This morning, the Rocky ran a story about gun sales shooting through the roof in anticipation of the Obama presidency -- no, not because someone necessarily wants to shoot him, but because many gun owners fear he'll restrict 2nd Amendment rights. But this photo that ran with the story, from Sunday's Crossroads of the West Gun Show in Aurora -- I hope there's not a run on fixed bayonets! Yikes!
Recently, a group of Colorado auto dealers visited the Rocky editorial board to discuss their views in light of economic woes and the Big Three automakers' request for a $34 billion helping hand from the federal government. At the meeting were Tim Jackson of the Colorado Automobile Dealers Association, Steve Strader of AutoNation (Go Stores), John Medved of Medved Colorado, Doug Moreland of Grand Auto, Elizabeth Daniels of Daniels Chevrolet, and Lee Payne of Planet Honda-Planet Hyundai.
"Aside from our current economic dilemmas that we face nationally and internationally today, people are not buying as many cars and that trendline is going down as the population goes up. ... we don't view it as a bailout," said Jackson. "We view it as, what they've asked for are bridge loans comparable to what Chrysler did in the late '70s. And it saved Chrysler, and Chrysler is still there today largely because of that, and all of those monies were paid back and they were paid back early, and the feds made money on the interest. Should the federal government be the lender of choice? Probably not. But that's the situation today."
In this audio clip (click on the link to listen), Jackson talks about those economic woes, particularly as they pertain to the local auto industry:
Medved later chimed in his opinions. "There's half or more (people) that are buying domestic vehicles. And as Lee said, you go look at a bank and its balance sheet and you look at its assets that are offset -- you know, when the bank examiners come in and you have this amount of loans out, and if all of a sudden all those domestic loans aren't any good, where's your banking system going to be then?" Listen to more:
At another point in the meeting, Vincent Carroll asked what's been on a lot of taxpayers' minds: Why don't the Big Three just file for bankruptcy? Strader and Medved, respectively, answer the question in this clip:
So last time I wrote about Boulder, it was in defense of naked pumpkin-headed people running down the Pearl Street Mall. But last night I drove up there, when the streets were indeed fully clothed, to catch the Colorado stop of the national tour "Separate Is Never Equal: Stories of Apartheid from South Africa to Palestine," presented by the U.S. Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation and hosted by the Rocky Mountain Peace and Justice Center on the University of Colorado campus. This isn't exactly my idea of an enjoyable Monday evening, but I'd gotten wind that members of the Israeli student group planned to show up, listen respectfully to the speakers (which they did), and then ask hard-hitting questions during the Q&A (which they also did).
As I sat there waiting for the presentation to begin, I saw one young man in the front row scanning everybody who walked into the lecture hall. Another guy walked in with a T-shirt in Hebrew, and the guy who'd been watching the arrivals eventually went over and asked if the Hebrew-shirted guy was there to "listen or argue." I would hope that at an institution of higher learning there's another option to dutifully ingesting every word or an all-out brawl: debate.
The speakers for the evening were Katherine Fuchs, national organizer of the occupation-ending campaign (who said that her "End the Israeli Occupation" group "doesn't take sides"), Diana Buttu, onetime PLO spokeswoman and legal adviser to Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, and Eddie Makue of the South African Council of Churches. As I was perusing the handouts offered at the door, I saw how much they were leaning on South African sources to claim that Israel practices apartheid in the Middle East. My first thought was the rank anti-Semitism exhibited when Durban, South Africa, hosted the U.N. World Conference Against Racism. The good reverend gave an impassioned lecture about the evils of apartheid in South Africa, a talk that was stirring in its correct context of egregious human-rights violations. Then, as he decried apartheid as "legal forms of discrimination to promote a diabolical philosophy ... that people are unequal," he began to pepper in the comparisons to Israel. "The argument we're having is, 'But it's right to have apartheid,'" he said, and that apartheid there "thrives on teaching its youth, its children that other people are less human."
Like, I thought, "Tomorrow's Pioneers," the Palestinian kids' show that features fluffy Disney knockoff characters aspiring to martyrdom, a Bugs Bunny lookalike vowing to "eat" the Jews, and indoctrinates hate with the help of its cold, little anti-Semitic host Saraa. And, of course, the recent favorite where kids calling into the show advocate chopping off the hand of Assud the Bunny for stealing.
Makue continued to say the "apartheid we have experienced in South Africa is being recycled in Palestine ... but it is more severe."
Buttu then spoke about Israel's "ideology of superiority" while showing maps of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, the security wall (but never using the word "security" in conjunction with it -- and never addressed the "ideology of jihad" behind the intifadas) intended to protect the Israeli border and Israeli settlements, and decried how "nobody can stand in judgment of Israel." At this presentation, though, nobody was standing in judgment of Palestinian suicide attacks on civilians or the Hamas charter that says that jihad is the only way and that Islam will obliterate Israel. This was asked by one audience member during the Q&A, and answered by Buttu (click on the link below to listen):
(Notice that she waxes about the Palestinian leaders recognizing Israel but doesn't mention Ismail Haniyeh, the Hamas prime minister who, when not fighting with Abbas' Fatah in a grisly conflict that has seen warring parties throw each other off buildings, refuses to recognize Israel.)
Buttu also talked about the "evacuation" of Jewish settlers from Gaza, but the reality is that Israel forcibly removed kicking and screaming settlers from their homes in an attempt to further the peace process. And as I wrote months afterward, Benjamin Netanyahu was right when he said that was opening up a big security risk for Israel. Hamas didn't see disengagement as a time to build a flourishing Gaza society and work cooperatively with Israel, but as a victory over Israel and license to launch more attacks on the Israeli people, which they swiftly did. Buttu said that Gaza is a "test case" for West Bank disengagement; let's hope not in the sense that Fatah militants would feel newly empowered to launch attacks in an effort to seize even more of Israel. Buttu cited an unemployment rate of 65 percent in Gaza, but spoke nothing of Hamas' unwillingness to give up terrorism or recognize its neighbor in order to restore aid. She blamed Israeli labor checkpoints -- as we've seen from the post-engagement jihad fervor, border security is Israel's right and necessity -- for the economic morass. I blame jihad -- when your focus is on fighting the Jews next door, it's not on education, job creation (well, other than martyrs), building infrastructure, and getting the trash picked up. Buttu ended her presentation by stating she was so disappointed that the Oslo handshake that had inspired her in her youth didn't end "apartheid" but led to more -- of course, nothing about Oslo falling through had to do with the fact that Yasser Arafat was a liar, would it?
Fuchs urged boycott and divestment campaigns against Motorola for making bomb fuses and an efficient communications system for the IDF (how dare they!), and against construction equipment-maker Caterpillar because they sell armored vehicles that can mow down buildings. So if there are no more Caterpillars, does this mean that Jerusalem residents would be safe from Palestinian construction workers going on the rampage on a busy street?
As Fuchs spoke, I jotted in my notes, "Does 'peace' to them include Israel not being attacked?" Seriously -- you can't have a one-sided peace plan. Anyway, she added that they were launching a hip-hop site to open dialogue between all sides, and I suddenly had an image of Mahmoud Abbas and Ismail Haniyeh launching a boy band with Ehud Barak.
Then things went to the Q&A. Like I said before, Israel supporters listened quietly to the presentation, but were ready with the good questions, which were at first limited to two minutes each and then one minute each. When two women asked about Israel's right to defend itself, and its right to exist, as well as whether the panel would offer solutions to the crisis that would take into account the security concerns, Buttu effectively absolved Palestinians of all blame. Take a listen:
And a great question, followed by another. Then the panel responds en masse to the previous several questions, and Buttu seems to essentially justify suicide bombings in quoting the Hamas people she speaks to who lament their lack of F-16s (so strap on a bomb and walk into a Sbarro pizza parlor?). Have a listen:
Makue, by the way, will be wrapping up the tour by addressing the United Nations on Monday for International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People.
Last night the Golden City Council nixed Rabbi Levi Brackman's request for a menorah to be included alongside a Christmas tree (come get me, you "holiday tree" P.C. police!) in the city's holiday-season display. But jolly St. Nick is fine, because he has historical significance. Never mind the menorah's historical significance that goes to, oh, 600 B.C., right?
Bizarrely, the council decided to next year revisit the issue of religious inclusiveness at holiday time, as Mayor Jacob Smith said the council should carefully think out such things. Because Christmas and Hanukkah and Eid are soooo radical, right?
Now, I come from a city where just the thought of the ACLU stepping in -- no distinct action -- caused the L.A. County Board of Supervisors to spend millions of dollars to remove a tiny cross from the county seal. That's changing every emblem and employee arm patch throughout the county, and without any opinion from the angry citizenry who saw the city's rich heritage being messed with. The little cross represented the area's founding by missionaries -- notice that the City of Angels is surrounded by "saint" cities such as San Bernardino, Santa Barbara, San Gabriel, San Juan Capistrano, Santa Maria, San Diego, etc.
So why should Golden's citizens -- who showed up to speak out at the council meeting -- have no say in this issue? I don't remember the last time I saw Christians and Jews physically brawl over a nativity scene and a Star of David. For years in my last newsroom we had a Christmas tree and lit the menorah each night of Hanukkah, and had a "Chrismakkah" potluck on Dec. 25 with a prayer beforehand. When you're not tucking tail and running from groups lobbying and litigating for freedom from religion, you can pause to see that Americans, regardless of belief, are really cool when it comes to respecting others' beliefs. Why does the Golden City Council have such a low opinion of residents' capacity for religious tolerance?
I'm at CBS-4, ready for the start of the Bob Schaffer and Mark Udall debate.
5:45: They're trying to find Udall for the coin toss. Meanwhile, everyone is running the gantlet trying to get in the building -- there are Schaffer and Udall supporters facing off on all four corners of Lincoln and 10th, and I saw at least one car accident narrowly averted because someone was honking and waving at their favorite peeps. But which side, we don't know, because the different camps were mixed in, doing their best to agitate each other. Meanwhile, Channel 4 had one space left for the Bridgetblogmobile. Score!!
5:54: We're close to the start of the debate. I'm sitting in the press room, enclosed in glass with fellow members of my species, kept away from the decent people but available for remote scientific study.
6:00 p.m. Here we go!
First question: We're all hardened and cynical about politics! Tell us about a promise that you made that you might not keep... huh? Udall starts waxing about the economy. Is this answering the question? I thought he's supposed to talk about how he might jack up. Oh, it's a promise he'll keep. Schaffer is committed to lower tax rates and stronger economic growth. He's looking unusually friendly tonight."
Here goes our own Lynn Bartels asking about one word to explain debate Schaffer says "explaining" and repeats the word Boulder many times in his answer. Udall says "rude" -- LOL!! The closed captioning on TV says that Udall just said "filly blusstering," Schaffer fires back -- still with that forced smile -- about how he would represent values in U.S. Senate.
The question is bipartisanship, something you'd regret on the campaign trail, etc. Udall starts talking about veterans, health care, wildlife, fuzzy puppies who wag their tails every time they see him... OK, almost that. Schaffer is smiling broadly while talking about how vicious Udall's campaign has been. I'm waiting for the word "Boulder," or the word "liberal," or hopefully some combination thereof. Bob reminds us of Congress' 9 percent approval rating (good call) and how you gotta replace the folks there.
Udall rebuts by saying his feelings haven't been hurt by the campaign. Kumbaya.
Raj is up with the negative ad watch -- woohoo! First up is shadowy evil looking oilman Bob Schaffer. Next up is Boulder Liberal Mark Udall. Now is veterans wanting to shoot down Schaffer. Next up is shadowy evil looking Mark Udall.
Schaffer is asked about Udall voting against body armor and troop funding. Schaffer says it's cuz he voted against defensive bills that included such items. Fair enough. Udall says he served on armed services committee, so take that! Udall is now asked about the Schaffer Big Oil claims when Schaffer did vote for renewable energy. Udall ducks the question about why he won't give Bob credit, and waxes about wonderful renewable energy.
Schaffer points out the obvious -- Marky Mark didn't answer the question. He's still forcing the smile, but his hands are starting to flail. This is Schaffer more in his element. Going for the jugular. You'd think he would have arrived at this point as soon as Udall called him rude earlier.
Udall responds to veterans funding ads. Schaffer says it's "baloney," that he has a super-pro-veterans record. Raj did a good job of bringing these two gents out of their shells.
Schaffer poses question to Udall about not caring about kids with disabilities, why he would direct the dough to education research. Doesn't want to "rob Peter to pay Paul." But what about little crippled Peter??
Udall asks what Schaffer even did in Congress. Bob is on a tear, rattling off stuff from the CDC to ranchland to missile defense.
Schaffer asks Udall why the National Endowment for Humanities was more important then clean coal technology. This is an awesome debate -- which is more important to you, humanity or coal?? Udall calls them gotcha votes.
Udall needles him on going to Kurdistan for oil stuff, a question that we asked Bob about when he came to our edit board. We have his answer in our video player. But he stresses to Udall that China will take over Kurdistan if we don't jump into the economic opportunities.
Greg from Arvada asks about S&L regulation. Schaffer says regulation wouldn't necessarily save the day and Congress should learn its lesson. Udall said he's the only one who stood up to Fannie and Freddie. It's like "Meet the Press" revisited.
Kathy in Aurora asks about securing the border. And she's right -- nobody's talking about immigration. Udall says physical borders "where they make sense," more Border Patrol, bringing "undocumented workers out of the shadows." Schaffer should be in his element. Brings up Udall's votes on tuition subsidies for illegal immigrants, etc. He looked really happy at that question.
Marilyn in Straburg wants to know why we should give $$ to other countries when there are poor people here. (Um, because we care about other people who are worse off than we are??) Udall talks about funding community health care, but didn't really answer the question. Schaffer thinks the question was cool. He's not going to be joining in on the next "We Are the World' anytime soon, and nitpicks on funding to Africa.
Glenda of Denver asks about gay marriage. Schaffer says it's too much to expect the state to sanction it. Udall takes the safe road with civil unions and domestic partnerships.
Back to the panel and question about success in Iraq. Schaffer sums it up nicely if wordily by saying it's about Iraq maintaining its territorial integrity. Why doesn't he see when he's on to a good point and wrap it up in a nice little soundbite package? Udall calls Iraq a "misadventure" twice and then declares that we have won the war and it's time to get out and hand it back to Iraqis. (Um, we already handed it over. That's when it went from the coalitional authority to the Iraqi government.)
Lynn asks about Department of Peace moonbattery proposal. Udall said it was "duplicative" and "made some sense at the time." He said he made his point and then it was time to move on. Is Congress just for grandstanding, then? No wonder nothing gets done.
Lynn asks Bob about school choice being No. 1 issue for GOP. Schaffer says he can't speak on behalf of all Republicans but feels for poor kids who can't go to a better school. He just doesn't feel for poor African kids. :(
Both are asked about political ideological independence. Schaffer is asked about the Dream Act, college for kids of illegal immigrants. Schaffer open to foreign students,but not tax dollars subsidizing kids of illegals. Udall looks like he's now in his element, and says you can't punish kids for their parents' illicit border crossing.
Udall is asked on card check, without the panel describing that it's a labor bill for the folks at home. Schaffer happily provides the explanation and goes after Udall's jugular on it. The closed captioning called it "car check." This debate is so unfair to the deaf.
Lightning round! Zapp! Schaffer advocates "belt-tightening" in Congress and Udall says Congress should be sure that "liquidity is injected into banks." He counters how Schaffer dissed Congress for taking vacation. We're all campaigning, counters Udall. Fair enough, but they were voted into office to get things done, not hit the trail again.
Schaffer is on a cool tear against socialism. No redistributing of wealth and take from those of ability to give to those in need, he says.
Schaffer reminds us that he's unemployed and had to buy his own health insurance. Another reporter grumbles about Bob's $200K severance check. I suggest that maybe he donated it to African children, and that's why he's in financial straits. Udall says we all can't eat out that much. The closed captioning is talking about "welsh spending." That's right. Our economy depends on how much the Welsh sink into the U.S.
What do they drive? Bob drives a Ford-whatever. He doesn't know the model. Oy. Udall, of course, is driving the powdery blue Prius I saw parked in the lot. Remember the "South Park" episode where they called it the Pious? I'm thinking of that know.
Closing statements. Udall tries to paint himself as super-independent. Schaffer barks that Udall drives a "bus... big luxury motor home." Udall just looks down at his podium. He's entitled to say, "Yeah... you don't even know what you drive!!" Schaffer makes the case that he's new blood and that the current Congress stinks.
After the debate I went into the studio to talk to each of the candidates, but turns out that they'd been quickly scuttled to other areas. I asked Udall about the fact that he says his feelings weren't hurt by negative campaign advertising, but then when asked to assign one word to the debates he said rude... how frustrated are you feeling with the tenor of the campaign by this point, I asked? Udall responded that it's been "fierce" and "combative," and said he "wants civil discourse" but thought that Schaffer was rude and interrupted him in early debates, on "Meet the Press," etc. "People want the approach I bring," Udall said. I then asked Udall if he thought Schaffer was "rude" tonight. Udall smiled. "Congressman Schaffer was polite tonight, relatively speaking," he responded.
I left the studio to find Schaffer disappearing down a stairwell and Dick Wadhams talking to our own Ed Sealover in the hall, yet some apparent Udall staffer were needling Wadhams -- they began snapping at each other about Web sites being illegal. Wadhams said he'd continue talking with Ed only away from the Udall folks, and as he disappeared down the stairs the Udall guy snapped, "Watch out for those DUIs, buddy!" Ed quickly asked what he meant, but the Udall folks walked off.
I think East and West Coast rappers are more civil with each other.
Just got these in my inbox from the FBI, which is seeking help to find the insidious letter-mailer in the latest white-powder scare. All I'm wondering, though, is what's the blacked-out word?
It's like a terrorist Mad Lib! Who are we kidding -- it probably says George Bush. And here's the scary envelope, noteworthy because more than 50 similar letters have all been postmarked in Amarillo.
Almost all of the clips from our recent editorial board meetings with the two Senate candidates -- save for Bob Schaffer's long, rejected-by-YouTube answer on the bailout -- are not only available here at the Rocky site, but on our Rocky Opinion on YouTube site, where you can also comment and issues ratings as well as embed the clips on your blog or Web site.
Here's my fave, ready to go viral -- Schaffer reacts to John McCain's uber-pricey mortgage bailout proposal:
Who exactly started this site is as murky as the original memo that sparked this drama, but the new "Educate the Idiots" blog is chuckle-inducing.
On the subject of that memo, the Colorado Democracy Alliance claims that the memo published by Face the State is a fake. Or wait... the AFL-CIO woman named on the memo next to the educating the idiots campaign said it "looks bogus." Or, hold it... "Alliance legal adviser Mark Grueskin
produced his own undated memo, which he said was stolen from the
alliance's offices and later used to produce the forgery." So... it's a fake fudged from a nondescript real memo? If there was a theft from their offices, is there any police report for this Watergate II?
Face the State offers up its third installment in their "obtained in a dark parking garage while donning a fedora" series on confidential 2006 memos from the Colorado Democracy Alliance. In this intriguing memo, 527 operations are assigned to sometimes covert operatives, and the minimum wage campaign, assigned to the AFL-CIO, is focused on "increasing CO union power: 'Educate the Idiots' campaign, Target: minorities, GED's, drop-outs."
YIKES!!
Let's read between the lines of this fair campaign:
Is it really for the welfare of the worker, as the union elite claim with every campaign, or "increasing CO union power"?
How powerful is your campaign message if you feel the smart people just won't vote for you?
And -- this is as obvious as pie -- you're calling minorities "idiots"?????????? Who, they apparently believe, can be hoodwinked to serve any cause just by appealing to said alleged idiocy????
"'We're in a time in this state when we need to do everything we can to
keep this economy moving forward. Amendment 46 undercuts Colorado and
destroys years of progress on education, health care and workforce
development,' Ritter said at a Capitol news conference attended by
Hispanic and African American business people, religious leaders and
others."
Amendment 46 prohibits discrimination or preferential treatment based on race, ethnicity, gender, etc., in government hiring, education (i.e. college admissions), or the awarding of government contracts. So how did the "health care" make it in there? Is it just convenient use of a scare-word to get voters' attention? Or is it a serious belief that minority physicians are needed to serve minority communities? (At least I think that's what he's getting at.)
This is Gorby, my new diamond dove. After spending a couple of weeks chilling in his cage, I let him out last weekend to spread his wings. And to put him to work: hey, a bird's gotta earn his millet and Aquafina, know what I'm saying? Here you see Gorby busy, stepping on that hated "insert" key, acting as an effective ghostwriter.
But, sadly, it all went downhill from there. First, he wanted an amendment stating that if he slipped and bumped his beak, he could sue me for damages on top of his workers' comp payout. Then, he wanted mandatory vet insurance even though I clearly run a small operation (hamster, chinchilla, parakeet, hermit crab...). On top of all this, he wanted an amendment ensuring that I'd need "just cause" to fire him; he could laze around all day cooing, like he tends to do, and I'd have to take some sort of positive rehabilitation steps with him, losing productivity time, before I could even think about sending him to the birdie Government Millet line.
In the end, I said no thanks -- it was too much of a burden and I'd be better off doing the work myself. He flew up to the top of the computer and pooped on my wireless router.
Still being a newbie in this neck of the country, I've been grateful for any Coloradans' tips to help me become familiar with the political landscape. So I was particularly enlightened by this press release passed along to me from the Bob Schaffer campaign (the boldface emphasis is mine):
"ENGLEWOOD - Boulder Liberal Mark Udall
criticized Bob Schaffer today for supporting a temporary reduction in the
repatriation tax to encourage American companies to move jobs from overseas but
Boulder Liberal Udall voted to do the very same thing in 2004.
'Boulder Liberal Mark Udall has done so many
flip flops on energy lately that he now can't keep his record on tax policy
straight,' said Schaffer for Senate campaign manager Dick Wadhams. 'Boulder Liberal Udall voted the very same way in 2004 that he criticized
Schaffer for today.'
Boulder Liberal Udall held a news conference today and
criticized Schaffer for supporting a temporary reduction in the repatriation
tax in order to encourage American companies to move overseas holdings back to
the United States.
Boulder Liberal Udall proclaimed that 'Bob Schaffer
today said the solution to our problem is a giant tax giveaway for American
companies that ship jobs overseas. It's stunning, but maybe it shouldn't
be.'
Boulder Liberal Udall voted for H.R. 4520, the
American Jobs Creation Act, on October 7, 2004 which temporarily reduced the
tax rate on repatriated income from 35 percent to 5.25 percent for a one year
period.
'While trying to shoot down Bob Schaffer, Boulder
Liberal Mark Udall turned the gun on himself in a blazing act of hypocrisy and
contradiction,' Wadhams said."
Let's hear it for the save/get button on the keyboard!! If I hadn't been told eight times in the span of 200 words, I might have never known that Boulder Liberal Mark Udall is a Boulder Liberal. I feel like an insider already!
I thought long and hard about writing this post, because when we write endorsements here at the Rocky we discuss them first, as a team, and the resultant editorial springs from those discussions. That sure doesn't mean we agree on everything, especially in this hot-button campaign season, but it means we know how to disagree. However, I'm lucky enough to have this forum to reflect on Amendment 48, with the deepest respect to those colleagues who studied the measure and arrived at different conclusions.
For my readers out of the state/country, Amendment 48 would define, in the Colorado constitution, a person from the moment of conception and thus afford that person inalienable basic human rights. We on the board met with both sides. Arguments against the measure range from it being an attempt to overturn Roe v. Wade to something that would ban birth control or in vitro fertilization. Proponents contend that it lays the foundation for important life-related laws, to those related to abortion (to what extent the state could even override federal law) to fetal homicide (come on, Colorado, WHY is there no law against this?), and wouldn't harm cancer patients or women with ectopic pregnancies, as opponents contend.
The Rocky's editorial opposed 48 on the grounds that it would open unknown areas to unknown levels of litigation -- a box of unknowns, basically. I don't argue with that. But the reason I can't oppose the simple declaration of personhood in Amendment 48 is that from a secular, human-rights standpoint I agree with every word.
In defense of the amendment, I stated that I believed 48 set an important bar for basic human rights. Man will be wrangling over the moment that life begins until the end of time, and even more so over what role the state should play in protecting that life. But here's what I see through that cacophony: I see activists howling in defense of reproductive freedom who won't lift a finger to help Chinese women who are not allowed to choose to have a child. I see the stats that indicate up to 90 percent of babies with Down syndrome are aborted after prenatal testing, receiving a death sentence simply for their disability in a society that sets its own benchmark for "normality." I'm repulsed at the rates of involuntary euthanasia in Holland (that country where they're supposed to be so enlightened about "death with dignity"), and the sickening, Nazi-esque Groningen Protocol by which Dutch doctors can kill an infant (most reported cases have been spina bifida patients) if they determine that "quality of life" will be insufficient by their societal benchmark.
The Jerusalem Talmud states "Whoever destroys a soul, it is considered as if he destroyed an entire
world. And whoever saves a life, it is considered as if he saved an
entire world." Do we as human beings have the right to rank the lives of others as more or less important, worth saving or fit to be destroyed, based on some scale of life stages or embryonic development, by disability or ability? Do we have the right to determine what a "quality of life" is for another, and then treat that life as less valuable if it isn't up to snuff? I wish I could say I don't want to go down that road, but we've already gone down that road. And it tears down our humanity, bit by bit.
Life is deserving of the deepest care and respect from the moment it comes into existence to the moment of death. That's why I not only personally support 48, but Amendment 51 as well (for out-of-towners: a slight sales tax increase to aid woefully underfunded support services for the developmentally disabled) -- because I believe all life has intrinsic value, and I believe in putting my money where my mouth is.
We're on a roll here at Rocky Opinion: You likely noticed that we've already started our endorsements for November's ballot amendments, but we just recently had in an opponents for Amendment 52, which would divert money into a state transportation fund "which may be used only to fund the construction, maintenance, and
supervision of public highways in the state, giving first priority to
reducing congestion on the Interstate 70 corridor." We had in Rep. Cory Gardner early in our editorial board process, and just recently Rep. Jack Pommer dropped by to give an opposing view. Both offered interesting perspectives, so take a peek:
And speaking of YouTube and its impact on the election, here are our pro and con videos from Amendment 59 (the Savings Account for Education or TABOR deconstruction, depending on whom you speak to). Watch and judge for yourself:
Last week, as many ballot amendment proponents and opponents came through our editorial board, a private citizen and local attorney named Jon Anderson showed up to voice his opposition to Amendment 50, which would: 1) allowing cities to raise limits on gaming to $100 bets, 2) allow the extension of casino hours (all-nighters, baby!), and 3) allow roulette and craps. Coming from California, aka Land of Much Fruitful Indian Gaming, I decided to drop the top and head up to Black Hawk on our sunny Saturday in the name of Amendment 50 research. And in the name of penny slots.
Anderson brought up during the meeting that Black Hawk gaming had exploded beyond the intended preservation of historic buildings, like above, into the "new" Black Hawk area, when you first drive into town, with larger, modern casinos such as the Riviera, and whatever this monstrosity under construction is:
Honestly, I'm not sure folks should be too concerned about future casino expansion there, because there seems to be no room left. They'd have to start blasting away mountainsides. But, of course, this doesn't mean that gaming wouldn't boom in other areas once casinos are lured in by higher betting limits. Voters have to decide for themselves if this is a good or bad thing. Heaven knows communities get revenue. And we've seen how gaming has helped tribes attain more than self-sufficiency.
My theory on Indian gaming, by the way, is: The U.S. government treated the Indians like dirt, gave them the worst parcels of land in the country and the concession of sovereignty. Tribes eventually use that sovereignty to grow mega-casinos. Tribes have the last laugh. Enough said. But with that sovereignty came the overriding of California's strict anti-smoking laws: whenever in Indian casinos there, the smoke was so bothersome I'd be relegated to the non-smoking room that had like one video poker machine. At least Black Hawk was smoke-free, except for the cluster outside the front door of each casino, puffing away.
All in all, I lost eight dollars. Turns out the penny slot doesn't exactly cost a penny, when you can bet up to 25 lines. At one point I won 200 pennies, which sounds juicier than $2, but I kept on playing. I'm just not a very good casino customer, because I get bummed and bored after the loss of a few dollars. OK, OK, it's because I knew that Colorado Mills was just down the hill, and I had to get to the sure-bet sales. Pairs of Seven jeans found for $40? All sweaters marked down to ten bucks at Eddie Bauer? One pair of cold-weather booties left on clearance in exactly my size? That's the jackpot, baby.
Brian Bonsall, aka Alex P. Keaton's lil' bro' on "Family Ties," is a wanted man. Failing to appear in court on a probation violation related to domestic violence, the Daily Camera reports that he was last seen dumping furniture in the garbage at his Boulder condo. Though a fugitive, he has not yet made the list of most annoying child stars at AmIAnnoying.com. Give him time.
