Today's Denver Post Newspeak

The Denver Post has a front page article today on the city's "Gang Reduction Initiative of Denver," or GRID.

 The papers says GRID "is funded by a $2.2 million grant from the Department of Justice."  This is Newspeak designed to make the federal government, via the Department of Justice, appear to be a benevolent, kind entity.

A more accurate and truthful sentence would say that GRID "is funded by the federal government borrowing money your great grandchildren must pay back."

Global warming questions for true believers

Frank Tapy, in a letter to the Denver Post editor today, writes:

The giant corporate polluters who believe their profits would be threatened by legislation to protect the environment are unlikely to alter their denials; nevertheless, private citizens should not be threatened by an examination of available evidence.
Two initial questions for those with a willingness to discuss the issue: Do you understand the greenhouse gas principle? Moreover, are you aware that one of the products of combustion from fossil fuels (coal, oil, natural gas) is the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide?

The answers to both of your questions, Mr. Tapy, are "yes."

Now, I have some for you:

• Do you understand that water vapor is a greenhouse gas?
• Are you aware that water vapor accounts for 95% of the greenhouse effect on earth? Did you know there is no organized effort to cut water vapor in the atmosphere? Have you considered why?
• Did you know nuclear power has zero CO2 emissions? And that somehow nuclear power is almost always overlooked by the "warmers" as a solution to CO2 emissions? And that the "warmers'" solutions somehow almost always call for additional government regulation of industry? Did you realize that when government regulates an industry it has the power to grant waivers? Do you ever notice now companies that get such government waivers invariably have donated lots of money to politicians in power?
• Did you know the temperature on Mars is increasing?
• Are you aware that the ice age occurred without mankind's involvement?
• Did you know the sun is very hot and has a considerable effect on earth's temperature?

Thank you for your time.

Become more like California? Are you serious?

Freelance writer Erich Bussian posits one of the most out-of-touch, ridiculous and sanctimonious columns in, well, at least a couple of days. (See "Still taking cues from California.")

I hereby nominate this sentence, apparently written without any sense of irony or sarcasm, for Most Absurd Comment of the Month:

"As Colorado's population continues to explode  . . . California-style regulation becomes a necessity."

This level of complete unawareness leaves me speechless, a condition to which I am not accustomed.

===

Postscript: Methinks perhaps I have fallen prey to an April Fool's joke. If so, you got me.

Santorum - Republicans no longer the party of Goldwater and small govern...

Herman Cain v. Eric Holder on brainwashing

"It's just brainwashing ... pure and simple."
          Hermain Cain on "progressive" methods, November, 2011.

"We need to do this everyday of the week and really just brainwash people."
          Eric Holder, January, 1995

"I beg your indulgence, my liege."

The subjects line up, waiting their chance at a meeting with the king. Each has a desire. Each hopes the king will be moved by his presentation and deign to grant his wish. No one can be sure what moves the king. Oftentimes  he seems moved by mere whim. But the subjects know if they do not ask, they have no chance. So they line up, they bow and scrape, and they beg.

It is a good thing such foolishness is a thing of the past.

What? It isn't? You mean this still goes on?

It is true.

It happened yesterday, in Denver. Six applicants begged the state for millions of dollars. The role of king is now played by the Colorado Economic Development Commission, a political board filled with political appointees by politicians. This board has the power to dole out millions of dollars. This largesse is ostensibly for local governments, but the money will end up with private contractors and other private companies.

For example, the city of Aurora seeks a state indulgence worth $123.8 million. The city is asking on behalf of Gaylord Entertainment Company, a private company with a market capitalization of $1.4 billion. Gaylord wants to build a huge, fancy hotel in Aurora, but will not do it without the government gift.

The theory behind this "Economic Development" is that tax breaks encourage business growth. Of course, that is absolutely true. But why do only those with the means and desire to scrape and bow and beg before the state board qualify? Why do politically connected applicants have to justify their business plan to a political board of political appointees? Why does Gaylord have the backing of the Aurora City Council for its massive project, but the mom and pop dry cleaner gets no support for any "economic development" of its business?

Because mom and pop do not have a "government relations" department. Because mom and pop do not have and can not afford a lobbyist. Because mom and pop do not have the time to put together a fancy power-point presentation for a group of politically connected appointees. Because mom and pop are too busy working. Because mom and pop are busting their butts earning money and not standing in line for a government gift.

Statists like to justify state action like this in the name of "fairness" and "equity." There is nothing fair or equitable about the king's whims.

Perrish Cox, Harvey Steinberg and keeping the state in check

I think the biggest statewide news of the day [Friday] is that former Denver Bronco Perrish Cox was acquitted on two counts of sexual assault of a victim unable to assess her condition. I of course have no idea of what actually happened over that Labor Day weekend in 2010, but everything I heard in the media made it look pretty bad for Cox.

Cox, Demarius Thomas and the accuser and others had been out partying, then came back to Cox' apartment. At that point, stories differ. It seems, however, that the  accuser contacted Cox the next day and asked if they had “intimate contact.” Cox denied any such contact. Vehemently, it appears. As it turns out, the accuser found herself pregnant shortly thereafter and DNA showed Cox to be the father. 

I thought it looked pretty bad. But Cox' lawyer, Harvey Steinberg, must’ve done a tremendous job.  Cox was looking at 2 years to life in prison.

There are no winners in a case like this. But I give major props to Steinberg for making the state prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt before it can lock someone in a cage. The state has an awesome power.  It can take your life if you are convicted of a capital crime, it can certainly keep you locked up. It is important that someone makes the state prove its case. Even if the defendant appears to be guilty as sin – we can never let the state skate on its responsibility to use its power in a constitutional manner.

When we start to let the state slide – because we think someone is obviously guilty – there is nothing to stop the state from sliding when you get accused of something. 

Economic Development: Letting the politically connected feed at the public trough.

Denver Post editorial page editor Curtis Hubbard describes the Colorado Economic Development Commission as "doling out grants under a law intended to bring new visitors to the state."

In other words, the Commission will be giving public money to people, whom in the exercise of its considerable discretion, it deems worthy. More simply, they give free money to people they like.

And people wonder why corruption in government exists? "Economic Development" is code for  "corporate welfare." It is corporatism. It enables the rich and politically connected to feed at the public trough.

The corporatists have succeeded so well they have people lining up to defend this nonsense. "It's good for the economy!" they say. No, it's good for the guy with his name on the check drawn from the public treasury. He can buy another boat with it.  With your money. And he ain't gonna ask you to go water skiing with him, either.

State mandated "affordable healthcare" may be a great idea - but it ain't a "right."

Freelance writer Lisa Wirthman has a long defense of state involvement in health care in today's Denver Post. (See "Health vs Faith: The debate over insurance for contraceptives.")

One early paragraph in her column sums up the issue and explains why she is wrong. She asserts

While freedom of religion demands careful consideration, so does the right of low-income women to receive safe and affordable heath care.

The fundamental error should be obvious: there is no "right of low-income women to receive safe and affordable health care." None. Zero. Nada. Her entire analysis is based on a falsehood.

There are no "positive rights."

The Future of Freedom Foundation explains it well in an article by Sheldon Richman, "Wrong Rights." In oversimplified terms, a "positive right" is an entitlement. If, for example, Wirthman is correct and there is a right to receive safe and affordable healthcare, then someone has an obligation to provide that healthcare. The person asserting the right is entitled to the healthcare and it necessarily follows that someone MUST provide it, whether they wish to or not. There can be no moral justification for forcing someone to act against their wishes. That is the basis for tyranny.

"Oh, sure," some say, "maybe it's a teeny, tiny bit of tyranny, but it's really no big deal because we are all better off  as a collective when some people are forced to act against their will." If the danger of such thought is not evident, well, then nothing is.

Wirthman argues that society is better off when it provides "safe and affordable healthcare" to everyone. Maybe so. On the other hand, maybe the best way to do that is by voluntary action and not the use of government force. We can have that debate.

But without a fundamental understanding of "rights," any debate is pointless. It is like arguing physics with someone that rejects Newton's Laws of Motion.

"Full speed ahead!" The RTD light rail scam

Westminster City Councilmember Mark Kaiser is displeased with the possibility that RTD will not build the Northwest corridor line through his town.

In the March 1, 2012 edition of the Westminster Window (page 7), he complains that the people of Westminster were promised a train, and, by God, they better get one. He wrote, "It is not a system unless it is built as promised and as the voters approved in 2004."

Like all too many, Kaiser focuses on only part of the promise. He sees the shiny train that was promised. Unfortunately, he is blind to the price tag that was also promised.

In 2004, voters approved a price tag of $894.6 million for the light rail expansion. Now RTD says the price tag is actually $1.7 billion. Like a modern, twisted version of Admiral Farragut, Kaiser says "damn the price tag, full speed ahead!"

Kaiser's refusal to acknowledge the cost is a refusal to acknowledge reality. This blindness is a common affliction of statists - they want something, damn it, and cost means nothing. Costs are irrelevant to those with  this affliction. In the real world, however, costs matter.

Voters were duped in 2004. Giving RTD more money in 2012 would be like giving Bernie Madoff more money to invest.

Hopefully voters, despite the blindness of some, will not be played the fool again.

If I got to ask a question during CNN Republican debate in Arizona:

Senator Santorum, you have labeled yourself the only true conservative in the race. We are in Arizona, the birthplace of Barry Goldwater, who was known as "Mr. Conservative." Senator Goldwater's opinion toward the religious right was well-known. It can be summed up by this quote:

"I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in "A," "B," "C" and "D." Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me?"

How would you respond to "Mr. Conservative," Barry Goldwater, here in his home state tonight?

The Three-Fifths Compromise in historical context.

David Steiner, in his Colorado Voices column today, makes a common statement that bears some thought.  (See "Take a tip from fourth-graders").

Steiner was a judge for an American Legion speech contest for high school students. The topic was the United States Constitution. "The high school students talked about  ... how long it had taken for blacks to be counted as more than three-fifths of a person," among other topics, he said.

It has been my experience that most refer to that provision of the Constitution as an example of the racism that existed at the time. I find that curious, since the existence of slavery is a much better example. The "Three-Fifths Compromise" is found in Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the United States Constitution. It reads:

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

What does that mean in modern English? It means that when counting the population of a state for purposes of determining the size of that state's Congressional delegation, slaves would be counted as 3/5 of a person.

The problem was not this compromise, the problem was slavery. I find it disproportionate to cite this compromise as evidence of racism when it pales in comparison to the actual bondage of human beings. It is as if someone says, "yeah, there was slavery in Colonial America and people were owned like common chattel, but the real injustice was that they were only counted as 3/5 of a person when it came time to determine congressional representation!" In that light, it is absurd.

If asked, I bet most think it was the slave-owning southern states that did not want to count slaves as full people. After all, slaves were just property. But, no, that was not the case. It was the northern states that did not want to count slaves at all. Upon reflection, this makes sense. If slaves were counted in full, the south would have had a larger voice in Congress.

Therefore, the pro-slavery contingent wanted to count slaves as full people, but the anti-slavery contingent did not want to count them at all. This juxtaposition demonstrates the folly of citing the Three-Fifths Compromise as  an example of racism.

The compromise is historically important, but not as important as the institution of slavery itself.

A response to "Why Obamacare is good for America"

The executive director of the Colorado Consumer Health Initiative, my friend Dede de Percin, does her best to sell us on the benefits of Obamacare in the "Perspective" section of today's Denver Post. (See "Why Obamacare is good for America.")

I quote some of her statements, then respond underneath:

"Over the past few decades, America's health care system has been hurtling toward a crisis. Almost one-third of Coloradans — 1.5 million — either have health care coverage that is inadequate or have none at all. The primary reason is skyrocketing costs, which have priced out businesses and individuals alike."

Why the skyrocketing costs? Because of government mandated coverage, government regulation, and the inability to sell insurance across state lines, among other things.

"Decisions about our health care are too personal and important to be left to insurance companies."

But not too personal and important to be left to the United States Congress and state run exchange boards, apparently.

"Obamacare is starting to hold insurance companies accountable, controlling the runaway costs that prevent Coloradans from access to health care. For example, insurers must now justify premium rate hikes."

These rate rikes must be justified to a government board. I hope the inherent downside to government approval of prices is self-evident. Alas, I know it is not. See "The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics" entry on "Price Controls" for an in depth discussion.

"Essential preventive care is now considered a basic benefit for those with insurance and is available without co-pays or other cost-sharing because it keeps people healthier."

Keeping everyone healthier is a great goal. Pretending it can be done for free is a fantasy. The preventative care may not cost the consumer anything directly out of pocket, but the cost exists and it is paid by everyone. It is the ultimate in cost-sharing. Further, when a service has no marginal cost to the consumer, the demand for the service is virtually unlimited. With higher demand, prices necessarily rise for someone if not to the consumer directly. Costs exist. No legislation can abolish them.

"A major cost-containment initiative of Obamacare is the exchange. In 2014, Coloradans will be able to purchase affordable insurance in the Colorado Health Benefits Exchange, a statewide nonprofit organization. Intended to be a competitive, online marketplace similar to Travelocity..."

Wait... Travelocity was formed by government mandate? No? It was done by a private company in the free market? How is that possible? I thought only the government could make this happen. Perhaps not.

And this nonprofit state exchange plans on paying four executives $165,000 a year or more. It is amazing how political appointees always end up doing well in these state created nonprofits. It is pure corporatism. Nonprofit corporatism, but nonetheless corporatism. Some prefer to call it crony-capitalism (which, of course, is not capitalism at all).

"Since decisions about health care are too important to leave to others, the Colorado Consumer Health Initiative and consumer-focused organizations are helping Coloradans make their voices heard by exchange board members."

Wait... health care decisions are too important to leave to others, so the exchange board members will make those decisions? Aren't they "others?" I am afraid I just do not follow that reasoning. (Not an uncommon occurrence for me, I realize).

I know de Percin means well. She wants to help those without health insurance coverage. She wants everyone to get the medical services they need.

But another layer of government bureaucracy will not achieve that admirable goal. Government, indeed, has a role, a very important one: policing fraud and enforcing benefits contractually promised to insureds in exchange for premiums. When government starts doing much beyond that, costs go up and coverage goes down.

Before the "system failed:" The death of a child.

The Denver Post headline reads, "Family: System failed child."

It is a horrific story of an abused four year-old boy, now dead, allegedly at the hands of his maternal grandmother. The grandmother had been awarded custody of the boy's two older sisters. The boy was living under her care, as well. The boy's name was Gabriel.

Gabriel's paternal grandmother had called the county Human Services department multiple times over her concerns about the boy's treatment. The State will now investigate the circumstances of the boy's death and the county's response to the previous complaints. That investigation may or may not find problems with the county.

Ultimately, however, Gabriel's death is not a failure on the part of the government, although it may have played a part in not preventing it. Ultimately, the system did not fail this child.

Ultimately, his family failed him. The article makes no mention of his parents. Where are they? Perhaps they have passed away and the boy is an orphan. If not, where are they? Gabriel was not under the legal custody of his maternal grandmother, only his sisters Where were other family members ready to take care of the boy? Where was the church?

This tragedy underscores the futility of looking to the government for protection. No one in the Department of Human Services was Gabriel's blood. No one in that department was Gabriel's mother. No one in that department was this Gabriel's father. No one in that department was Gabriel's family.  No one in that department was Gabriel's pastor.

No government agent can ever - ever - care about a child like his own blood. No government agent can ever have the compassion for that child like a man - or woman - of God.

If we, as society, looked to ourselves as individuals to help Gabriel, Gabriel would still be alive. Instead, we, as a society, have abdicated our personal duty as individuals and given it to the government, as a collective, to look out for children like this poor boy.

The collective works a 40 hour week. The collective goes home at 5:00. The collective punches a clock. A caring person -as an individual - never clocks out. Let us stop shirking our personal responsibilities onto the backs of a soulless collective.

Arguing for more state power over neglected and abused children is not compassionate. It exacerbates the problem.


No government agent is ever ultimately responsible for a child - his family, and by extension his church famiily - is responsible.

Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, and media criticism