I refuse to yeild the road I pay taxes to keep up to bicycles.
I run the washing machine with just a few items in it.

I take pride in being a contrarian disestablishmentarain who "fights the environmentalist whacko establishment" any time I can, in my own little way. Mankind, even if totally focused on doing so, CANNOT destroy the planet, nor its environment.

That last sentence is especially my favorite. I'll bet this guy is a big supporter of the Heartland Institute.

Conservatives without Brains

This is kind of long, because I've reprinted a piece from the Daily Camera...
In last week's paper (from the ever-liberal Boulder), was a piece from a local named Don Lloyd, complaining about the "liberal hate mongers." Here is what he had to say:

It is worrisome to contemplate how the numerous liberal hate mongers will react to the sudden loss of their opportunity to express their unprecedented disrespect and hate of our President. Will it be something like drug withdrawals, or will it be depression? Surely, the Camera cartoonist will be saddened that he can no longer express his narrow-minded hate by regularly casting our president as an ignorant monkey.

No, this will not be replaced by similar but conservative purveyors of disrespect, because they seem to have the ability to communicate criticism more constructively. It’s similar to the treatment of liberal versus conservative guest speakers on the CU campus. We never see liberal guest speakers taunted or blocked from speaking, yet the campus liberals, who loudly declare the merits of freedom of speech and the right to self-expression, are quick to prevent any significant conservative voice from speaking at CU, even when they’ve been invited for the engagement. And such behavior is vindicated by what great moral justification? Certainly it isn’t freedom of speech, or a balanced political venue. And now someone has even dared to suggest the need for a new seat of conservative thought on our fair campus – horrors!

It isn’t going to be easy for the libs, when they begin to see the bill for the massive promises being made by President Obama and his inability to deliver on many. But they will readily commit their complete support to our new president, exercising the same respect and support so completely denied President Bush.

If you think this concern for liberal withdrawals isn’t well founded, just consider the numerous hate-filled harangues printed over the past few weeks, trying to get in the last bash before President Bush leaves the oval office to his successor.

Noting that Mr. Lloyd is patently wrong on a few points, let me take this opportunity to point out just what the conservative jackass pretends to know, but really knows nothing about.

First, let me acknowledge that he is correct that there has been much Bush-bashing going on, not just in the end of Mr. Monkey's term, but throughout. As an educated person, I think that the bashing was warranted. The man was an idiot and a fraud, and not fit to lead this country.

Next, Mr. Lloyd goes on to mention the negative treatment of conservative guest speakers at CU. Mr. Lloyd says that the campus liberals "are quick to prevent any significant conservative voice from speaking at CU, even when they've been invited for the engagement." Well, Mr. Lloyd, I hate to disappoint, but at the time of your writing there were prolific advertisments of a conservative speaker, coming to the CU campus to speak. On January 26, the conservative author Dinesh D'Souza engaged in a debate entitled "What's so great about God," on campus. So much for that idea. D'Souza is a best-selling author, a former senior policy analyst for the Reagan Administration, and was described by New York Times Magazine as one of the nation's leading conservative thinkers. Seems to me just like the kind of person Mr. Lloyd was describing.

The other major point in Lloyd's column I'd like to address is his statement that we liberals will essentially follow President Obama in blind faith. Even if we do, I'd really like to know how that is at all different from the astonishing blind faith I saw conservatives put in President Bush, even when he couldn't form complete sentences and had to lie his way through the war in Iraq.

Mr. Lloyd accurately illustrates the ignorance espoused by so many conservatives, and it's always nice to see them put their feet in their mouths in public.

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.

A New Day Dawns

I am totally speechless, but couldn't resist the urge to put up a quick post. We have elected Obama, and now have OUR FIRST BLACK PRESIDENT, and he Baracks my world. Champagne, anyone?

Vividly remembering the 2000 election in the Santa Rosa dorm, and the CNN gaffe, I waited till I heard two networks proclaim Obama winner before I got all giddy and teared up. This time, though, is for real.

HELL FUCKING YEAH!

Amendment 48

I've surprised myself in realizing that I haven't mentioned it yet, but Colorado is trying to go back to the awesomeness level of the anti-gay Amendment we had with Amendment 48, which would define a person at conception. I was prompted to post this because I read this excellent blog about it, written by a non-Coloradoan who is rightfully opposed. I would get shakingly mad to explain all that is wrong with Amendment 48, but I encourage you to think about the rights you have by virtue of being a person. Then think about an embryo having all the same rights. Read the link. And then think about how awesome the girl is who created it. By the way, she's about to graduate from law school, kind of like yours truly. Unlike myself, she "attends" an un-accredited online Christian law school. Good luck with the bar exam, honey.

Pro-Abortionists

I just gotta show solidarity with that movement that Obama is part of--the pro-abortion movement. John McCain sure does know what he's talking about! In fact, I'm going to go have an abortion even though I'm not pregnant, because I think we should all be having abortions, all the time. Go abortions!

Okay, but seriously? I'm so sick of hearing right wing nonsense. I'm just holding my breath, beaming at the polls that show a good chance of, I'm going to say it, the change we need.

A gift from the DNC

The Democratic National Committee sent me presents! Well, they actually sent me junk mail asking for money and time, but more importantly, the envelope had PRESENTS! The presents are stickers, and you might not think that's too exciting, until I tell you that one of them says "Ask me how many houses I own." And it's in the style of a McCain/Palin sticker. I LOVE MY PRESENT.

Mavericks

We all know how much Sarah and John like to call themselves mavericks. It's one of their favorite words/phrases. Well, the family who is descended from the original Maverick, isn't so pleased. The NYT has a piece about the origin of the term, and the current family's feelings towards our self-proclaimed mavericks running for high political office.
The term originated when Samuel Augustus Maverick of Texas refused to brand his cattle. Unbranded cattle, then, became known as "Mavericks." The term literally means "unbranded," from this origin. The Maverick family is still alive and well, living in San Antonio. But they are not Republicans. In fact, they are progressive liberals, and resent that John McCain and Sarah Palin have adopted the term. One member of the family fumes, "they are branded. They're Republicans." Just another Republican move pissing people off.
So there's your etymology lesson for today.

WOO-frickin'-WHOO!

Not to get to excited, but I just saw that Obama has taken a real lead in the polls. Which is SO exciting. I saw this, of course, on the NY Times, which calls it a "significant" lead. That sounds good to me. Now I gotta go celebrate (maybe some champagne will kill this horrid cold?).

At least someone is in charge!

A quote from Eve Ensler:

♫ "Sarah Palin does not believe in evolution. I take this as a metaphor. In her world and the world of Fundamentalists nothing changes or gets better or evolves. She does not believe in global warming. The melting of the arctic, the storms that are destroying our cities, the pollution and rise of cancers, are all part of God's plan. She is fighting to take the polar bears off the endangered species list. The earth, in Palin's view, is here to be taken and plundered. The wolves and the bears are here to be shot and plundered. The oil is here to be taken and plundered. Iraq is here to be taken and plundered. As she said herself of the Iraqi war, "It was a task from God.""

Lucky for us that God is such a competent leader. If we just do nothing, God will take care of us.

Another terrific McCain plan!

The McCain-Palin health care plan would require employees to pay taxes on the value of health care provided by their employees. What's this about tax cuts? Oh, I get it. Cut = more.

Palin is on those substantive issues!

Listening to NPR this morning, a Libertarian Palin supporter called in to talk about all of the substantive issues that Palin is focused upon, naming among them that Palin is an admitted pot smoker. The caller said that because of her focus on such substantive issues, Palin is a great candidate for vice president, and the caller will be voting for the McCain/Palin ticket.

Yes. Pot smoking is a substantive issue that should help us determine who we vote for.

Sex, drugs, and valuable minerals

Surprise of surprises -- there's corruption in our government! Okay, so you knew that (and, hopefully, that W is to blame). So the NY Times did an article about rampant ethics abuses in the Minerals Managing Service. Sound boring? Not to a nerd like me! As Erin put it: the Bush administration is in bed with the oil and gas companies . . . literally! She's right- the government employees were sleeping with the oil and gas execs. And doing a bunch of coke to boot (which they bought from their secretaries!). Yay Republicans!

If you like having your tax dollars at work for this stuff . . . vote John McCain!

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?