Ari Armstrong's Web Log (Main) | Archives | Terms of Use

Ari Armstrong's 2010 Posts

Following are consolidated blog posts I wrote in 2010, republished here on August 17, 2025. All contents copyright © by Ari Armstrong. I may not in every case still agree with my 2010 position. Paragraphs that begin "Comment" are notes by readers, unless marked otherwise. Because so many of the hyperlinks have since become "dead," I removed almost all of the hyperlinks and (usually) put the original url in parenthesis. Due to minor editing and formatting changes the material here may not exactly match how it originally appeared.

Major topics include Ayn Rand and Objectivism, Liberty in the Books, movies and TV, Colorado politics, ebooks, Dan Maes, smoking bans, environmentalism, the personhood anti-abortion measure, the Tea Party, the Amazon tax, sales taxes, atheism and religion, baby delivery, violence over images of Mohammed, the New York Islamic center, Westminster politics, immigration, Scott McInnis, Ken Buck, Harry Potter, Tom Tancredo, Rush, WWII vet Seymour Glass, Social Security, and more.

No-Sugar Cheesecake

January 2, 2010

For New Year's, Jennifer made a great cheese cake without sugar or any added sweetener. We topped it with blueberries or apples sauteed in butter and cinnamon, so of course that added the fruits' sugar. The texture of the cake was fantastic.

We used a (http://lowcarbdiets.about.com/od/desserts/r/lcarbcheesecake.htm) low-carb cheesecake recipe, except we didn't put in the "artificial sweetener" (because, yuck). While I like it fine without any sweetener, we discussed putting somewhere between a quarter cup and a half cup of sugar in future attempts if we want a sweeter dessert.

One thing we got out of this recipe that will be useful for other things is the almond meal crust. We'll probably make this for quiche and mousse pies.

To make the crust, mix a cup of almond meal and two tablespoons of melted butter (Jennifer just used a fork for the mixing). We thought we'd increase the quantities by half next time. Press the mixture into the bottom of a pie plate, then bake for 8 to 10 minutes, until slightly browned.

To make the filling, mix in the following ingredients, one at a time in order, with a hand mixer, scraping the bowl with a spatula between each ingredient:

* 3 packages (1.5 pounds) cream cheese (room temperature)

* 4 eggs (preferably room temperature)

* 1.5 teaspoons vanilla

* 1.5 teaspoons lemon juice

* sweetener (if desired)

* 0.25 cup sour cream

After you add the last ingredient, beat the mixture for an additional minute.

We used a water bath to bake the cake. Ours worked great for an hour at 350 degrees Fahrenheit. It puffed up a bit and then settled back down as it cooled.

Here's the finished cake in the water bath [photos omitted].

Cooled, sliced, and topped:

Review Questions for Daniels's Essays on Antitrust

January 3, 2010

This set of review questions is part of the (http://freecolorado.com/libertybooks/libertybooks.html) Liberty In the Books program, a monthly discussion group. These questions cover two works by Eric Daniels on antitrust that go well together for a single meeting. These essays are part of a cycle on antitrust. Previously I published questions for (http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/12/review-questions-for-epsteins-essay-on.html) Alex Epstein's essay, "Vindicating Capitalism: The Real History of the Standard Oil Company." In the future Liberty In the Books will cover Dominick Armentano's book, (http://mises.org/books/antitrust.pdf) Antitrust: The Case for Repeal.

The first work covered here is Daniels's essay, "Reversing Course: American Attitudes about Monopolies, 1607-1890." It is contained in the book The Abolition of Antitrust, edited by Gary Hull.

Daniels's second essay is (http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2009-winter/obama-antitrust.asp) "Antitrust with a Vengeance: The Obama Administration's Anti-Business Cudgel," published by The Objective Standard.

As noted previously, these review questions are intended to inspire discussion of the material, not establish a tight outline for discussion.

Reversing Course

1. What was the general change in federal economic policy from the mid 1800s to the early 1900s? (Pages 63, 65-66)

2. What was the most common understanding of "monopoly," before and after 1890? (Page 64)

3. What were the English origins of monopolies? (Page 67)

4. What was the nature of the English revolt against monopolies? (Pages 67-68)

5. What was the significance of the English Case of Monopolies and subsequent Parliamentary action? (Pages 68-69)

6. What was the colonists' view of monopolies? (Pages 69-70)

7. What was the fundamental ideological conflict that divided the English Parliament and the colonists? (Pages 70-71)

8. What was the position of state constitutions on monopolies? (Page 71)

9. According to Daniels, what is the difference between American patent law and the establishment of coercive monopolies? (Pages 71-72)

10. In what ways was the Constitutional Convention friendly toward monopolies? What were the concerns about monopolies raised in that debate? (Page 73)

11. In what ways, and on what grounds, did Congress empower monopolies? (Page 74)

12. How did Alexander Hamilton, Daniel Webster, and Joseph Story defend monopolies? How did their arguments lead from protecting coercive monopolies to breaking up large free-market businesses? (Pages 75-76)

13. How did free enterprise challenge coercive monopolies? (Page 76)

14. How did the fight over the steamship monopoly play out? What was the impact of the 1824 Supreme Court ruling in Gibbons v. Ogden? (Pages 77-78)

15. What were the arguments that continued to be made in favor of monopolies in the 1800s? (Pages 78-79)

16. What was the Charles River Bridge case, and what was the significance of the arguments made in that case? (Pages 79-83)

17. In what ways did Andrew Jackson restrict coercive monopolies? (Page 83)

18. How did judicial definitions of monopoly change after the Civil War? (Page 84)

19. What were the Slaughterhouse Cases of 1873, how were they decided, and what was the impact of the ruling? (Pages 84-85)

20. What were the circumstances of the case of Munn v. Illinois, and what was the impact of the case's legal resolution on property rights? (Pages 86-87)

21. What was the nature and impact of Henry Demarest Lloyd's works on monopoly in the 1880s? (Pages 88-89)

22. What arguments were presented in favor of the Sherman Antitrust Act? (Page 89)

23. What is Daniels's critique of the "public good" as a standard of law? (Page 90)

Antitrust with a Vengeance

24. Why did C. T. Dodd and John D. Rockefeller create a trust in the late 1800s? (Page 22)

25. What were the cultural and political conditions that led to the Sherman Antitrust Act? (Page 22)

26. In what ways are the antitrust laws nonobjective? (Page 23)

27. Why do producers need a stable legal environment, and how does antitrust legislation undercut this? (Pages 23-24)

28. How has antitrust legislation brought business under federal control? (Page 24)

29. How did antitrust enforcement change (and how did it remain the same) from the Bush to the Obama administrations? (Pages 21, 24-25)

30. How have other federal economic controls undermined free-market competition? (Page 25)

31. What is Daniels's critique of Steve Forbes and L. Gordon Crovitz, who also oppose stepped-up antitrust enforcement? (Pages 26-27)

32. What does Daniels see as the proper role of government with respect to business organization and operation? Is he right? (Page 27)

Reading Anne Heller on Ayn Rand

January 4, 2010

That Ayn Rand was a great woman is disputed only by those who wish to destroy her legacy and discard her ideas without the bother of having to refute them. That Rand made some mistakes in her personal life is disputed by no one. Yet Rand led the sort of life that, had she novelized it rather than lived it, her critics would have blasted as unrealistically heroic. She lived through the Russian Revolution, escaped to America, became a world-renowned author in a foreign language, and dramatically impacted the political discourse of the nation. Hers is a life whose facts read as the stuff of legend.

Obviously Rand's greatest personal error was to get into a sexual relationship with the brilliant charlatan Nathaniel Branden, who, with his wife (of the time) Barbara, viciously deceived Rand over a number of years, as recounted by Rand herself in journal entries published in The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics. What is particularly perplexing to me is why Rand agreed to this affair, given that in fiction she endorsed monogamy. In Atlas Shrugged, Dagny Taggart has a romantic relationship with three men over the course of her life, and never do these overlap. While Hank Rearden has an affair with Dagny while he is married, he cuts off sexual relations with his wife when the affair begins, and he acknowledges he should have divorced his wife long before that. In The Fountainhead, Dominique Francon breaks monogamy only so long as she remains a flawed character. Notably, the great heroes of the novels, John Galt and Howard Roark, wait for their women over a span of years. I do not understand Rand's affair, I wish her husband had stood up against it, and obviously it turned out horribly for Rand.

Notably, the first two major biographical works on Rand were by the Brandens, and the popular understanding of her remains colored by their smears.

It is therefore with mixed feelings that I witness the publication of the two new biographies on Rand. On one hand, from what I can tell both biographers are largely fair in their treatment of Rand, and both reveal important historical information about her life. Yet it is clear even given my still-limited familiarity with the books that they manifest significant problems. I have already made some (http://ariarmstrong.com/2009/10/introducing-jennifer-burns-on-ayn-rand/) limited criticisms of the introduction of Jennifer Burns's book, Goddess of the Market. Robert Mayhew has written a much more (http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2009-winter/ayn-rand-jennifer-burns.asp) thorough critique.

While I am interested in Rand's biography, I am quite busy with other projects. Yet, though I had put Anne Heller's book Ayn Rand and the World She Made back on the shelf, today I took it down and read a few pages, and I remembered my idea of jotting down some notes as I read along. Now, given that I have the book out and want to read it, I'll proceed with that plan, though slowly.

I'll read the book in fits and starts and record my reactions accordingly. This post, then, will grow over time as I write down notes in the order of the book's presentation. My early questions and criticisms may be answered as I read further along. I may update previous entries as I discover new information or consider additional points. Readers with pertinent information are encouraged to send it to me via email. Perhaps my approach, though disorganized, may at least reveal some important revelations and problems in the book.

Preface

xi. I find it interesting that Heller was introduced to Rand by Suze Orman, who handed Heller a copy of Fransico d'Anconia's "money speech" from Atlas.

xii. Heller writes that Rand "had often presented this long passage [the money speech] to potential new disciples, including Alan Greenspan." Why does she use the term "disciples," which has an obvious religious connotation, rather than "supporter," "student," or "follower?" Already on the second page of the text Heller seems to be planting the dubious notion that Rand was somehow a cult-like figure, a claim cultivated by the Brandens. I'll be interested to see how Heller returns to this theme.

xii. Heller writes that Rand "became the guiding spirit of libertarianism and of White House economic policy in the 1970s and 1980s." I will be interested to see how Heller will treat Rand's frequent and pointed protestations that she was no libertarian, though obviously many libertarians loved her works and continue to value them.

Heller's claim about the "1970s and 1980s" is, at best, imprecise. Nixon served as president until August of 1974, and his policies were the opposite of what Rand endorsed. Gerald Ford was more on board with Rand's agenda. Carter served from 1977 through 1981. What about Reagan, who defined the politics of the 1980s? Rand (http://www.dianahsieh.com/cgi-bin/blog/view.pl?postid=8393303571523517605) wrote, "I urge you, as emphatically as I can, not to support the candidacy of Ronald Reagan." Of course Reagan did nominate Greenspan, Rand's "disciple," to the Fed, an institution which Rand opposed. George H. W. Bush, who rounded out the '80s, was an even worse disaster by Rand's standards.

xii. Heller incorrectly refers to "...Libertarian Party founder John Hospers..." The LP was founded by a group of Colorado political activists that included David Nolan, (http://www.freecolorado.com/colib/0111nolan.html) whom I've interviewed on the matter. I notice that Heller correctly notes on page 330 that "Hospers... became the first Libertarian Party candidate for president of the United States in 1972..."

xiii. Heller writes, "'No one helped me, nor did I think it was anyone's duty to help me,' [Rand] wrote in an afterword to Atlas Shrugged. In fact, many people helped her." Yet Heller is taking this quote out of context. In the same afterword, Rand acknowledges Aristotle and her husband. Elsewhere she lavishes praise on those who helped get her books published. The sentence immediately preceding the one that Heller quotes is this: "I had a difficult struggle, earning my living at odd jobs, until I could make a financial success of my writing. No one helped me..." Obviously, then, Rand's claim is that she earned her own living.

xiii. Heller writes, "Rand wanted to be the architect of an American utopia that looked backward to the gilded age of American industrial titans." It is true that Rand legitimately saw late 1800s America as the freest period in history. But she recognized that the area remained tainted by bad philosophical premises as well as various political controls of the economy. She looked forward to a future of liberty and unfettered prosperity. Rand, who lived through the Russian Revolution, obviously knew the meaning of utopia (literally "no place"), and the political ideas she advocated, rooted in the facts of human nature, show little similarity to utopian theories. Certainly she wanted a better world, a freer world. But she saw clearly that no political system can wipe out human error, and she wrote at length about the long and continuous political struggle necessary to achieve an incrementally freer society.

xiii. Helller writes that Rand "was a far shrewder social critic than she was a visionary." Granting that Rand was a superb social critic, I will simply state my disagreement with Heller's unfounded remark about Rand's alleged paucity of vision.

xiii. I find Heller's comparison of Rand to Charles Dickens, in terms them being social critics (though with dramatically different ideologies), interesting.

xiv. Heller writes, "Because I am not an advocate for Rand's ideas, I was denied access to the Ayn Rand Papers at the Ayn Rand Institute [ARi] in Irvine, California, where copies of her unpublished letters and diaries, calendars, photographs, and other documents reside."

Heller's comment here is, at best, incomplete. Burns was granted access to the archives, despite the fact that Burns is "not an advocate for Rand's ideas."

My understanding is that Heller was denied access to select papers, not because of Heller's views of Rand, but because the owners of those papers have decided to give another biographer first crack at them, after which they will become generally available.

I have asked Jeff Britting of ARI to clarify the Institute's handling of Heller's requests, but Britting has not responded to my inquiries. I have just asked Heller to provide details about the matter, and I'll be happy to publish her response. [January 6 Update: Today I received an e-mail from Britting, who explained a bit more about the situation with the archives but said his e-mail is not intended for publication. He pointed me to the (http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_ayn_rand_archives_index) archives page and said he'd be publishing more on the matter in the future. I have not heard from Heller at this time.]

xiv. Heller lists the following sources of information for her book:

* Russian government archives, accessed "by a Russian research team"

* "Unpublished tape recordings" presented by ARI

* Taped interviews of Rand by Barbara Branden

* Freedom of Information Act documents

* "Interviews with Rand's friends" recorded by Jeff Walker and Marc Schwalb [January 6 Update: William Scott Scherk claims in the comments that Schwalb did not personally record interviews, but instead purchased recorded interviews from Barbara Branden. Heller writes, "Journalist Jeff Walker and collector Marc Schwalb let me listen to privately recorded interviews with Rand's friends..."]

* "More than fifty interviews" conducted by Heller with people who knew Rand, including Nathaniel Branden

* "Letters to and about Rand" in libraries and archives around the country

Skiff Promises "Multiple Formats" for Ebooks

January 5, 2010

In my (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2009/12/ebookscom-offers-online-book-viewing.html) quest to keep tabs on the eublishing industry, today I glanced at articles about (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703580904574638630584151614.html) Apple's forthcoming Tablet (which will be much more than an ereader) and (http://www.skiff.com/press.html) Skiff, a company that promises to produce an innovative ereader and sell digital content.

As cool as the Tablet looks, it also promises to be fairly expensive—more costly than low-end notebooks—and I'm not convinced that sort of screen can function well as an ereader, which should allow for hours of comfortable reading without undue eye strain.

Judging from the (http://www.skiff.com/skiff-reader_photos.html) pictures and descriptions, the Skiff screen looks like it will be a good reader—and apparently you can even bend the device without ill effect. I'm a bit put off by the large size of the machine: 9 by 11 inches. I want an ereader that I can carry around more easily.

I sent Skiff some questions, and a representative sent me some answers, though they weren't very specific. I asked:

Will Skiff sell works with multiple publishing options, including HTML, pdf, and Digital Editions, or will Skiff, like Amazon, sell only works converted to a proprietary format?

In other words, will purchasers of Skiff content need to download a Skiff reader (for non-Skiff devices), or will that content read on existing and popular software?

Also, will Skiff release a smaller version of its reader for those of us who would prefer something easier to carry around?

This should be an exciting year in the epublishing industry, and I look forward to seeing how Skiff competes.

Here's the email I got back:

Ari,

Thanks for your interest in Skiff. I'll answer as much as I can at this point in time.

The Skiff service will support multiple formats. More details to come.

One of the unique benefits of Skiff's platform is the ability for content publishers to submit their curated content (i.e., branded newspapers, magazines, etc.) into the Skiff Platform, where it is then tailored to match the unique characteristics of different devices that utilize a variety of different screen technologies—from smartphones to eReaders.

The Skiff digital storefront will allow consumers to easily access and download a wide assortment of newspapers, magazines, books, blogs and other content from multiple publishers for use on dedicated Skiff e-reading devices, other e-readers and innovative devices, as well as multi-purpose devices such as smartphones, netbooks, tablets, notebooks and PCs—as well as via the Web. Items purchased from the Skiff storefront will be delivered to these devices via 3G, WiFi and other forms of connectivity.

We look forward to your following Skiff as we make additional announcements during 2010 in the lead up to our formal launch.

Chaim

Chaim Haas

Senior Vice President, Technology & Emerging Media

Of course, whether Skiff lives up to the company's own hype remains to be seen.

January 6 Update: (http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/industry/4341627.html) Popular Mechanics has an update. One detail is that "while the screen is flexible, the device itself is not."

Microwaved Eggs

January 5, 2010

It occurred to me that often only the complicated dishes make it into published recipes. But I usually eat very simple meals that require no recipe. A standard dish for me is vegetables, meat, and spices sauteed in coconut, olive, or stock fat. I don't mind cooking, but it is by no means a passion of mine, and usually I focus on quick and easy dishes.

Like fried or scrambled eggs.

Only now I usually make them in the microwave rather than in a skillet. This is faster and it generates fewer dishes. There are two basic ways to microwave eggs. You can microwave a single egg in a bowl for around 40 seconds. If you don't break the yoke, the egg hardly sticks to the bowl.

Or you can microwave more than one egg, with or without additions. For example, yesterday I microwaved two eggs, sausage, and two cubes of (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2009/11/baked-pancakes-cauliflower-puree.html) cauliflower puree. First I microwaved the puree for around a minute to dethaw it. Then I stirred in the eggs and sausage. The edges tend to cook faster, so you have to stir it about every half a minute for a few minutes. This sticks more than does a single egg with an unbroken yoke. But it's still easy, fast, and good.

What Are Conservatives Trying to Conserve?

January 5, 2010

The following article originally was (http://www.gjfreepress.com/article/20100104/OPINION/100109982/1021&parentprofile=1062) published on January 4 by Grand Junction's Free Press.

What are conservatives trying to conserve?

by Linn and Ari Armstrong

Conservatives are a strange bunch. They support free trade, except when they want to outlaw or restrict select medicinal plants or forcibly stop employers from hiring willing workers of their choice.

Conservatives support freedom of conscience, except when they want to censor what they declare to be obscene works, punish the mishandling of the flag, or force people to fund religious programs with which they disagree.

Conservatives advocate strong national defense, except when they support a war the president declares unwinnable, along with years of "nation building" at the expense of American lives.

Conservatives endorse federalism, except when they want the national government to tell states how to handle marriage.

Conservatives uphold independence, except when they call on politicians to imprison women for getting an abortion.

Conservatives tout the dignity of the individual, unless that individual happens to be gay or a brown-skinned laborer from Mexico.

Conservatives declare to stand for time-honored principles, except when they "compromise" to raise taxes, pass smoking bans in violation of property rights, expand health welfare, endorse corporate welfare, and use the invasive tax code to crack down on the "crime" of productive work.

We have to wonder just what it is that conservatives are trying to conserve. How can we make sense out of the hash of modern conservatism?

A common explanation is that conservatism is a "fusion" of faith-based tradition and libertarian free-market leanings. There's something to that. The problem is that faith often clashes with tradition, while libertarian government-bashing often clashes with individual rights.

The libertarian anti-government strain is a minor part of the conservative movement. Many libertarians join their own party, avoid politics, or loudly distance themselves from conservatives. Down-with-government conservatism, illustrated by Grover Norquist's infamous and unfortunate line about drowning government in a bathtub, alienates the general public and tends toward the reactionary, in the sense of reacting against anything to do with government rather than championing some positive value.

That leaves three major conservative traditions: tradition, faith, and liberty.

Tradition explains why so many conservatives oppose gay marriage and immigration. They want things to stay just the way they are. The problem is knowing which traditions to conserve and which to change. Slavery was a tradition for many centuries, overturned by liberal-minded abolitionists who wanted to fundamentally change society. Rule by king was a tradition.

For too many conservatives, tradition is just a rationalization for advocating policies and cultural trends without the bother of having to justify them on moral grounds. Tradition is the fall-back of the thoughtless.

Sensing the weakness of a strictly traditional approach, many conservatives turn to religious faith. Christians may lay aside Old Testament calls to murder people for homosexuality, witchcraft, adultery, and parent-cursing.

Christians cannot avoid the fact that the New Testament "contains scores of commandments demanding the redistribution of wealth and property from those who created it to those who did not," as Craig Biddle points out in The Objective Standard. The Marxist injunction, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs," finds its "origin in the Bible," Biddle notes.

Many Christians openly apply Biblical principles to the welfare state; for example, the Colorado Catholic Conference advocated tax-funded "health care coverage for all people from conception until natural death."

Conservative Christians do a lot of comical dancing trying to pass through the eye of a needle with their riches intact. Yet, in terms of Biblical principles, the best such conservatives can do is say that, yes, people have a moral duty to redistribute their wealth, only they should be free to do it or not. The fact remains that the Bible says precious little in defense of political and economic liberty, individual rights, or the value of economic prosperity.

As Sarah Palin writes in her biography, her brand of conservatism rests on the alleged truth "that man is fallen." The presumption is that people just aren't good enough to live in a socialist order. Instead, such conservatives argue, politics must cope with vicious humanity. Then faith-based conservatives who appeal to our "fallen" nature wonder why they can't capture the moral high ground.

We are conservatives only in the final sense of the term: we want to conserve liberty and indeed radically expand it. We hold that liberty is not a gift from men or the gods, but a necessity for thriving human life. To live successfully, we need the freedom to act on our own judgment regarding ourselves and our property. Government must protect our rights, but it must be restrained by a written constitution that limits political power. Unlike the libertarians, we are not against government; we are for a government that robustly protects individual rights.

The interesting thing about this brand of conservatism is that it sounds a lot like what liberalism was always supposed to be, until its purported defenders twisted that movement to the opposite purpose. The best conservatives, it turns out, are also the only true liberals.

Comment by Andrew: although a little over generalized this was really good.
as a libertarian this kinda pins the tail on the donkey about how i feel about conservatisim, it's full of exceptions. little suggestion. where you say
"Rule by king was a tradition"
you should either expound on that or omit it. it seems kinda weird dangling on the end of that paragraph.

Comment by Elisheva Hannah Levin: Hmmm. I like the overall discussion, but would pick a bone with you over your definition of libertarianism as a form of conservatism. It is not, although it is often lumped in with the "right". Libertarians reject statist approaches, whether it be the desire of conservatives to legislate their religious morality, or the desire of progressives to redistribute the wealth created by others. Your explication of the differences between libertarian thought and conservative thought, following your broad generalization is more correct. All in all, I enjoyed this little essay.

Avatar: Cinematic History, 'Matrix for Hippies'

January 12, 2010

Avatar just set a new standard for blockbuster movies. Before, 3D was a fun frill. Some movies happened to be filmed in 3D. An animated film might throw a ball in your face. But Avatar is a 3D movie, fundamentally. From the numerous flight scenes to the battles to the crowd shots, 3D is built into the way the movie is made. Immersive" is a term I've heard, and it holds.

Moreover, the computer imagery is integrated with the live-action filming in a nearly seamless way. There might have been a couple brief scenes where I noticed the line between the "real" world and computer graphics. And this film creates a new race of humanoids in addition to putting people into all sorts of cool gadgets. Gone is the clunky, awkward, somewhat spooky imagery of movies like Polar Express. Robert Zemeckis looks like he belongs to the previous millennium. Avatar creates a beautiful, stunning world.

If you're going to see Avatar, then, there's no use waiting for the DVD. See it in all its glory, in 3D, preferably on an IMAX screen. Unlike most films, it's actually worth the extra money.

Avatar also brings good news to theaters. With the expansion of large, high-definition televisions and blu-ray movie releases, the big screen needs something extra to keep up. Avatar offers that. (Will movie-disc releases start selling in 3D, and will families start collecting 3D glasses for all?)

Only days ago I swore I would never watch Avatar, after reading a summary of its story. But I started getting mostly-positive feedback from people I trust. Once I decided to see it, I saw it twice in a day.

The great irony of the movie, as others have noted, is that its cinematic technique, which epitomizes the union of humanity and technology, carries an anti-technology theme in its story.

What follows below reveals significant elements of the movie's plot.

The basic story is that a human corporation sends a mission to Pandora to mine the substance unobtanium (or (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unobtainium) "unobtainiam"). (Corporate bad guy: there's a new one for Hollywood.) The corporation funds a scientific venture to send human-controlled avatars—alien bodies linked to the minds of humans—to make-nice with the locals. When the miners, backed by hired military guns, want to relocate the locals, the scientists rebel and join the aliens to send the miners packing.

The movie actually offers three stories: a voyage of personal adventure and discovery, the struggle of the locals to protect their homes, and the environmentalist theme.

To me, the most compelling part of the movie is the personal adventure of the hero, Jake Sully, who had lost the use of his legs while on a military expedition earthside. His twin brother, a scientist for whom an avatar was created, dies, so the corporation funding the venture hires Sully to fill the role. (The avatars are keyed to the biology of a particular person, which is why the twin can step in.) Sully spends several years in a cryogenic state during travel, then wheels out onto an alien world, where he gets a new life (and new legs) in his avatar.

Sully explores this new world, naturally, with the beautiful daughter of the tribe's first couple, and the love story is nicely done. (Zoe Saldana scored huge with the role following her stint aboard the Enterprise.)

James Cameron cleverly created a lower-gravity world inhabited by very-resilient aliens, making possible the amazing aerial scenes. It is a world in which the tall, fit aliens ride dragons and bound around treetops in a way that would make Tarzan envious. Apparently unobtanium keeps a range of gigantic islands floating; they look spectacular on screen.

Also a joy is Sully's budding relationship with the hard-ass leader of the avatar program, Dr. Grace Augustine. The two actors, Sam Worthington and Sigourney Weaver, create a sparkling relationship that's great fun to watch. (Indeed, the entire cast is great.) The "adventure" story, then, is beautifully done.

The "home defense" story has aptly been compared to the (http://www.ij.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=920&Itemid=165) Kelo case. Mean guys come to destroy your home; you kick their ass. Good, basic story, and it offers Sully a chance to play the hero and win back his girl (not to mention ride the baddest dragon in the skies).

I'll need to shift into sarcasm mode to explain the environmentalist aspects of the story, which descend to the frankly ridiculous. It often feels like Cameron hired a starry-eyed, catch-phrasing eighth-grader to help him write the script.

Just by coincidence, this highly valuable substance, unobtanium—the uses for which are never mentioned in the film but which (http://james-camerons-avatar.wikia.com/wiki/Unobtanium) apparently is a superconductor—is located only on the only other world in the entire universe known to be inhabited. (Pandora is a moon.) I didn't count the number of other moons and nearby celestial bodies, but apparently unobtanium is not located on any of those, either, just the single moon of Pandora. According to one (http://www.docstoc.com/docs/14294813/Avatar-Scriptment-by--James-Cameron) script treatment, unobtanium is "unique to Pandora." How the evil corporation discovered unobtanium and its uses in the first place, then, escapes me.

By another astounding coincidence, on the entire moon of Pandora, home of some fifteen clans, each of which apparently contains a few thousand members at most—so we're talking about a miniscule total population—the highest concentration of unobtanium on the entire moon is found—you guessed it—right under the treehouse of our favorite clan.

Nevermind the fact that this clashes with the apparently large quantities of unobtanium found in the floating islands. According to the script treatment, the miners are supposed to be after the floating islands, which are sacred to the locals. Apparently Cameron didn't think it would be dramatic enough to just make off with a floating island; the corporation had to destroy the giant treehouse instead.

So let's recap. According to the movie:

* Unobtanium is found (in mineable quantities) only on Pandora, a single moon in the entire known universe.

* It is cheaper to send hundreds of people across space in cryogenic storage, complete with gigantic space ships and lots of military equipment, and to finance technology for the complete transference of human minds into test-tube-grown aliens, than it is to synthesize the substance.

* Even though we currently know of no moon in the entire universe that hosts life of any kind, this particular moon does.

* Not only does Pandora host life, but it hosts intelligent humanoids (who happen to look fantastic in jungle-wear).

* Even though there is an entire range of gigantic floating islands of unobtanium, in addition to the surface of a large and sparsely-populated moon, far and away the best place to mine the substance is directly under the village of the local clan.

So, in other words, the premise for the entire movie is completely unbelievable. Perhaps "unobtanium" more aptly describes the otherwise-unobtainable plot elements pulled from Cameron's behind.

Let us move on to the the Noble Savage motif. Amazingly, the locals have managed to find a gigantic tree just perfect for housing an entire village. Moreover, despite no evidence of agricultural activity, the tribe has managed to settle in just one place. Unlike settled but primitive tribes of our planet, they have not exhausted the local firewood supply or the game animals. It is a veritable Garden of Eden, Pandora.

Another amazing thing about the tribe is that its youth grow up to be great warriors, even though, apparently, they never actually fight anybody (except the evil humans!), for the Pandorans are a peaceful lot. If there has been warfare among the fifteen (or so) tribes, there is no mention of it in the movie.

Another amazing fact: while initiation rites of tribes on our planet have often involved human sacrifice and bloody beatings, on Pandora when you get all grown up you get to climb up into the floating islands and pick out your very own pet dragon to ride. Granted, this process can be a little tricky, but, hey, pet dragon!

As Sully suggests, the evil humans have absolutely nothing, no form of technology whatsoever, that the locals might have any interest in. Anything beyond the simple life of eating wild fruit, hunting wild game with bows and arrows, and (don't forget!) riding dragons would only detract from the idyllic Pandoran lifestyle. The Pandorans don't want computers, telecommunications, surgical instruments, metal needles or cooking pots or arrowheads, energy production (for the Pandoran climate is always perfectly temperate), and so on.

It would be an interesting exercise to calculate the total amount of gasoline burned, coal burned, and materials mined in the production and distribution of Avatar. Include all the facilities, all the gear, all the trips, all the maintenance of stars and personnel, all the theaters and their heating, all the car trips taken to watch the movie, and so on. Compare that to the similarly-figured costs of an average American lifespan, and that will tell you about how seriously James Cameron takes his own environmentalist dogma.

The Gaia theme is actually more interesting as science-fiction. On our planet, the notion that the earth itself is a living or conscious entity is fanciful, pseudo-religious environmentalism. Avatar asks, what if the earth really were alive? Pandora is alive, or at least its network of interconnected tree roots form a vast organism that functions something like a brain.

Even more interesting: the local people can "jack in" to this super-tree-computer through specialized fibers coming out of their hair. It's like the Matrix for hippies (as I've heard others note). In a real sense this network offers something like immortality, because part of one's essence joins with the trees. (Not explained is how the plains clan taps into treenet.)

At one point Sully notes that Evil Humans have "killed their mother [earth]," and "nothing" on earth is green anymore. Of course that prediction is nonsense. Unlike the science-fiction moon of Pandora, on earth there is no conscious super-organism consisting of tree roots. Moreover, the rise of industry and technology is quite consistent with maintaining lots of greenery and a healthy environment. A space-faring civilization would also be able to bring in resources (including energy) from off-planet and set up production facilities elsewhere in the solar system.

Still, the science-fiction idea of a conscious tree network is interesting, and it poses a special dilemma in terms of developing resources. I imagine the biological barriers to the development of such a life form are insurmountable. If it were possible, such a unique biological entity would require new philosophical thinking. Presumably a mining operation could at least operate on parts of the moon without trees, such as the plains and oceans (or the conveniently floating islands).

The upshot is that Avatar offers some really interesting science-fiction mingled with some pretty silly fantasy-fiction. It's core story is a compelling one, and it is told artfully and with innovative technology. Ultimately, what saves the film is that its method of production rebels against its affectations.

Comment by Richard: Good review although my personal take on it wasn't as good. I thought the story and the native characters were incredibly shrill and unlikeable. "* It is cheaper to send hundreds of people across space in cryogenic storage, complete with gigantic space ships and lots of military equipment, and to finance technology for the complete transference of human minds into test-tube-grown aliens, than it is to synthesize the substance." Ha, yes. But don't forget that even after they've spent what I could only assume is billions of dollars and years, if not decades, creating/growing the avatar bodies, ultimately they just wind up storming the damn tree anyway! I'd also say taking the Gia super-organism network as a plot point worthy of deep consideration is also giving Cameron more credit than he deserves. I think it was simply meant to symbolize the way environmentalism treats everything as interconnected. Cameron has said he didn't intend for Avatar to be an anti Bush-the-oil-stealer tirade. According to him Avatar is a movie about a clash between two cultures. That's what he says at least, but I can't help but think the way his ideas manifest ultimately betray him anyways.

Comment by PositiveEnergy: I find this review "reasonable", but I find the reviewers analysis of the "management" of our planet laughable.
Which is exactly why I think they had an environmental message in the film. I quote:"the rise of industry and technology is quite consistent with maintaining lots of greenery and a healthy environment. A space-faring civilization would also be able to bring in resources (including energy) from off-planet and set up production facilities elsewhere in the solar system."
First off we have a situation where we have devastated over 90% of the forests of this planet. Replanting is a ruse the vast majority of logging is clear cutting. We have mines where a few hundred people are employed, but the ore is treated with toxic chemicals and the pilings are dumped in adjacent valleys and pollute downstream water adversely affecting tens of thousands of people. It costs billions of dollars to launch one shuttle, so much so the Republicans want to shelve it in favor of 1960's single rocket methodology. There is no inhabitable space body anywhere we know of and certainly our planet with it's meager supply of fossil fuel is the only place we can get it...just like unobtanuim is only available on Pandora. Just take a moment to figure out how much it would cost to mine chromium on Mars and rocket it back here. You couldn't afford it. Mankind has lived on this planet for unknown eons...but we know he has been a modern creature just like us for about 10,000 years because of his cities and communities and his language carvings in rock, and scratchings on skins, parchment, papyrus, eventually paper and now electronically. So, we have so poorly managed our precious resources that we hear all the time there is only 5o years of oil left or 300 years of coal, etc. What is mankind supposed to do in 500 years? Let alone 5000 years. The average money grubbing corporate Board doesn't care. They are after short term riches and simply relate the "Future" to the money they can gain from it. We had to foce the auto companies to put seat belts in cars. They didn't care that people were dying in crashes. Hello??? The air, land, rivers and ocean ARE polluted and the pro-corporate (pro money) crowd simply denies it and pays characters like Rush Limbaugh to spew BS to dis-enroll voters from believing the world's scientists. These same pro-corporate propagandists misquote and falsify comments from those same scientists. The judicial branch of government has not been infiltrated by corporate lackeys and overturned 60 years of efforts to prevent corporate money abuse and twisting of our government by completely removing restrictions on corporate campaign spending. So I'd say we have a real problem. This writer lives in la la land and is failing to grasp the reality of our times. It is a sad condition of ignorance that the corporations deliberately work at extending. This movie tried to present a foreign people who rejected corporate greed.

Comment by Ari: "PositiveEnergy" is ignoring the havoc wreaked on local environments of primitive peoples as well as the general ecological improvements of the industrial West. I could not afford to fly to New York City even a few decades ago, but now a ticket costs around a day's wages. There are some who see the future of humanity as wallowing in the mud. There are others who see our future as reaching for the stars.

Colorado 2010 Candidate Survey

January 12, 2010

Created by Ari and Linn Armstrong

[January 24 Update: Links to candidates' replies and related material are posted following the survey.]

The following survey is open to all Colorado candidates running for the 2010 elections. Candidates should fill out the survey and return it via e-mail to ari(at)freecolorado(dotcom). The survey should be sent as text only within the body of an e-mail, not as an attachment. Answers will be published in full and without editing at FreeColorado.com. Candidates should include contact information for verification purposes.

We will personally send the survey to all major-party candidates running for governor and U.S. Senate. We may send the survey to other candidates as well. We do not have the resources to send the survey to—and track answers from—every single candidate in the state. However, all Colorado candidates are welcome to respond to the survey, and FreeColorado.com will publish every reply received.

Obviously we may choose to quote from a candidate's answers in our own articles, as may other journalists.

Voters interested in the answers of a particular candidate are encouraged to ask that candidate to send us a reply. Moreover, we encourage other journalists to press candidates for their answers to these important questions.

We have heard from various candidates who decline to answer at least some surveys. We strongly encourage candidates to answer ours. We believe that Colorado voters deserve to know where candidates stand on the issues.

Our goal is to fairly elicit a candidate's substantive views on a variety of critical issues. While many of the questions may be answered yes or no, we encourage candidates to offer whatever nuances they deem appropriate. If you think a question is loaded, tell us why. If you want to explain how your thinking has evolved or how your answer squares with your record, please do so. If you have not developed a position on some issue, say as much. We will reproduce your answers as given. We do ask that candidates not confuse nuance with evasiveness.

Note: Some questions are marked for state-level or federal-level candidates. While all candidates are welcome to answer all the questions, candidates for one level of government need not answer questions specific to another level.

We believe that candidates can be fair to voters only by revealing their views on the important issues of the day. We look forward to reading and publishing the replies.

SUMMARY

In a Twitter-length reply (140 characters maximum), please state why you are running for political office.

ECONOMIC ISSUES

* Should the federal or state government spend money in an attempt to "stimulate" the economy? If so, on what sorts of projects?

* Should tax dollars be directed toward energy projects, tourism, or any other form of business subsidies?

* (State-Level Candidates:) Should the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights be kept completely intact? If not, how should it be altered?

* (State-Level Candidates:) Should Amendment 23 be repealed, maintained, or modified?

* (State-Level Candidates:) Should any particular state taxes or fees (such as the state corporate income tax or the subjects of the tax-cutting initiatives) be repealed or reduced? Should any be added or increased?

* Should state or federal spending (depending on which office you seek) be higher or lower than it is currently?

* Should the state or federal minimum wage (depending on which office you seek) be repealed, maintained, or increased?

* Should college education be subsidized by tax dollars?

* Should antitrust law or its enforcement be changed?

* (Federal-level candidates:) Should Sarbanes-Oxley be repealed?

SOCIAL AND CHURCH/STATE ISSUES

* What do you believe is meant by the "separation of church and state," and do you endorse it?

* Should religious institutions receive tax dollars for providing welfare or other faith-based services?

* Should the teaching of creationism or Intelligent Design be subsidized by tax dollars?

* Should tax-funded schools establish a period of permitted or required prayer?

* Should government officials promote religiously oriented displays and comments on government property and at government events?

* Do you support gay marriage?

* If you answered no to the question above, do you support domestic partnerships, civil unions, or comparable legal recognition of gay couples?

* Should gay couples be allowed to adopt children by the same standards as heterosexual couples?

* Should government never, always, or sometimes mandate parental notification and consent before a minor may legally obtain an abortion, and, if sometimes, under what conditions?

* Should government mandate waiting periods or ultrasounds before a woman may legally obtain an abortion?

* Do you endorse the "personhood" measure that may appear on the 2010 ballot?

* Should abortion be legal in cases of fetal deformity?

* Should abortion be legal in cases of rape or incest?

* Should abortion be legal in cases of risk to the woman's life, as determined by the health professional selected by that woman?

* Should elective abortion be legal?

* If you believe that abortion should be legally restricted, what criminal penalties do you advocate for a woman and her doctor for obtaining or facilitating an illegal abortion?

* Would execution ever be an appropriate penalty for obtaining or facilitating illegal abortions?

* Should types of birth control be legal that may prevent a fertilized egg or zygote from implanting in the uterus?

* Should fertility treatments be legal that may result in the freezing or destruction of a fertilized egg or zygote?

* Should research involving the use of embryonic stem cells be legal?

* Should abortions or embryonic stem cell research be subsidized by tax dollars?

IMMIGRATION

* (Federal-level candidates:) Should the U.S. expand a legal guest-worker program or legal immigration, and, if so, by how much?

* (State-Level Candidates:) Should Colorado government force employers to verify with the federal government the legal status of potential employees, and, if so, what penalties should apply for failure to do so?

* Should federal or state tax-funded benefits (depending on which office you seek), including K-12 education, be extended only to U.S. citizens, to legal immigrants and guest workers, or to everyone in the U.S. including illegal immigrants?

PROPERTY RIGHTS

* What restrictions, if any, should be placed on the use of eminent domain?

* Do you endorse the use of eminent domain in the case of the Pinon Canyon military expansion? Do you support the military expansion if it does not involve eminent domain?

* Should the Endangered Species Act be altered or differently enforced?

* (State-Level Candidates:) Should the smoking ban be maintained, expanded, or repealed? Should it apply to on-stage performances?

BILL OF RIGHTS

* Should McCain-Feingold and state campaign finance restrictions be repealed, maintained, or expanded?

* Should the federal government control what radio or television stations may broadcast?

* Should the FTC's rules regarding blogger endorsements be rescinded?

* Should students with licenses be legally permitted to carry concealed handguns on the property of tax-subsidized colleges?

* Should additional restrictions be added (or repealed) on gun ownership? Please specify.

* Do you believe that desecration of the U.S. flag should be outlawed by Constitutional amendment?

* Do you believe that pornography or obscene materials involving consenting adults should be legally restricted?

OTHER

* Should state or federal laws (depending on which office you seek) pertaining to marijuana be altered, and, if so, how?

* (State-Level Candidates:) Should rules pertaining to petitioners be altered, and, if so, how?

* If there is any important issue that you believe we have missed, please state what it is and state your position on it.

Thank you.

(http://www.freecolorado.com/2010/01/candidates-should-giddy-up-and-answer.html) Candidates Should Giddy Up and Answer Survey (Free Press column)

(http://www.freecolorado.com/2010/02/at-least-dan-maes-answered-questions.html) At Least Dan Maes Answered the Questions (Free Press column)

(http://www.freecolorado.com/2010/01/curtis-harris-colorado-2010-candidate.html) Curtis Harris Libertarian for Congress

(http://www.freecolorado.com/2010/01/dan-maes-colorado-2010-candidate-survey.html) Dan Maes Republican for Governor

(http://www.freecolorado.com/2010/01/rich-hand-colorado-2010-candidate.html) Rich Hand Independent for Governor

(http://www.freecolorado.com/2010/02/john-finger-colorado-2010-candidate.html) John Finger Libertarian for U.S. Senate

(http://blog.ariarmstrong.com/2010/02/cleve-tidwell-colorado-2010-candidate.html) Cleve Tidwell Republican for U.S. Senate

(http://blog.ariarmstrong.com/2010/04/john-hargis-colorado-2010-candidate.html) John Hargis Independent for Third Congressional

Curtis Harris: Colorado 2010 Candidate Survey

January 13, 2010

Following are the unedited answers of Curtis Harris to the (http://www.freecolorado.com/2010/01/colorado-2010-candidate-survey.html) Colorado 2010 Candidate Survey.

If nothing else, Harris, a third-party candidate for the the Second Congressional, gets points for speed. He was the first candidate to reply to the survey.

SUMMARY

In a Twitter-length reply (140 characters maximum), please state why you are running for political office.

The present US Government is driving America to socialism and economic disaster. Both major political parties and the Congress are at the heart of the problem. I want to return the Federal government to its Constitutional limits and restore individual liberty in this country.

ECONOMIC ISSUES

* Should the federal or state government spend money in an attempt to "stimulate" the economy? If so, on what sorts of projects?

No. Economies are stimulated by economic freedom.

* Should tax dollars be directed toward energy projects, tourism, or any other form of business subsidies?

No. Corporate welfare is the result of or leads to government corruption. There is no place for it in a free economy.

* Should state or federal spending (depending on which office you

seek) be higher or lower than it is currently?

Much lower.

* Should the state or federal minimum wage (depending on which office you seek) be repealed, maintained, or increased?

Repeal the Federal minimum wage. The States are free to chose their policy. Minimum wages are a proven killer of entry-level jobs.

* Should college education be subsidized by tax dollars?

Certainly not Federal dollars. I would not support state funding, either.

* Should antitrust law or its enforcement be changed?

Yes. Federal enforcement is often politically motivated and/or based on flawed economics.

* (Federal-level candidates:) Should Sarbanes-Oxley be repealed?

Yes.

SOCIAL AND CHURCH/STATE ISSUES

* What do you believe is meant by the "separation of church and state," and do you endorse it?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

I endorse the First Amendment. That being said, this country is founded on the primacy of the rights of people as endowed by their Creator. The exclusion of general religious principles (morality) from government is a mistake.

* Should religious institutions receive tax dollars for providing welfare or other faith-based services?

Not from the Federal level.

* Should the teaching of creationism or Intelligent Design be subsidized by tax dollars?

Not from the Federal level.

* Should tax-funded schools establish a period of permitted or required prayer?

This should be up to local school districts and parents. A daily period of meditation would have done me a lot of good when I was in school.

* Should government officials promote religiously oriented displays and comments on government property and at government events?

Promote? No. Allow? Yes.

* Do you support gay marriage?

The Federal government has no role at all in marriage, gay or otherwise. I support loving, committed relationships. How the people of the States and local governments chose to define these is up to their people.

* If you answered no to the question above, do you support domestic partnerships, civil unions, or comparable legal recognition of gay couples?

These are different labels for marriage. The love and commitment in the relationship is all that matters.

* Should gay couples be allowed to adopt children by the same standards as heterosexual couples?

This is not a Federal matter. I do not have the knowledge or experience that would qualify me to have an opinion.

* Should government never, always, or sometimes mandate parental notification and consent before a minor may legally obtain an abortion, and, if sometimes, under what conditions?

Again, no Federal role. However, I support parental notification unless there is evidence of abuse within the family.

* Should government mandate waiting periods or ultrasounds before a woman may legally obtain an abortion?

Abortion is a State, not Federal matter. There are two questions here. Should abortion be legal? Should there be waiting periods?

As a practical matter, government should not interfere in family matters during the first trimester.

* Do you endorse the "personhood" measure that may appear on the 2010 ballot?

I am not familiar with this measure.

* Should abortion be legal in cases of fetal deformity?

Again, no Federal role. It is the family's decision.

* Should abortion be legal in cases of rape or incest?

Again, no Federal role. Otherwise, yes.

* Should abortion be legal in cases of risk to the woman's life, as determined by the health professional selected by that woman?

Again, no Federal role. There can be a big argument over what constitutes "risk of life".

* Should elective abortion be legal?

Again, no Federal role. As a practical matter, government should not interfere in family matters during the first trimester.

* If you believe that abortion should be legally restricted, what criminal penalties do you advocate for a woman and her doctor for obtaining or facilitating an illegal abortion?

I believe the States can decide on abortion restrictions after the first trimester. I have no opinion on penalties, except the one below.

* Would execution ever be an appropriate penalty for obtaining or facilitating illegal abortions?

No.

* Should types of birth control be legal that may prevent a fertilized egg or zygote from implanting in the uterus?

States choice. My personal opinion—Yes.

* Should fertility treatments be legal that may result in the freezing or destruction of a fertilized egg or zygote?

States choice. My personal opinion—Yes.

* Should research involving the use of embryonic stem cells be legal?

States choice. My personal opinion—Yes. The research should not be Federally funded.

* Should abortions or embryonic stem cell research be subsidized by tax dollars?

Certainly not Federal dollars.

IMMIGRATION

* (Federal-level candidates:) Should the U.S. expand a legal guest- worker program or legal immigration, and, if so, by how much?

Yes. I don't know how much, but there is unmet demand for skilled people in this country, so the additional visas or immigration would add value to our economy. People that love freedom and have the ability to add value to America should be welcomed.

The Federal government has a Constitutionally authorized role in immigration control.

Not to illegal immigrants. In any case, most Federal benefits are not authorized by the Constitution.

PROPERTY RIGHTS

* What restrictions, if any, should be placed on the use of eminent domain?

Eminent domain is for legitimate public use only and the property owner must be fairly compensated.

* Do you endorse the use of eminent domain in the case of the Pinon Canyon military expansion? Do you support the military expansion if it does not involve eminent domain?

I am not familiar enough with the situation to have an opinion at this time.

* Should the Endangered Species Act be altered or differently enforced?

Yes. It has become a weapon against healthy growth in our economy and often violates private property rights.

BILL OF RIGHTS

* Should McCain-Feingold and state campaign finance restrictions be repealed, maintained, or expanded?

McCain-Feingold should be repealed. It is unconstitutional. In general, campaign finance is a free speech issue and should not be restricted. Voters should have complete access to information on candidates' campaign funding.

* Should the federal government control what radio or television stations may broadcast?

Since these signals cross State lines and can have an effect on the welfare of the United States, there is a legitimate Federal role. Beyond protections against slander, libel, and content unsuitable for minors (violations of the rights of others), there should be no content control.

* Should the FTC's rules regarding blogger endorsements be rescinded?

Yes.

* Should students with licenses be legally permitted to carry concealed handguns on the property of tax-subsidized colleges?

Yes.

* Should additional restrictions be added (or repealed) on gun ownership? Please specify.

No additional restrictions. I think Colorado's laws in this area are a good model for the nation.

* Do you believe that desecration of the U.S. flag should be outlawed by Constitutional amendment?

No.

* Do you believe that pornography or obscene materials involving consenting adults should be legally restricted?

No.

OTHER

* Should state or federal laws (depending on which office you seek) pertaining to marijuana be altered, and, if so, how?

Again, no Federal role here. Repeal the federal laws and leave it to the States.

* (State-Level Candidates:) Should rules pertaining to petitioners be altered, and, if so, how?

* If there is any important issue that you believe we have missed, please state what it is and state your position on it.

Nothing is more important than getting the Federal government's fiscal and monetary policies under control. Many functions of the Federal government are not authorized by our Constitution and must be phased out. Corresponding cuts in spending, taxes and regulation will allow our economy to grow and produce the tax revenue necessary to eliminate the deficit and reduce government debt.

Thank you.

Curtis Harris

www.HarrisAgainstCongress.com

http://itsthecongressstupid.blogspot.com

Comment by Dale B. Halling: Curtis, I am amazed and happy to see you championing the repeal of Sarbanes Oxley. I have post suggesting the Colorado circumvent SOX by creating its own public stock market just for Colorado companies and investors, see http://hallingblog.com/2009/11/09/circumventing-sarbox-and-the-ipo-drought/. You have a number of good ideas. I think you should consider putting strengthening our patent system on your agenda. Note that this was part of the Reagan revolution. Patents are the free market way of encouraging invention and technological innovation is the only way to increases per capita incomes. Unfortunately, since 2000 we have passed a number of laws and regulations that are killing innovation in the US. The incredible innovation of the 90s was based on technology start-up companies built on intellectual capital, financial capital, and human capital. All three of the pillars have been under attack since 2000. Our patent laws have been weakened reducing the value of intellectual capital. Sarbanes Oxley has made it impossible to go public reducing financial capital for start-ups and the FASB rules on stock options have made it harder to attract human capital to start-ups. The Decline and Fall of the American Entrepreneur: How Little Known Laws and Regulations are Killing Innovation, explains these problems in more detail.

Giddy Up Time in Colorado

January 13, 2010

(http://www.peoplespresscollective.org/2010/01/teflon-john-hickenlooper-in-for-governor-scott-mcinnis-responds/) (See 8 minutes into John Hickenlooper's announcement for the governor's race.) [Image omitted.]

American Lung Association Earns "F" in Liberty

January 13, 2010

Dear (http://www.lungusa.org/about-us/contact-us.html) American Lung Association,

I am sorry to learn that your organization deserves an "F" in its understanding of liberty.

I was shocked to read in (http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_14176530) today's Denver Post that the ALA has endorsed the violation of property rights (via the smoking ban), higher taxes, and more state spending in Colorado.

While I approve of your organization's work to persuade people to quit smoking, in this case you are substituting the force of the state for rational argument. The ends do not justify the means, and you are promoting unjust policies that violate people's rights.

As harmful as smoking is, it is not nearly as harmful as a government that systematically violates property rights and economic liberty. By seeking to forcibly limit people's choices, you are preventing them from acting on their own judgment. The freedom to act on one's judgment, consistent with rights of property and person, is the bedrock of liberty and prosperity. If you take away people's ability to make mistakes, you necessarily undercut their ability to take responsibility for their lives and reach the heights of human potential.

The ALA should mind its proper business of persuading people to improve their health, not promote state policies that violate rights. It should go without saying that I do not donate to organizations that promote the violation of property rights and economic liberty.

Sincerely,

Ari Armstrong

The Haitian Catastrophe

January 14, 2010

Right now, the most important thing we can do as average Americans is to donate to charitable relief organizations, budgets permitting. (Jennifer and I chose the Red Cross.) And we can offer our gratitude and support for Americans going to Haiti to help. The magnitude of destruction is overwhelming.

We must also denounce the lunacy of people like Pat Robertson, who (http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0110/Robertson_Haiti_cursed_since_Satanic_pact.html) said the earthquake was a result of a Haitian "pact to the devil." (Mercifully, Rick Warren said on his Twitter (http://twitter.com/RickWarren) feed, "Labeling any natural disaster as God's judgment is nonsense.")

Then, as the dust settles, the majority of us not directly involved in relief efforts should contemplate how to mitigate the harm of such disasters in the future.

The first obvious thing to note about Haiti is that its government is corrupt and its people oppressed. The Heritage Foundation (http://www.heritage.org/Index/Ranking.aspx) ranks Haiti as "mostly unfree," ranking 147 out of 179, behind Russia.

A second point to note is that the Haitian government knew the earthquake was coming and did little to prepare for it. As Cassie Rodenberg (http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/4342434.html) reports for Popular Mechanics:

Back in 2008, Eric Calais and Paul Mann, geophysicists who study fault lines in the Caribbean, predicted that Haiti would soon face such a devastating quake. ...

Calais says that because Haiti poses safety concerns and a difficult work environment with a poor road access system, it's been neglected by seismologists. ...

But his research didn't translate well enough to elicit safety precautions before the quake. Though Calais notes that earthquakes can't be prevented, he says there was enough advance warning for the Haitian government to make preparations, and, in fact, his team alerted the government four to five years beforehand.

"We've told the Haitian government that the Enriquillo fault is a major player," Calais says. "We've told them exactly where the fault is. We've told them how fast it was building up elastic energy, and we've told them that right now, if it was to go, it could produce a 7.2 in magnitude or larger event."

The government has worked with the team and listened to its foreboding reports, Calais says, but for the most part, Haiti has failed to implement emergency plans and restructure crucial buildings.

Economic liberty and a government constrained by the rule of just law is necessary for human life. Statism kills. Corrupt governments kill. Stifling economic development kills.

(http://michellemalkin.com/2010/01/14/the-best-long-term-protection-against-catastrophe/) Michelle Malkin points to a (http://blog.heritage.org/2010/01/13/things-to-remember-while-helping-haiti/) post by Jim Roberts: "Long-term reforms for Haitian democracy and its economy are also badly overdue." (I profoundly disagree with Roberts's calls to violate economic liberty at home through forced wealth transfers in order to promote economic reform in Haiti.)

(http://stossel.blogs.foxbusiness.com/2010/01/14/a-tale-of-two-quakes/) John Stossel refers to the excellent summary of the matter by economist (http://orangepunch.freedomblogging.com/2010/01/14/earthquakes-and-economic-freedom/15931/) Don Boudreaux:

The ultimate tragedy in Haiti isn't the earthquake; it's that country's lack of economic freedom. The earthquake simply but catastrophically revealed the inhuman consequences of this fact.

Registering 7.0 on the Richter scale, the Haitian earthquake killed tens of thousands of people. But the quake that hit California's Bay Area in 1989 was also of magnitude 7.0. It, though, killed only 63 people.

This difference is due chiefly to Americans' greater wealth. With one of the freest economies in the world, Americans build stronger homes and buildings, and have better health-care and better search and rescue equipment. In contrast, burdened by one of the world's least-free economies, Haitians cannot afford to build sturdy structures. Nor can they afford the health-care and emergency equipment that we take for granted here in the U.S.

These stark facts should be a lesson for those who insist that human habitats are made more dangerous, and human lives put in greater peril, by freedom of commerce and industry.

If you want to live, if you want to promote human life, you must advocate capitalism.

The Perfect Ereader

January 18, 2010

I've been trying to keep tabs on the epublishing revolution. While I continue to believe that 2010 will be a breakthrough year for the industry, I also continue to be dismayed by the sorts of crappy ereaders I've been reading about. Following are the features I'd like to purchase (and refrain from purchasing) in an ereader, all nicely summarized (just in case an ereader manufacturer ever sees this). I imagine there are lots of consumers out there with similar preferences. Will 2010 be the year when the perfect ereader (for me) will become available on the market?

* I want a USB jack, and nothing more. I don't want wi-fi or wireless. Just the cable, please. And the low price that goes with it.

* I want a small screen. I want portability, not the ability to view a large-scale map of Colorado all at once. (Obviously I'm talking about the eye-friendly, low-power screen such as the one on the Kindle.)

* Don't give me an expensive and power-hungry touch screen. Just give me three or four simple buttons with an intuitive interface. I don't want to touch the words, just read them.

* For God's sake don't give me a mouse-scale keypad. All a keypad does is cause the device to be larger and more expensive, and irritate me whenever I have to look at it due to the fact that it's so completely worthless.

* The battery must be removable! Without specialized tools! When the battery dies—as it inevitably will—I just want to pop it out and replace it. Why anybody makes a device with locked-in batteries is utterly beyond me. Stupid, stupid design. (My criticism excludes very-small and inexpensive devices that aren't big enough for good battery-release mechanisms.)

* Don't give it locked-in internal memory. Just give it a slot for a standard flash card. That's it.

* Don't give it speakers! If I want to listen to something, I'll put it on my iPod. I'm not looking for the Swiss Army Knife of ereaders.

* The device should be able to easily read at least the following formats: plain text, pdf, html, and epub. Ideally, Amazon would license its format for use on other ereaders, too, but that would be far too easy, and it would make Amazon far too much money, to actually take place. That does, of course, create a dilemma for me. Amazon has the most ebooks at the most reasonable prices. Many epub formatted books are insanely expensive. I sincerely hope that somebody like Apple steps into the epublishing business to make widely-recognized formats competitively priced. Book publishers are mostly hurting themselves by not making epub or pdf ebooks available at reasonable prices.

* A selling price of $150 or less would be great. If Amazon can sell its hopped-up Kindle for $259, surely a usefully stripped-down device such as I describe could profitably sell for considerably less than that. (Indeed, I wish Amazon would come out with a stripped-down version of the Kindle.)

I don't know why ereader producers think that consumers want the fanciest, most expensive reader possible. Keep it simple and affordable. Build it, and I will read.

Coloradans Speak Out Against Obama Care

January 20, 2010

As Massachusetts voters filled Ted Kennedy's former Senate seat with a Republican, Coloradans rallied against the Democratic health bill, vowing to pass a state initiative blunting the force of the federal bill—should it pass and be signed into law by President Obama.

Neurosurgeon Sanat Dixit spoke out against the Democratic health bills:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S83_sLuggB0

Jon Caldara introduced the rest of the speakers and offered his own thoughts (presented here in a selection of clips).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bsbvXAIxos

I captured the views of some of the ralliers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QIv8xskURG0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-weXKMmrmo

State Senator Shawn Mitchell adds his concerns:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oBsXb3Tr7k

Here Justin Longo offers the perspective of a young buyer of a high-deductible health insurance plan:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgiNtTCdLEw

See the People's Press Collective for more [September 14, 2014 Update: That article no longer is available].

Dan Maes Gets Real; He and Acree Talk Health

January 21, 2010

(http://ariarmstrong.com/2009/11/the-mcinnis-juggernaut/) "Some guy named Dan Maes also remains in the race, and he has about the same chance of becoming the next governor of Colorado as I do."

(http://ariarmstrong.com/2009/12/tea-partiers-get-partisan/) "Anybody who thinks Dan Maes has any chance of winning the Republican primary and beating Bill Ritter is simply delusional."

(http://ariarmstrong.com/2009/11/dan-maes-describes-top-five-issues/) "Dan Maes doesn't have a chance in hell of becoming the next governor of Colorado."

Who wrote these nasty things about hard-working gubernatorial candidate Dan Maes? And what did Maes ever do to that vindictive SOB?

The lines are mine. And, while Maes has offered a pointed response, he's taken my needling well. And I respect that. An underdog who can't deal with people throwing scraps will never be anything more than an underdog.

Moreover, it seems like every political event I go to, Maes is there. I heard him give his stump speech last night at Liberty On the Rocks. I saw him Tuesday at the (http://ariarmstrong.com/2010/01/coloradans-speak-out-against-obama-care/) rally against Obama Care. I saw him last month at an Independence Institute holiday party, where Maes listened to my complaints for another twenty minutes or so. Maes takes questions—and answers them.

Meanwhile, this is the only sign I saw of Scott McInnis (the other Republican in the race) at Tuesday's rally:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DD4ZSEvBhow

(In fairness, McInnis has given (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-xu5pcFPtY) public addresses and uploaded some of these to YouTube.)

If memory serves, I first saw Maes June 27 of last year at an (http://ariarmstrong.com/2009/07/aurora-republicans-host-top-candidates/) Aurora Republican Forum. What I recall from his speech that day is that there was nothing important to recall. LIghtweight, I thought. But last night I saw a candidate for governor. He talked energy. He can effectively challenge Governor Ritter's "New Energy Economy" with the Real Energy Economy. He talked Constitutional restraints of federal power. He talked low taxes. He spoke with passion. He spoke from the heart.

What's more, Maes is a genuine guy. He's fun to talk to. He's fun to listen to. He's even fun to make fun of. McInnis, on the other hand, is well known for his testy personality and (http://bendegrow.com/2009/bizarre-interview-raises-questions-about-scott-mcinnis-candidacy/) media meltdowns.

True, Maes has suffered from (http://www.peoplespresscollective.org/2010/01/dan-maes%E2%80%99-fundraising-really-starts-to-take-off%E2%80%A6-after-4q-reporting-period/) lackluster fundraising (though it seems to be picking up a bit). However, Maes also beat McInnis in the unscientific, skewed (http://www.peoplespresscollective.org/2010/01/dan-maes-tops-scott-mcinnis-january-colorado-political-survey-results/) poll put out by the People's Press Collective.

Delusional? No chance in hell? I was stunned that Ritter dropped out of the race. I thought Scott Brown didn't have a chance in hell of winning his U.S. Senate race. Well, it looks like hell is freezing over and political probabilities must be tossed aside.

I would like to see a Maes/Hickenlooper showdown because I'd like to see two real guys, two businessmen, have a serious discussion about the important issues facing Colorado. (I'm sure Hickenlooper would also love to face that showdown.) With McInnis, I get the feeling that his main purpose is to package his message and play it safe. (McInnis could easily change my mind on this point simply by providing straightforward answers to the (http://ariarmstrong.com/2010/01/colorado-2010-candidate-survey/) Armstrongs' Colorado 2010 Candidate Survey). Moreover, last night I had a chance to chat briefly with Maes's delightful wife and elder daughter, each of whom could be a major asset to his campaign if willing to play that role.

However, Maes has some serious problems. His lack of political experience translates to difficulty raising funds. His ideological problems are more serious.

While Maes is friendly toward free markets for a Republican, generally Republicans suck on economic liberty. I worry about three things from Maes.

First, Maes is fairly strong on property rights but not as strong as I'd like. He (http://ariarmstrong.com/2009/12/maes-talks-taxes-abortion-and-eminent-domain/) said that eminent domain "is a constitutionally acceptable process and should be applied on a case by case basis. Application of the practice should only be exercised when there is a clear and convincing case for a purely public use and benefit." That's better than most politicians on the subject. But, for me, the right answer is that eminent domain is always and everywhere a violation of property rights.

Second, while Maes has admirably taken a stand against corporate welfare, he is amenable to discriminatory taxation. My view is that, while existing tax breaks should not be removed, otherwise we should seek to establish tax parity, rather than punish some businesses more severely than others with higher taxes. Maes (http://ariarmstrong.com/2009/12/maes-talks-taxes-abortion-and-eminent-domain/) said, "Our state constitution clearly states we are not to make investments in private entities. I want to honor the spirit of our federal and state constitutions. I do see tax breaks as viable incentives to spur our economy."

Third, while Maes opposed the federal health bills, he inconsistently advocates free markets in health. Here's what he said on Tuesday:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65Um0pUr_K4

Here is the worrisome line: "We need to keep health care within the free market system. But we'd have to encourage private industry to get serious about pre-existing conditions. If they don't take on pre-existing conditions, then government has every right to do so. So I want to make sure private industry accommodates that need."

Maes's position is unclear to me. Either he is saying that insurance companies must be politically forced to ignore pre-existing conditions when accepting customers, or he is saying that tax dollars should fund government-run insurance that ignores pre-existing conditions (as Cover Colorado basically does now). The former position leads inexorably to an insurance mandate, as my dad and I (http://ariarmstrong.com/2009/09/restore-free-market-to-address-pre-existing-conditions/) have argued. (See also my (http://ariarmstrong.com/2009/08/should-politicians-force-insurers-to-ignore-pre-existing-conditions/) earlier article.) I welcome Maes's clarification of the matter.

Again, Maes is mostly good on fiscal matters, and I have no doubt he would outperform any Democrat (and most Republicans) on economics. But Maes has a much more serious problem: social issues.

Maes (http://ariarmstrong.com/2009/12/maes-talks-taxes-abortion-and-eminent-domain/) has endorsed the so-called "personhood" measure likely to appear on this fall's ballot. This would ban all or almost all abortions if fully enforced. It would also outlaw forms of birth control (including the pill) and fertility care that may result in the destruction of a fertilized egg. Colorado voters overwhelmingly trounced the "personhood" measure in 2008, and Maes will make few political friends by supporting it.

Maes also (http://ariarmstrong.com/2009/11/the-mcinnis-juggernaut/) said that marriage "is a privilege that is ordained in the Scripture." However, last night he granted that "civil remedies" can solve the problems of homosexual romantic unions. He said churches should not be forced to conduct gay marriages, and with that point I fully agree.

Maes strikes me as a common-sense kind of guy, so I will be interested to hear how he responds to concerns about the horrific and far-reaching implications of the "personhood" measure.

Meanwhile, all I've heard from McInnis is an ambiguous claim that he's "100 percent pro-life." Does McInnis want to outlaw absolutely all abortions? Voters deserve to know this.

As Paul Hsieh (http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/browns-victory-the-declaration-of-independents/) has written, independent voters, especially in Colorado, "want the Democrats out of their pockets and the Republicans out of their bedrooms."

For the first time I am very interested in following the Republican primary.

* * *

Also at Tuesday's rally, State Representative Cindy Acree offered her take on health reform:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXYpAbUNStY

Acree wants "tax equity at the federal level" to allow people to buy insurance with pre-tax money. That's fantastic. However, she also wants a "new delivery system for primary care all over the state with public-private partnerships." That sound to me like more tax subsidies and government controls.

So, while Republicans rallied against the federal Democratic health bills, they hardly advocate consistently free markets in health care. Hopefully advocates of liberty will continue to persuade them.

***

Comments

el presidente Submitted on 2010/01/21 at 4:11 pm

Fair enough. All campaigns are contacted. Those that choose to participate are welcome to do so.

I know how to do scientific market research and polling techniques, this is just for fun. Even if it tends to be dominated by certain participants or campaign supporters, their representative responses tend to have internal consistency over time.

Ari Submitted on 2010/01/21 at 4:05 pm

The poll is "skewed" in the sense that it probably appealed more to certain participants (Tea Partiers) than to others (older Republicans who support McInnis and aren't as tech-savvy).

It's like any online poll: its results depend on who takes the time to answer its questions. No sleight intended.

El Presidente Submitted on 2010/01/21 at 3:56 pm

While the PPC survey is clearly unscientific—we make that very clear—it is more closely akin to an online, blog reader focus group. Unscientific does not equal irrelevant, however.

But how is it "skewed"?

I trust you are implying no malicious intent on the part of the survey's creators.

Comment by El Presidente: While the PPC survey is clearly unscientific--we make that very clear--it is more closely akin to an online, blog reader focus group. Unscientific does not equal irrelevant, however. But how is it "skewed"? I trust you are implying no malicious intent on the part of the survey's creators.

Comment by Ari: The poll is "skewed" in the sense that it probably appealed more to certain participants (Tea Partiers) than to others (older Republicans who support McInnis and aren't as tech-savvy). It's like any online poll: its results depend on who takes the time to answer its questions. No sleight intended.

Comment by el presidente: Fair enough. All campaigns are contacted. Those that choose to participate are welcome to do so. I know how to do scientific market research and polling techniques, this is just for fun. Even if it tends to be dominated by certain participants or campaign supporters, their representative responses tend to have internal consistency over time.

Theater Smoking Ban Violates Free Expression

January 25, 2010

The January 10 Denver Post published my letter under the title, (http://blogs.denverpost.com/eletters/2010/01/10/why-smoking-ban-shouldn%E2%80%99t-apply-on-stage-2-letters/) "Why smoking ban shouldn't apply on stage." The letter replied to a January 4 (http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_14116025) editorial.

The Post argues that, because actors can use fake cigarettes on stage, the state smoking ban should apply. But just because The Post is capable of publishing fake news and commentary doesn't mean it should be forbidden from publishing the real thing. The owners should decide policy, and patrons should decide which plays to see. It is a matter of property rights as well as free expression. By inviting politicians to set policy in the playhouse, The Post invites them to do the same in the newsroom.

Free association is also a critical right under assault by the smoking ban, in the theater as well as other private establishments. Actors too have a right to reach mutually agreeable terms for working. A play properly involves the mutual consent of theater owners, actors, and patrons. Politicians violate the rights of all those parties by interfering.

The Post is schizophrenic regarding the First Amendment (which is odd given that free expression is what enables newspapers to do business). Thankfully on January 22 the Post (http://www.denverpost.com/opinionheadlines/ci_14242352) stood with free speech by declaring that individuals retain their rights when they join an association to promote ideas with their financial resources.

Candidates Should Giddy Up and Answer Survey

January 25, 2010

Grand Junction's Free Press (http://www.gjfreepress.com/article/20100118/OPINION/100119881/1021&parentprofile=1062) published the following article on January 18, 2010.

Candidates should giddy up and answer our survey

by Linn and Ari Armstrong

Shucks, mayor; you done warmed our Western hearts with your down-home talkin' and dusty cowboy hat.

While announcing his candidacy for governor, Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper, a.k.a. "Hickenritter" (if you listen to GOP Chair Dick Wadhams), a.k.a. "Hick," said it's "Giddy up time in Colorado." Yippie ki-yay. Now all he needs is a running mate named Tonto.

What we want to know is whether Hickenlooper's campaign is more Lone Ranger or more Woody from Toy Story. To help us out, the mayor can answer the (http://www.freecolorado.com/2010/01/colorado-2010-candidate-survey.html) survey we sent to him the day he announced. We'd be much obliged.

We sent the survey to all the major-party candidates for governor and U.S. Senate. All Colorado candidates are welcome to respond, and answers will be published unedited at FreeColorado.com. We hope voters and other journalists encourage candidates to answer the survey. Voters have a right to know where the candidates stand on the issues. You can find the survey at (http://www.freecolorado.com/2010/01/colorado-2010-candidate-survey.html) http://tinyurl.com/cosurvey10.

Before we describe the survey, we offer an important elections announcement [that is now dated]. Tomorrow, January 19, is the final day to affiliate with a party if you wish to be involved in the caucus process. While Hickenlooper scared away his competition, many candidates face preliminary party votes.

To affiliate with a party, first you need to get a Colorado voter registration form, available at http://tinyurl.com/mesavote. You can scan in the form and email it to voter.info@mesacounty.us; deliver it in person to 544 Rood Avenue, Suite 301A; or mail it to P.O. Box 20,000, Grand Junction, 81502, postmarked by January 19. We thank the Mesa County Elections office for helping us with this information.

Now back to the survey. We have this crazy idea that elections should be about more than hair color, fancy slogans, and name-calling. We believe that elections should mostly be about the issues. Ideas matter. Where do the candidates stand? What do they believe?

Obviously any survey will reveal only so much about a candidate. For example, our survey doesn't include questions about the Democratic health bill. Most candidates are already talking about this issue, and we hope they clearly articulate their views on their web pages and elsewhere.

Our survey was more intended to reveal positions that candidates aren't talking about as much. We want to know whether candidates endorse corporate welfare. We want to know where they stand on key business controls, such as antitrust and Sarbanes-Oxley.

We also want candidates to quit obscuring their views. For example, while Scott McInnis used to be "pro-choice," he now calls himself "100 percent pro-life." But what does that mean? Does he want to ban absolutely all abortions? If not, what exceptions would he allow? The matter of abortion (and related issues such as birth control) will be particularly important this election, given a measure may again be on the ballot to define a fertilized egg as a person.

We want to know where candidates stand on immigration issues. Should a guest worker program be expanded? Should the Colorado legislature force businesses to verify with the federal government the legal status of potential employees? Should businesses be fined for failure to do so? Should tax-funded benefits ever be extended to non-citizen immigrants?

What about property rights? Do candidates endorse eminent domain, the forcible taking of private property? Under what circumstances? Do candidates endorse the smoking ban, even for on-stage performances?

Regarding the Bill of Rights, where do candidates stand with respect to free expression and the right to bear arms? For example, should adults with a concealed-carry permit be able to carry a handgun on tax-funded campuses?

Medical marijuana will be a huge issue this legislative session; where do candidates stand on that matter and on marijuana laws generally? What about rules governing petitioners? What about the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights?

Whether you're Republican, Democrat, unaffiliated, or other, you should care about candidates' positions. We hope that, in 2010, voters make a stand and demand that candidates state their views clearly, openly, and for the record.

Here's what you can do to help. Please contact your federal, state, and local candidates and encourage them to answer our survey and explain their views elsewhere. If you're a Republican, you can find a list of federal and state-wide candidates at (http://www.cologop.org/candidatecontactinformation.aspx) http://tinyurl.com/2010gop. We called the Colorado Democrats, and a representative said that hopefully a list of candidates will be made available at (http://www.coloradodems.org/) ColoradoDems.org. Otherwise you may need to poke around on the internet or call a party office.

Candidates have a responsibility to reveal their views, and voters have a responsibility to critically and fairly evaluate candidates' positions. It won't do to take comments out of context or otherwise misrepresent what a candidate is about.

We will get the government we deserve. It's time for candidates to cowboy up. And it's time for us voters to earn our spurs.

Update: As of January 24, we've received a reply from one candidate running for governor or U.S. Senate: Dan Maes.

Dan Maes: Colorado 2010 Candidate Survey

January 25, 2010

Following are the unedited answers of Curtis Harris to the (http://www.freecolorado.com/2010/01/colorado-2010-candidate-survey.html) Colorado 2010 Candidate Survey. Questions are in bold.

SUMMARY

In a Twitter-length reply (140 characters maximum), please state why you are running for political office.

Colorado is heading down the same path as Washington and it must be stopped and turned around. I have the skills and conservative values to do it.

ECONOMIC ISSUES

* Should the federal or state government spend money in an attempt to "stimulate" the economy? If so, on what sorts of projects?

No. It should cut spending, increase energy income, and taxes

[January 25 Update: Maes sent in the following clarification: "Please correct/modify delete 'and taxes' as it looks like I want to increase taxes. The message was to increase energy income and energy severance taxes to the state."]

* Should tax dollars be directed toward energy projects, tourism, or any other form of business subsidies?

Only if the voters approve doing it.

* (State-Level Candidates:) Should the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights be kept completely intact? If not, how should it be altered?

Yes.

* (State-Level Candidates:) Should Amendment 23 be repealed, maintained, or modified?

Repealed as first choice. Suspended in Ref. C fashion as a second.

FASTER should be repealed.

* Should state or federal spending (depending on which office you seek) be higher or lower than it is currently?

State should be lower.

* Should the state or federal minimum wage (depending on which office you seek) be repealed, maintained, or increased?

Maintained and re-examined based on economic realities.

* Should college education be subsidized by tax dollars?

Yes.

* Should antitrust law or its enforcement be changed?

Need more clarification.

SOCIAL AND CHURCH/STATE ISSUES

* What do you believe is meant by the "separation of church and state," and do you endorse it?

The federal government is not to create or endorse a national religion/church. I would enforce that.

* Should religious institutions receive tax dollars for providing welfare or other faith-based services?

* Should the teaching of creationism or Intelligent Design be subsidized by tax dollars?

All public education is paid for by tax dollars. Thus, if the above were part of a school's curriculum it would be.

* Should tax-funded schools establish a period of permitted or required prayer?

I support prayer in schools but no specific period of time should be required or encouraged. There is enough spare time in public school schedules already w/o crating more.

* Should government officials promote religiously oriented displays and comments on government property and at government events?

It already does as part of our historic architecture which reflects the reality that our country was founded not on the principles of men, but on those God given principles captured in our founding documents by men.

* Do you support gay marriage?

No.

* If you answered no to the question above, do you support domestic partnerships, civil unions, or comparable legal recognition of gay couples?

I would be willing to discuss civil remedies in areas that gays feel they are not equally protected.

* Should gay couples be allowed to adopt children by the same standards as heterosexual couples?

* Should government never, always, or sometimes mandate parental notification and consent before a minor may legally obtain an abortion, and, if sometimes, under what conditions?

Always.

* Should government mandate waiting periods or ultrasounds before a woman may legally obtain an abortion?

Yes/no.

* Do you endorse the "personhood" measure that may appear on the 2010 ballot?

Yes.

* Should abortion be legal in cases of fetal deformity?

It already is.

* Should abortion be legal in cases of rape or incest?

It already is.

* Should abortion be legal in cases of risk to the woman's life, as determined by the health professional selected by that woman?

It already is.

* Should elective abortion be legal?

It already is.

* If you believe that abortion should be legally restricted, what criminal penalties do you advocate for a woman and her doctor for obtaining or facilitating an illegal abortion?

No comment.

* Would execution ever be an appropriate penalty for obtaining or facilitating illegal abortions?

No.

* Should types of birth control be legal that may prevent a fertilized egg or zygote from implanting in the uterus?

I support the laws as they stand.

* Should fertility treatments be legal that may result in the freezing or destruction of a fertilized egg or zygote?

You ask way to many questions about an issue that is just not a priority at this time.

* Should research involving the use of embryonic stem cells be legal?

Not if there are other viable solutions.

* Should abortions or embryonic stem cell research be subsidized by tax dollars?

No and no.

IMMIGRATION

Yes and 10,000.00 per incident.

They already are per federal law. It should stop at all levels.

PROPERTY RIGHTS

* What restrictions, if any, should be placed on the use of eminent domain?

It should be limited to cases where exercising it is indisputably for public use only. I use the word "use" versus interest or benefit.

* Do you endorse the use of eminent domain in the case of the Pinon Canyon military expansion? Do you support the military expansion if it does not involve eminent domain?

I do not "endorse" the use of it anywhere. I would support it reluctantly only if the Army can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they have no other options but to do so. I support a mutual agreement between willing sellers and leasers, and the Army as a first option.

* Should the Endangered Species Act be altered or differently enforced?

No opinion.

* (State-Level Candidates:) Should the smoking ban be maintained, expanded, or repealed? Should it apply to on-stage performances?

No opinion.

BILL OF RIGHTS

* Should McCain-Feingold and state campaign finance restrictions be repealed, maintained, or expanded?

Maintained. Moot now, isn't it?

* Should the federal government control what radio or television stations may broadcast?

They already do via the FTC.

* Should the FTC's rules regarding blogger endorsements be rescinded?

* Should students with licenses be legally permitted to carry concealed handguns on the property of tax-subsidized colleges?

Yes

* Should additional restrictions be added (or repealed) on gun ownership? Please specify.

* Do you believe that desecration of the U.S. flag should be outlawed by Constitutional amendment?

Yes

* Do you believe that pornography or obscene materials involving consenting adults should be legally restricted?

It already is.

OTHER

* Should state or federal laws (depending on which office you seek) pertaining to marijuana be altered, and, if so, how?

Yes. Med. mar. is a disaster and must be regulated like a pharmaceutical.

* (State-Level Candidates:) Should rules pertaining to petitioners be altered, and, if so, how?

No.

* If there is any important issue that you believe we have missed, please state what it is and state your position on it.

Keynes Versus Hayek, In Rap

January 26, 2010

This video is brilliant. I'm blown away. "I want to steer markets." "I want them set free."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0nERTFo-Sk

Rich Hand: Colorado 2010 Candidate Survey

January 29, 2010

(http://www.whoisrichhand.com/) Rich Hand is an independent candidate for governor of Colorado.

SUMMARY

In a Twitter-length reply (140 characters maximum), please state why you are running for political office.

I am running to re-affirm our tenth amendment rights and keep Colorado money in Colorado supporting Colorado's citizens. We must stop the federal spending and borrowing and the Governors are the last resort.

[This is 207 characters!]

ECONOMIC ISSUES

* Should the federal or state government spend money in an attempt to "stimulate" the economy? If so, on what sorts of projects?

No. We need to limit the flow of money by challenging the sixteenth amendment through a constitutional amendment of the Colorado Constitution to limit federal taxation to a maximum of 15% of income. The federal "stimulus" kills jobs by undermining free market principles.

* Should tax dollars be directed toward energy projects, tourism, or any other form of business subsidies?

Tax incentives should be used at the state level to drive behavior. In Colorado we need to diversify energy development to use all sources of energy. We should not pursue energy policy based on a political "green" agenda. We need a practical approach that focuses on energy development that works in Colorado based on our resources and 300 plus days of sunshine.

We need to minimize the cost of doing business and reduce regulatory burdens to attract business. We need to stop imposing more and more barriers to business. We need to make healthcare costs deductable for individuals so small business is not burdened with the cost of healthcare. I will review and reduce mandates on health insurance policies so that these companies compete with flexible plans that fit the consumer not some state bureaucrats vision of health insurance.

* (State-Level Candidates:) Should the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights be kept completely intact? If not, how should it be altered?

Absolutely! We need to hold government accountable and make the state communicate the value of programs and fight for funding if necessary. If the voters don't want to pay for a service then we don't provide it. I will look to separate funding so that Citizens understand what they are paying for in their taxes and determine if they believe it is worth supporting. We work for the taxpayer not special interests.

* (State-Level Candidates:) Should Amendment 23 be repealed, maintained, or modified?

Education is a key to success. We need to continue to encourage alternate education programs outside of public education. Amendment 23 represents the voters understanding of the importance of education and we need to continue to find the best ways to educate our kids. My plan to limit the amount of income taxes sent to Washington (challenging the sixteenth amendment) would help support additional funding for alternate education funding. We need to revisit the way we are currently funding education overall. We need to look at a stable funding mechanism that limits the fluctuation of the current tax program.

So I agree with the Amendment in principle but I have a problem with public education formulas for distribution, the amount of money leaving our state that could be used for education, and the inconsistency of the funding sources. We need to look at better ways and not be blinded by the current interests surrounding public education. It's about educating our kids, not supporting union demands.

I would eliminate the state corporate income tax for employers that have their operations based in Colorado. We need to create jobs and stop punishing business for being successful. The more money business can make, the more they will put back into their business and the economy.

* Should state or federal spending (depending on which office you seek) be higher or lower than it is currently?

Federal spending needs to be tied directly to the constitutional limits of the federal government. Colorado citizens and businesses should pay no more than 15% of their income maximum to the federal government. We need to reaffirm the tenth amendment and challenge the sixteenth and while we're at it repeal the seventeenth amendment.

When people feel they have control of the process they are more likely to support the services needed. Government should not be growing at this point. We have too much already. We need to reduce or transfer funds to programs that have the people's support. The reason ballot initiatives keep failing is that people are tired of the waste and fraud in government, especially at the federal level. We should not be sending our money to bail out GM, Chrysler, Financial institutions, while we lay off our police and firefighters. People are ticked off and are making that known where they have control; at the local level. We need to bring government closer to the people and start building trust again.

* Should the state or federal minimum wage (depending on which office you seek) be repealed, maintained, or increased?

Repealed. I am a small business man and let me tell you, you get what you pay for. Good business people know this and pay accordingly. Minimum wage kills jobs for our kids and entry level workers.

* Should college education be subsidized by tax dollars?

No. A college education should be earned and not an entitlement. We need to support students that are willing to invest in themselves with tax incentives to their parents and make loans available at fair interest rates. The current system encourages higher institutions to be less efficient because they know that government is under writing college educations. A college education is critical but that means every student needs to make the commitment of their own resources. We need to drive the prices down for college by introducing some market principles into the process. They operate in a bubble and have very inefficient business practices that is supported by the knowledge that government will keep subsidizing their institutions.

Colleges need to start looking at their courses and deciding if they keep a department of foolish studies. Too many college courses today would be better suited for some other venue and we need to increase true disciplines like mathematics, sciences, engineering, history, political science etc...

Education is a business with some unique drivers. I think we need to look at tax breaks and incentives for Colorado citizens to save for a college education. I would support helping individual students that deserve college rather than throwing tax dollars at the institutions themselves.

I expect a lot of push back here because there is an industry around colleges and they believe they should not have to "compete". I would love to see every Colorado student graduate college, but every kid will want to go to college.

* Should antitrust law or its enforcement be changed?

* (Federal-level candidates:) Should Sarbanes-Oxley be repealed?

SOCIAL AND CHURCH/STATE ISSUES

What do you believe is meant by the "separation of church and state," and do you endorse it?

It is used improperly all the time. We are a Christian nation and I am proud to believe we are endowed by our creator with inalienable rights. As Governor or any politician for that matter can't force people into any religion. The separation is simple; the state cannot infringe on people that want to worship God. The state can't mandate a God. People need to read the founding documents and our history to reset their understanding of the first amendment. I am a man of God but I don't endorse any particular church or religion.

You can't have a free society without a moral foundation. God should be accepted and celebrated. If that offends people they need to get over it.

* Should religious institutions receive tax dollars for providing welfare or other faith-based services?

Definitely. Government has a horrible track record of helping people get off welfare. They actually have a self interest in perpetuating it. I trust private foundations to provide social services and I would want to insure auditing of the programs is in place but if we are looking for results to help people become productive we have to trust private organizations and churches to do the job government has shown it can't.

* Should the teaching of creationism or Intelligent Design be subsidized by tax dollars?

I think all subjects that get kids thinking is good for students. I also believe there is no reason religion should not be discussed in the classroom. Are we afraid that knowing about God is going to ruin our kids? Insanity. No special tax dollars are needed we just need teachers that are willing to teach and get kids passionate about learning.

* Should tax-funded schools establish a period of permitted or required prayer?

Permitted prayer is fine. I believe with tax dollars tied to the student, parents can choose where to send their kids. That will eliminate the need for state bureaucrats to get involved. If the school prays everyday and parents don't like it they move their kids. It is a local issue to be decided in school districts.

* Should government officials promote religiously oriented displays and comments on government property and at government events?

"Government official" is a loaded term. Is a teacher a "government official" just because they work for a public school? As Governor I would promote the Christian faith and Jewish religious symbols at Christmas and Passover. I would recognize the importance of these religions on our culture and history.

* Do you support gay marriage?

No but I do support individual rights. If two people want to enter into a contract with each other and share their resources that's great. Marriage is an institution that creates the best environment to raise our kids. We need to respect that and also respect people's individual rights to enter into contracts and call it what they wish. But not marriage.

* If you answered no to the question above, do you support domestic partnerships, civil unions, or comparable legal recognition of gay couples?

I will do nothing as Governor to promote the gay agenda. I will promote the rights of individuals protected under our constitution. The gay agenda is an agenda to promote acceptance of a lifestyle most people don't agree or take part in. I do not have to accept their agenda but I will respect their right as individual citizens.

* Should gay couples be allowed to adopt children by the same standards as heterosexual couples?

This issue is more complicated for me. I believe and will support adoption of children by people with the right intentions for adopting children. First we want kids in traditional families, man and woman. But when any family is abusive and the choice is violence or no adoption I would support couples adopting these kids with the same vigorous background checks as heterosexual couples.

* Should government never, always, or sometimes mandate parental notification and consent before a minor may legally obtain an abortion, and, if sometimes, under what conditions?

Always notify parents.

* Should government mandate waiting periods or ultrasounds before a woman may legally obtain an abortion?

* Do you endorse the "personhood" measure that may appear on the 2010 ballot?

* Should abortion be legal in cases of fetal deformity?

See the one question on abortion for my stand on the issue

* Should abortion be legal in cases of rape or incest?

See the one question on abortion for my stand on the issue

* Should abortion be legal in cases of risk to the woman's life, as determined by the health professional selected by that woman?

See the one question on abortion for my stand on the issue

* Should elective abortion be legal?

As Governor this is my position on abortion. I will produce and support an education program that factually describes the procedure of aborting a child. A fetus is a life with a beating heart and with today's technology we understand more clearly than ever what happens when an abortion is conducted. We see that life struggle to get away; we see the baby's features and formation. Education will reduce abortion more than any government policy ever could. I will support laws that limit abortion at the point of the baby's ability to survive without the support of the mother. Before that point we are in very dangerous territory to hand over authority to government. I am consistently suspicious of government in our lives and when it comes to the monitoring of our woman for the purpose of applying law, I can never hand over that decision to a government bureaucrat.

Conservatives are always talking about getting government out of our lives except in the arena of abortion. I am consistent. We will all be judged by our maker and we can only do what we can to convince people of the ramifications of abortion. I will never support the tax funding of abortion under any circumstance.

This is a divisive issue and this is what I can live with as Governor. I will not apologize or pander to either side on this. This is what I believe my maker will accept at judgment time for me. Others will have a different opinion. That is their right.

* If you believe that abortion should be legally restricted, what criminal penalties do you advocate for a woman and her doctor for obtaining or facilitating an illegal abortion?

See the one question on abortion for my stand on the issue

* Would execution ever be an appropriate penalty for obtaining or facilitating illegal abortions?

* Should types of birth control be legal that may prevent a fertilized egg or zygote from implanting in the uterus?

yes

* Should fertility treatments be legal that may result in the freezing or destruction of a fertilized egg or zygote?

Yes not government funded

* Should research involving the use of embryonic stem cells be legal?

Yes not government funded

* Should abortions or embryonic stem cell research be subsidized by tax dollars?

IMMIGRATION

* (Federal-level candidates:) Should the U.S. expand a legal guest-worker program or legal immigration, and, if so, by how much?

Yes and I would impose severe penalties for businesses that hire illegal workers.

We need to get the federal government to do their job of enforcing and closing our borders and as Governor we will not be supporting any illegal immigrant with any services. By creating a severe penalty for business to hire illegal workers we will see a exodus from our state. I support legal immigration and work visas. I have no tolerance for law breaking.

PROPERTY RIGHTS

* What restrictions, if any, should be placed on the use of eminent domain?

Eminent domain must pass the test outlined in the constitution. As Governor I will never use it unless the circumstances are so clear that everyone is supporting the land taking and I am the last one standing.

* Do you endorse the use of eminent domain in the case of the Pinon Canyon military expansion? Do you support the military expansion if it does not involve eminent domain?

I support the tenth amendment and state's rights. I stand by the ranchers and land owners of Pinon Canyon. I could only support expansion if 100% of the land owners agree and there is a contract in place that protects Colorado from a future pullout of Army operations. That land is too precious from a state perspective regarding the economy and if the Army ever closes up and leaves the base, where are we? Overall I think the military has many options besides taking additional land.

* Should the Endangered Species Act be altered or differently enforced?

We need to have common sense here or we will end up like California, ruining human lives for a guppy. Unacceptable to me. As Governor our people will come first and we will be good stewards of our land. They can work together.

* (State-Level Candidates:) Should the smoking ban be maintained, expanded, or repealed? Should it apply to on-stage performances?

This is a freedom issue for me. I don't smoke but I don't think government should decide how business is run. If the business wants to ban or allow smoking I am good with allowing the market to dictate. In open air we just need to respect each other.

BILL OF RIGHTS

* Should McCain-Feingold and state campaign finance restrictions be repealed, maintained, or expanded?

Repealed. I support free speech and that includes organizations and individuals.

* Should the federal government control what radio or television stations may broadcast?

If I am Governor they will control very little here in Colorado. They should only control what is important for emergency response and military frequencies to keep us safe.

* Should the FTC's rules regarding blogger endorsements be rescinded?

I don't like the FTC but I support people knowing where any information comes from and where the funding source is so they can make good judgments about the information.

* Should students with licenses be legally permitted to carry concealed handguns on the property of tax-subsidized colleges?

I support concealed, exposed, and the ability to carry a hand gun. Good citizens should be able to carry. At 18 I believe we all have adult rights and why limit that at college. I support the constitution of the United States and the second amendment is no exception.

* Should additional restrictions be added (or repealed) on gun ownership? Please specify.

No additional restrictions. I believe the more people that have guns in their homes the greater security we have.

* Do you believe that desecration of the U.S. flag should be outlawed by Constitutional amendment?

I hate the idea of our flag being desecrated because it represents the greatness of our country and veterans that have died for it. I believe the people that have died for our flag would be disgusted but would support the freedom to do so. So no I would not support an amendment although it would feel good to do so.

* Do you believe that pornography or obscene materials involving consenting adults should be legally restricted?

I think pornography is a cancer and needs to be eliminated. It undermines our woman and children and I would support throwing the bums in jail that produce it. The problem is that there are people that have come to accept this degradation of society and is not high on the minds of voters.

OTHER

* Should state or federal laws (depending on which office you seek) pertaining to marijuana be altered, and, if so, how?

I believe marijuana leads to more addictive drugs and undermines people's motivation in life. I am not convinced it has medical purposes but if it does it should be in pharmacy outlets and not in separate places where we see criminals targeting them to steal the drug.

* (State-Level Candidates:) Should rules pertaining to petitioners be altered, and, if so, how?

I love that citizens can petition their government. I believe in our representative republic but I think people generally get the issues right when the information is clear.

* If there is any important issue that you believe we have missed, please state what it is and state your position on it.

I just want to emphasize that I will ask the voters of Colorado to amend our state constitution to limit the amount of money our federal government can take from our income. It starts there. When we reduce the scope of the federal government we can focus on the things that are most important here in Colorado like a job creation environment, individual healthcare reform, and a focus on education.

We must reaffirm our tenth amendment rights, challenge the sixteenth amendment, and repeal the seventeenth amendment. It's that simple...

Rich Hand

Unaffiliated Candidate Governor Colorado

First Thoughts on iPod Touch

February 1, 2010

Yesterday I bought an iPod Touch. I got the 32 gig version from Costco, which actually has a better warrantee deal than the Apple store and sells the product for a little less. These are my initial thoughts on the purchase.

Overall, I'm quite pleased. Apple makes a remarkable product. (I've been sold on Apple since converting from the Amiga to the Mac in college.)

Mostly I got the Touch as an ereader. I've been contemplating ereaders for some time, and I realized I really want an additional feature to the (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2010/01/perfect-ereader.html) ones recently described: portability. I can slip the Touch in my pocket and take it with me wherever I go.

The announcement of the iPad indicates that Amazon really screwed up, I think. Who would pay Kindle prices when the Touch and iPad are about the same price with phenomenally greater functionality? Plus I can read Kindle ebooks—and every other sort of file—on my Touch.

Instead of making an even bigger, even clunkier, even costlier Kindle, I think Amazon should have made a smaller, simpler, cheaper one. A Kindle the size of a Touch, sans the ridiculous touch pad and wireless, could have been sold in (I'm guessing) the hundred dollar range. It could have offered the simple, eye-friendly black-and-white screen with USB transfers.

But when I can pay the same price for a portable, elegant, multi-function Touch as what the lower-end Kindle costs, it's simply no contest. Plus, all the other ereaders I've read about coming out this year follow the high-priced Kindle model. I don't know what they're thinking, but I predict massive failure for those products.

The iPad, on the other hand, is both two large and too expensive for my needs. I will be very interested to see how Apple handles ebooks. (This is particularly interesting in light of the (http://knowledgeproblem.com/2010/01/31/publishers-and-ebooks-innovation-drm-and-resale-price-maintenance/) spat between Amazon and Macmillan.) Will Apple's ebooks read on standard epub readers, including Adobe's Digital Solutions? Or will Apple ebooks read only on Apple software? Will the ebooks be available for desktops and iPhones, too, as I assume will be the case?

I was surprised that the Touch doesn't come loaded with the ability to transfer and read all the files. Instead, I had to buy an app for that. I first tried using Stanza, but its pdf to epub conversion completely sucks. I ended up with formatting problems and words run together. I checked out FileMagnet and, after reading a positive (http://www.ilounge.com/index.php/articles/comments/iphone-gems-every-file-storage-app-reviewed/) review, purchased it. It allows the transfer of all sorts of files via my desktop's Airport feature. I don't why it doesn't just use the USB cable, but at least it works, even if it uses a ten-dollar solution for a nickel-sized problem. I have already started a library of pdf and html books, and now I'll be able to read them on my Touch, no problem. (I don't even want to download DRM-free books directly to the Touch, as I want everything mirrored on my main hard drive.)

I also downloaded the Kindle app, so now there's a good chance I'll start buying ebooks through Amazon, which, at least so far, offers the best selection and prices of any service I've looked at.

The Touch will also make a great music and video player, calendar, and hot-spot internet browser. While I would have gladly paid (significantly) less for a portable, dedicated ereader, for the money I'm glad to have the extra functionality. Plus, I think I can get the Skype app and use the Touch as a phone in hot spots, so that may be very cool. (One of the reasons I got the larger-sized Touch is that it comes standard with a microphone, which is built in to the headphone assembly.) So, sweet! I love Apple.

I do have a couple of complaints. Why Apple didn't make it easy to transfer text files (txt, html, pdf) via the USB baffles me. I mean, come on—that's just ridiculous.

Also, while the Touch is set up for Bluetooth, from what I can tell that only works with headphones. Maybe there's some technological complication I'm missing here, but why can't I use a Bluetooth keyboard with the Touch? That single feature would make it phenomenally more useful. (I've read about adding a Bluetooth keyboard only to jailbroken Touches.) The cynic in me suspects that Apple is intentionally limiting the functionality of the Touch in order to bolster sales of the iPad. Assuming the touch is capable of using a Bluetooth keyboard hardware-wise, I sincerely hope that Apple provides the software to make that happen. (While the touch-screen keypad is surprisingly functional given its small size, it's still not nearly as good as a real keyboard.)

Overall, so far I'm extremely pleased, and I look forward to getting my Touch lined out and integrated into my life.

Comment by Bill Brown: FileMagnet cannot transfer over USB because the API for that is private to Apple and they will reject an app that uses private APIs. (You just (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/02/AR2010020200995.html?hpid=sec-tech) missed your chance with Stanza, unfortunately.) I don't know the rationale for the restriction for certain but I suspect that opening up the Dock might potentially create a security loophole that they couldn't fix in time for an exploit. (There's also the issue of sandboxing apps so they can't access system files or the files of other apps. If you can mount the iPhone, how could an app access that and how would you specify which apps could access which files? It gets complicated quickly.) One app that I use for reading PDFs--Air Sharing--has a wireless transfer capability and a reliable bookmarking capability. I can open up a PDF after a long time and go right back to where I was the previous session. I believe there's a free, ad-supported version.

John Finger: Colorado 2010 Candidate Survey

February 2, 2010

(http://www.raisethefinger.com/) John Finger is a Libertarian candidate for U.S. Senate from Colorado. Questions are shown in bold.

SUMMARY

In a Twitter-length reply (140 characters maximum), please state why you are running for political office.

Our system is broken. Both Democrats and Republicans are hell-bent on maintaining their own power, for their own purposes, regardless of the consequences. Members of both parties take an oath to defend the Constitution, then ignore the Constitution until they take the same oath again. Just look at the money which is doled out for cronyism and for projects which don't work. I will use whatever means necessary to stop our march toward socialism, get our economy going again, and not leave our children in a quagmire of debt.

[That's 528 characters!]

ECONOMIC ISSUES

* Should the federal or state government spend money in an attempt to "stimulate" the economy? If so, on what sorts of projects?

No. Government should cut taxes; it works every time.

* Should tax dollars be directed toward energy projects, tourism, or any other form of business subsidies?

No.

* (State-Level Candidates:) Should the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights be kept completely intact? If not, how should it be altered?

N/A

* (State-Level Candidates:) Should Amendment 23 be repealed, maintained, or modified?

N/A

* Should state or federal spending (depending on which office you seek) be higher or lower than it is currently?

It should be much lower; we should not be spending money on things unless they are specified in the Constitution or are a logical extension thereof.

* Should the state or federal minimum wage (depending on which office you seek) be repealed, maintained, or increased?

The federal minimum wage should be repealed, and I would introduce legislation accordingly. The states should make minimum wage decisions for themselves.

* Should college education be subsidized by tax dollars?

Not with federal money. The states should decide this for themselves.

* Should antitrust law or its enforcement be changed?

Not easy to answer; government should oversee true competition and enforce the law when competitiveness is compromised.

* (Federal-level candidates:) Should Sarbanes-Oxley be repealed?

Yes. It doesn't catch any crooks and adds an unnecessary, enormous burden to business, hurting its competitiveness.

(my question:) Should Glass-Steagall become law again? Yes; this would prevent banks from using depositor dollars to speculate, lose money, and be bailed out once again by the taxpayers.

SOCIAL AND CHURCH/STATE ISSUES

What do you believe is meant by the "separation of church and state," and do you endorse it?

It means what the 1st Amendment says, that Congress shall make no law establishing an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. We as elected officials would have to respect each of those lines in the sand. Of course I believe it; it's part of our Constitution.

* Should religious institutions receive tax dollars for providing welfare or other faith-based services?

No. And the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships should be disbanded.

* Should the teaching of creationism or Intelligent Design be subsidized by tax dollars?

No education should be subsidized by federal tax dollars; in fact, the Department of Education should be eliminated.

* Should tax-funded schools establish a period of permitted or required prayer?

This should be up to the states to address.

* Should government officials promote religiously oriented displays and comments on government property and at government events?

Not at the federal level.

* Do you support gay marriage?

This should be decided by the states, not by the federal government. This is a 10th Amendment matter, as are several of the next questions. I'll use "states rights" and "10th Amendment" interchangeably in many of the following questions.

* If you answered no to the question above, do you support domestic partnerships, civil unions, or comparable legal recognition of gay couples?

This is again a matter of states' rights.

* Should gay couples be allowed to adopt children by the same standards as heterosexual couples?

States' rights again.

* Should government never, always, or sometimes mandate parental notification and consent before a minor may legally obtain an abortion, and, if sometimes, under what conditions?

States' rights again.

* Should government mandate waiting periods or ultrasounds before a woman may legally obtain an abortion?

States' rights again.

* Do you endorse the "personhood" measure that may appear on the 2010 ballot?

I'd want to see the wording before answering this question.

* Should abortion be legal in cases of fetal deformity?

10th Amendment. Right now, all of our opinions in the matter of abortion are irrelevant, as the U.S. Supreme Court has usurped the states' rights to decide such matters.

* Should abortion be legal in cases of rape or incest?

10th Amendment.

* Should abortion be legal in cases of risk to the woman's life, as determined by the health professional selected by that woman?

10th Amendment.

* Should elective abortion be legal?

10th Amendment.

* If you believe that abortion should be legally restricted, what criminal penalties do you advocate for a woman and her doctor for obtaining or facilitating an illegal abortion?

10th Amendment.

(my question): Should Roe v. Wade be overturned? Yes. The Supreme Court has no right to determine abortion matters. It is not within the court's purview. The court should let the states make their own laws. If one state then decides to be pro-life, while the next is pro-choice, while the next has exceptions, that's fine. That's how our system of federalism is supposed to work. But until that time comes, all of our abortion opinions are irrelevant.

* Would execution ever be an appropriate penalty for obtaining or facilitating illegal abortions?

10th Amendment.

* Should types of birth control be legal that may prevent a fertilized egg or zygote from implanting in the uterus?

10th Amendment.

* Should fertility treatments be legal that may result in the freezing or destruction of a fertilized egg or zygote?

10th Amendment.

* Should research involving the use of embryonic stem cells be legal?

10th Amendment.

* Should abortions or embryonic stem cell research be subsidized by tax dollars?

No.

IMMIGRATION

* (Federal-level candidates:) Should the U.S. expand a legal guest-worker program or legal immigration, and, if so, by how much?

I couldn't answer this question adequately, as there are too many variables. But we have no adequate system for catching guest workers who overstay their welcomes, thus allowing them to stay in the country indefinitely.

N/A

U.S. citizens and legal immigrants who actually contribute to the system should be entitled to benefit from it. Illegal immigrants should be removed from the country. Let people apply through proper means to get and stay here.

PROPERTY RIGHTS

* What restrictions, if any, should be placed on the use of eminent domain?

The Fifth Amendment addresses this issue adequately: "...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." But the Supreme Court has ruled that private property can be taken for private use, pleasing governments which want more tax revenue but undermining our right to private property. This flaunts the Constitution and should never be allowed. As a side note, Pfizer never developed the property which was the subject of this case. It just sits there; the City of New London, CT doesn't get developed property taxes from anyone. It's poetic justice.

* Do you endorse the use of eminent domain in the case of the Pinon Canyon military expansion? Do you support the military expansion if it does not involve eminent domain?

No. Do you support the military expansion if it does not involve eminent domain? Yes. I'm an Army veteran but don't see why such a huge expansion is necessary using eminent domain. The Army has such a vast maneuvering area at Fort Carson. If it needs more space, it shouldn't use eminent domain to get it.

* Should the Endangered Species Act be altered or differently enforced?

This act shouldn't even be law. The states should determine what species is endangered and what is not.

* (State-Level Candidates:) Should the smoking ban be maintained, expanded, or repealed? Should it apply to on-stage performances?

N/A

BILL OF RIGHTS

* Should McCain-Feingold and state campaign finance restrictions be repealed, maintained, or expanded?

The Supreme Court made this question moot.

* Should the federal government control what radio or television stations may broadcast?

No. Most of these issues can be decided at the state level. Where broadcasts are interstate, federal courts should employ a choice of state laws when deciding conflicts.

* Should the FTC's rules regarding blogger endorsements be rescinded?

Yes. The federal government has no business here.

* Should students with licenses be legally permitted to carry concealed handguns on the property of tax-subsidized colleges?

Yes. The 2nd Amendment allows this.

* Should additional restrictions be added (or repealed) on gun ownership? Please specify.

Felons and those clinically certified to be mentally unstable should be prohibited from gun ownership. There should be no restriction on other adults.

* Do you believe that desecration of the U.S. flag should be outlawed by Constitutional amendment?

No. As much as it hurts to see, it's a 1st Amendment right.

* Do you believe that pornography or obscene materials involving consenting adults should be legally restricted?

Anything between consenting adults intrastate should be subject to state laws. Anything between consenting adults across state lines or international borders should be allowed. Anything exploiting children across state lines or international borders should be banned.

OTHER

* Should state or federal laws (depending on which office you seek) pertaining to marijuana be altered, and, if so, how?

Federal laws governing all drugs, both illegal and prescription, should be repealed. In interstate commerce cases, the federal courts would employ a choice of state laws. The states should make their own drug laws. History offers an important lesson: when Prohibition was lifted, gangs lost revenue, government gained badly-needed revenue, business picked up, and crime dropped precipitously. We should do the same thing with drugs.

* (State-Level Candidates:) Should rules pertaining to petitioners be altered, and, if so, how?

N/A

* If there is any important issue that you believe we have missed, please state what it is and state your position on it.

(my question): What's the best way to kick-start the economy? Get the government out of the way. Lower all taxes, both corporate and individual. Repeal federal drug laws and the minimum wage. Subject Congress to the same rules as it applies to the rest of us. Partially privatize Social Security and Medicare. Make charitable contributions an unlimited deduction on your tax form. No more bailouts; nobody is too big to fail. Offer significant tax breaks to companies which make renewable energy efficient and affordable to the masses. And start listening to Ron Paul & Glenn Beck. More of this at www.fingerfavorsfreedom.com. It was www.raisethefinger.com, but the complaints outnumbered the laughs when we used it!

At Least Dan Maes Answered the Questions

February 2, 2010

The following article originally was (http://www.gjfreepress.com/article/20100201/COLUMNISTS/100139980/1062&parentprofile=1062) published February 1 by Grand Junction's Free Press.

At least Dan Maes answered the questions

by Linn and Ari Armstrong

Recently the Supreme Court struck down part of the McCain-Feingold censorship law in the case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. The decision is tragic because the Court only partially restored the First Amendment, and apparently four of the justices cannot comprehend the simple phrase, "Congress shall make no law..."

Leftist critics of the ruling argue that, while a lone individual might have some rights to free speech, individuals do not have the right to freely associate to express themselves. Further, these critics claim, you have no firm right to spend your own money on expression.

To grasp the left's hypocrisy on finances, just ask a critic of the ruling whether the right to get an abortion would be preserved if women and clinics were forbidden from spending money on abortions. (http://volokh.com/2010/01/24/money-and-speech-2/) (Eugene Volokh raised this point.)

Regarding this case the left is perfectly consistent with its Marxist roots. Marx wrote, "The mode of production of material life conditions the general process of social, political and intellectual life. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness."

In simpler terms, you are just too stupid to independently evaluate a film or ad funded by a corporation. You need the benevolent nannies of the left to help you think straight.

Unfortunately, some people do everything they can to prove Marx right. They thoughtlessly buy junk just because the idiot box or their friends tell them to. They never read great books or otherwise develop their reasoning skills. They vote for candidates based on appearance, smooth talk, and hysterical smear campaigns against the other guy.

However, trying to save people from their own stupidity only entrenches stupidity. People cannot choose wisely if they lack the capacity to choose badly. In terms of free speech, people must be free to say and believe stupid things, if we wish to preserve the right and ability to say and believe profundities.

The law properly guards against fraudulent speech. You can't legally tell someone a used car has only ten thousand miles on it when it actually has a hundred thousand. Nor can you make up lies about a candidate. Established law already addresses such matters.

Aside from libel, however, people should be free to say whatever they want about candidates (using their own resources), whenever they want, and with whomever they want. That is precisely what the First Amendment is all about.

We can't blame bad government on advertisements. After all, smear campaigns work only if voters fail to critically judge them. It is you, the individual voter, who must carefully evaluate claims, do some background research, and seek the broader context. If you fail to do so, censorship laws will not save the republic but will only further erode its foundation.

Let us make 2010 the year when candidates articulate their views on the issues and voters decide accordingly. Let us make this election about ideas, principles, and policies, not hair dye, cowboy hats, and vocal timbre.

It is in this spirit that we introduced our Candidate Survey, found at (http://www.freecolorado.com/2010/01/colorado-2010-candidate-survey.html) http://tinyurl.com/cosurvey10. Unfortunately, as of our deadline, we had heard from only two candidates running for governor or U.S. Senate. Dan Maes, the Republican challenger to Scott McInnis, said he'd answer the survey and followed through on his word. We also heard from independent candidate Rich Hand. You can find their responses linked from the original survey.

Though we originally contacted all the major-party candidates (or their representatives) for those offices by January 13, our initial correspondence did not make it to the right parties in the case of McInnis and Democratic top gun John Hickenlooper. While representatives of both candidates have now confirmed receipt of the survey, they have not committed to answering it. We encourage readers to ask these candidates to answer the survey.

Maes is the underdog, and we disagree with a number of his views. Generally, though, we are impressed by his responsiveness, straight talk, sincerity, and hard work.

Maes is a pretty solid fiscal conservative. He thinks the state should cut taxes and permit the traditional energy industry to thrive (thereby also increasing the tax flow from energy). He is too unfriendly to immigrants in our view. Disappointingly, he said campaign censorship laws should be "maintained," and he thinks flag desecration should be Constitutionally outlawed.

Most disturbing is Maes endorsement of the "personhood" measure, which if fully implemented would outlaw nearly all abortions, outlaw common forms of birth control, restrict fertility treatments, and subject women to severe legal interference.

Maes also punted on several questions. For example, we asked, "Should abortion be legal in cases of rape or incest?" Maes answered, "It already is." Cute. Perhaps Maes would care to answer the question next time: what does he think the law should say?

At least Maes answered (most of) the questions. That's a start.

Making the Google Jump

February 8, 2010

[January 28, 2013, Update: Obviously the contents of this post are out of date. I include it here for archival purposes; it originally appeared at http://blog.ariarmstrong.com.]

My internet publishing is undergoing a major change. As should be obvious, my blog is now at http://blog.ariarmstrong.com/(http://blog.ariarmstrong.com/) . (I am also posting quite a lot to (http://twitter.com/ariarmstrong) Twitter @ariarmstrong, where I mention interesting links and offer brief commentary.)

Recently Google (http://blogger-ftp.blogspot.com/2010/01/deprecating-ftp.html) announced that its Blogger service will no longer support FTP publishing, meaning the service will no longer send material to a domain hosted elsewhere. Instead, to use Blogger, one must host the blog through Google. A Blogger user can use a "blogspot.com" blog, register a domain with Google and use it for a Google-hosted blog, or register a domain or subdomain elsewhere and set the DNS to Google (such that Google hosts the content). I've decided to go with the last option.

I also strongly considered abandoning Google altogether. Not only am I miffed that Google is shutting down its FTP service, but I'm still annoyed that Google shut down the blog of economist George Reisman. Nevertheless, as one of my friends pointed out, Blogger is a free service, so it's a little hard to complain too stringently about it. If you really hate Blogger, don't use it. That said, I do think it would be absolute foolishness to give Google control of one's domain (if one cares about keeping content online). Because I own and control my subdomain, I can reclaim it and republish my content elsewhere if need be.

Blogger just works well. It's extremely easy to use. I helped set up a friend with Word Press and quickly learned that that service, while okay, is a lot harder to operate. I seriously considered going back to hand coding my page (based on templates created in Dream Weaver). But then a single blog post would require updating at least four pages: the index, the individual post, the archives, and the feed. Major hassle. So I'll stick with Blogger.

Here's how I'm handling the change. I'm leaving all my existing content online at (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/) AriArmstrong.com and (http://www.freecolorado.com/) FreeColorado.com. I'm starting a new blog (this one) at (http://blog.ariarmstrong.com/) http://blog.ariarmstrong.com/. Rather than run two different blogs, I will henceforth publish only this blog. (I'll publish a few residual posts at FreeColorado.com and cross-post here.)

Thankfully, there's an (http://labnol.blogspot.com/2007/08/offer-rss-feeds-for-blogger-search.html) easy way to create a feed based on labels. My FreeColorado.com blog feeds into (http://www.peoplespresscollective.org/) People's Press Collective; now I will use the "PPC" label for all relevant content. The PPC-related political feed is this:

feed://blog.ariarmstrong.com/feeds/posts/default/-/PPC

(I may also use a generic "politics" label for national stuff.)

The general feed for all my content is this:

feed://blog.ariarmstrong.com/feeds/posts/default

Others might be confused as to how to direct a subdomain to Google. Here's how I accomplished that. I checked in with my registrar and learned that I can create a subdomain there only if the DNS points to that registrar. Because I host my (other) content with (http://www.webhostingbuzz.com/) Web Hosting Buzz (a great service, by the way), I had to submit a ticket to that company's technical support team, asking to create the subdomain and direct its DNS (http://www.google.com/support/blogger/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=58317) settings to Google. Then I created a new blog at Google and switched its URL to the subdomain. It took me a while to figure out, but the process itself is very easy. (Things get more complicated if you want to move old content over to Google, which is one reason I didn't go that route.)

I'll slowly convert all my existing content at my two main pages to Dream Weaver files, such that I can easily edit the template and have it apply to all the files. (My wife tells me that all my old framed files are deprecated.) I'll run the political feed from this blog (as well as my Twitter feed) on FreeColorado.com. I'll turn AriArmstrong.com into my home page, with links to all the archival material as well as to my active projects. (I may run the blog feed there as well.)

This might be a good time to briefly summarize my history of web publishing. Back in late 1998 (before the term "blog" had been coined), I started publishing the "Colorado Freedom Report" at co-freedom.com. I quickly figured out that a hyphenated URL is a major pain, so within a few years I switched to FreeColorado.com. In late 2007, I started up AriArmstrong.com with the idea of making that my main blog, but then I realized that I didn't want to let FreeColorado.com lapse, so I converted that to a blog to begin 2008. But now I'm finding that running two blogs is hard, given my activity on Twitter and my other projects.

So now this integrated blog in 2010 marks a new stage in my internet publishing. However, some things never change. What matters most is content, and, as always, my goal is to make the tech serve the ideas.

New Blog

February 9, 2010

September 13, 2014 Update: This month I imported all the material from blog.ariarmstrong.com, at one point my Google-hosted blog, to my home page at AriArmstrong.com.

Please see the new blog at http://blog.ariarmstrong.com/.

I'll convert this URL to my homepage with information about my active projects.

Graston Soft-Tissue Tools

February 9, 2010

I was skeptical, but today I paid my chiropractor to use the (http://www.grastontechnique.com/) Graston tools on my shoulder muscles. I'm pleasantly surprised by the results.

The idea is to "massage" muscles with stainless-steel tools to smooth out knotty muscles. (Just don't call it "massage," because that's (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/08/massage-licensing-rubs-special.html) illegal.)

After a relatively quick and painless process, my muscles feel like they've been through an intensive traditional massage. They have the same fatigued feeling. Apparently the steel tools get into the muscles without the pressure required by a hand or elbow. At the time I didn't think the Graston tools were doing much, but immediately afterward I could feel the effects. I did get some surface bruising, but I guess that's pretty normal (and it doesn't bother me).

So, if you have persistently knotty muscles, you might want to let somebody have a go at you with the Graston tools. I've even thought about picking up some for personal use, but they're insanely expensive, from what I've seen. Perhaps somebody will make a knock-off. Until then, chances are pretty good that I'll occasionally pay my chiropractor to use them on me.

Free Liquor Stores from Prohibition-Era Rules

February 9, 2010

The following article originally was (http://www.coloradodaily.com/your-take/ci_14354040) published February 7 by Colorado Daily.

Free Colorado's liquor stores from Prohibition-era rules

by Ari Armstrong

Colorado unemployment rose back up to 7.5 percent in December. We remain in an economic slump. Gov. Bill Ritter has implemented and proposed a wide variety of net tax hikes and fees. The state budget remains in shambles.

Why, then, is the state's Liquor Enforcement Division spending precious tax dollars to attack businesses, raise prices and interfere with the free exchange of goods?

The problem is what Liquor Enforcer Laura Harris calls "hidden ownership" between two different liquor stores, as (http://www.denverpost.com/ci_14169859) reported by Monte Whaley for the Denver Post. Henry (or Hani) Sawaged owns Daveco Liquors in Thornton, certified by Guinness as the world's largest liquor store. Henry's brother Issam owns Davidsons Liquors in Highlands Ranch. (The Sawaged family immigrated from Jordan in 1979, fleeing religious persecution, Whaley (http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_8179392) notes.)

Whaley describes the allegations: "The Sawaged brothers negotiated the prices of major liquor purchases, signed leases and advertising agreements, oversaw employees and made other decisions on behalf of both stores, even though they were not both listed on the stores' liquor licenses."

In other words, the brothers are accused of buying from willing suppliers, selling to willing customers and running their businesses.

Leave it to the bureaucrats to persecute such "capitalist acts among consenting adults" (as philosopher Robert Nozick phrased it).

Why is this even a problem? Colorado law outlaws liquor store chains, meaning the same owner cannot open or help operate a second store.

That's why there's only one Daveco, Argonaut, and Applejack, and that's why you can buy liquor from only a single Whole Foods in the state.

Chains of other types of stores are common, from King Soopers to Radio Shack. Even brewpubs can operate chains. The owners of Boulder's Mountain Sun also run Southern Sun and the Vine Street Pub in Denver. Rock Bottom runs seven Colorado pubs and is part of a larger chain of brewpubs and restaurants.

So why are owners of liquor stores denied the right to expand to other shops?

Colorado consumers still suffer from legal restrictions coming out of Prohibition. It wasn't until a couple years ago that liquor stores could open on Sundays. State statute also forbids liquor stores from selling "food items that could constitute a snack, a meal or a portion of a meal." (They can, however, sell "liquor-filled candy" and "cocktail garnish in containers up to sixteen ounces.")

No doubt some liquor stores enjoy the statutory protection from competition. Various liquor store owners have also lobbied against proposals to allow grocery stores to sell full-strength beer, wine and liquor.

Who pays for this political war on free-market competition is the consumer and taxpayer. Consumers pay higher prices for less-convenient shopping. And taxpayers pay the salaries and expenses of those charged with micromanaging the liquor industry, like making sure that garnish containers never exceed sixteen ounces.

Competitive business owners also pay a price, because those most willing and able to sell goods to willing consumers are, in many cases, legally prohibited from doing so.

Perhaps it's time for a sober reexamination of those statutes.

Ari Armstrong is a guest writer for the Independence Institute and the publisher of FreeColorado.com.

The Real Bones

February 11, 2010

I just finished reading Bones to Ashes, a crime novel by forensic anthropologist Kathy Reichs. She is, of course, the real "Bones," but I had fun getting to know her Temperance Brennan, also the character of the television show.

I love the TV show. The crime-solving is intriguing, and the characters are engaging and fun. I really like the actors, especially Emily Deschanel (Brennan) and David Boreanaz (FBI agent Seeley Booth, and before that Angel from Joss Whedon's universe). It is because of the TV show that I picked up Reich's book.

But I like the "real" Tempe better. The television show is glitzy and high-tech; the Brennan from the book works in a modest office with only the occasional assistant. The television Tempe can tell gender, age, and often cause of death from a quick examination of deteriorated bones; the book Tempe must slowly collect the evidence and live with long-standing mysteries.

More important are the character differences. The recurring clash on the TV show is between the nerdy, secular Tempe and the cool, Catholic Booth. There's none of that in the book. Sure, book-Tempe is smart, but she's a normal person, not some hyper-geek. There's none of this rationalism-versus-emotionalism baggage that I must tolerate with the TV show.

Book-Tempe's background is also totally different from that of TV-Tempe, but such details don't matter as much to the story (even though book-Tempe was married).

The bottom line is that, while I'll continue to enjoy the TV show (my wife and I are in the middle of the third season), I now have an entirely different, alternate-universe Tempe to get to know. If the television show had not been created, I can see how a series of films could have approached the source material much differently (and much more closely).

I don't read a lot of crime novels, so I can't really compare it to other works in the genre. But I enjoyed it. I liked the leading characters, though from a somewhat distant perspective. The mystery itself develops well enough. The relationships are colorful, though I didn't much care where they led. I can't see myself ever reading the same book again (though I'll probably read other books in the series); it doesn't develop much of a broader theme. But it is an engaging, plot-driven book (with some cool science) where the good guys (mostly) win, and often that's enough.

Energy Debate: Rigs Lost and Unfavorable Energy Climate

February 11, 2010

With Scott McInnis beating the energy plank hard today, I thought this was a good time look into the background of the debate. My dad and I are currently working on a column for the Free Press; these are a couple of important issues I've come across in my research.

As the Denver Daily News reports, McInnis (http://www.thedenverdailynews.com/article.php?aID=7254) claimed,"What those [Democratic] rules and regulations did, frankly, was take Colorado from No. 1 to rock bottom on states that are friendly to do natural gas and energy business in."

Amy Oliver Cooke (http://blog.amyolivershow.com/2009/06/oil-and-gas-mozambique-more-attractive-than-co/) points to (what I take as) the origin of McInnis's claim.

Here's what the Denver Business Journal (http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/stories/2009/06/22/daily76.html) has to say on the matter (June 25, 2009):

Oil and gas executives surveyed about where they are inclined to invest their company's money have ranked Colorado last among the states.

The latest survey was issued June 24. It's been conducted annually for three years by the Fraser Institute in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. ...

The survey ranks states as well as other countries.

The first survey, in 2007, ranked Colorado at the top of the list of places executives considered positively for oil and gas investment. By 2008, the state's ranking had fallen to No. 52 out of 81 locations around the world.

The June 2008 survey said executives had grown wary of the state's efforts to tighten rules governing oil and gas operations here.

Of course this survey is subjective in nature, and articulated preferences may not match revealed preferences. The survey doesn't mean much. What matters is whether energy companies are staying in Colorado and investing here. (That said, Colorado Pols is more than a little out of line for (http://www.coloradopols.com/diary/11532/please-stop-lying) calling McInnis a liar, given that his remark is based on a credible source. Notably, the AP story that Colorado Pols cites imprecisely paraphrases McInnis; his quote above accurately reflects the survey results.)

Next up is (http://www.scottmcinnisforgovernor.com/media/press-releases/mcinnis-says-ritter-to-left-of-key-democrats-on-natural-gas.aspx) McInnis's claim: "Statewide, the number of rigs in Colorado is down 71 percent, a testament to his [Governor Ritter's] anti-jobs policies."

I'm not entirely sure where McInnis is getting this figure. I did find the same figure in an (http://www.theheraldtimes.com/western-colo-rig-count-down-71-percent/rio-blanco-county/) AP story from March 26, 2009:

New figures show the natural gas rig count in western Colorado's Piceance Basin has taken a bigger percentage drop than in Utah's Uinta Basin and the entire state of Wyoming.

Carter Mathies of Arista Midstream Services, a Golden-based energy services company, told The Daily Sentinel in Grand Junction that the Piceance rig count has dropped by 71 percent since October, from 102 rigs down to 30.

He says the Uinta Basin count has fallen 62 percent to 21 and the Wyoming count has fallen 54 percent to 36.

Industry officials say Colorado's pending new rules for drilling are the reason the count has fallen more sharply in the Piceance than other areas. Officials say the reason is the higher cost of drilling in the Piceance.

Unfortunately, I could not locate the Sentinel article referenced by the AP. I did find an (http://www.gjsentinel.com/opinion/articles/xto_purchase_bodes_well_for_we1) article from December in which Mathies, here identified as "president of Clover Energy Services LLC in Grand Junction," said that an ExxonMobil deal is "a good signal for the longer-term prospects of natural gas."

Another claim about rigs lost was (http://coloradopols.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=9125) reviewed last year by Colorado Pols. Penry stated, "The Piceance Basin has lost 60 percent of its rig count." The clowns at Colorado Pols pretend to refute Penry by claiming "the only state with a higher percentage of rigs operating than Colorado is North Dakota." But Penry wasn't comparing Colorado to other states, he was comparing Colorado Period 2 against Colorado Period 1. However, that still leaves the problem of where Penry got his information.

I did get a tip from the (http://www.rmoj.com/) Rocky Mountain Oil Journal, which claims that rigs in Colorado have declined from 78 a year ago to 47 now (though I'm not sure of the original date of the information). The reference is (http://investor.shareholder.com/bhi/rig_counts/rc_index.cfm) Baker Hughes, which I also found.

Baker Hughes explains:

A rotary rig rotates the drill pipe from surface to drill a new well (or sidetracking an existing one) to explore for, develop and produce oil or natural gas. The Baker Hughes Rotary Rig count includes only those rigs that are significant consumers of oilfield services and supplies and does not include cable tool rigs, very small truck mounted rigs or rigs that can operate without a permit. Non-rotary rigs may be included in the count based on how they are employed. For example, coiled tubing and workover rigs employed in drilling new wells are included in the count.

So I take it this is the relevant measurement, though I'm not entirely sure what this measurement includes or what it means in terms of the overall energy industry.

Notably, the U.S. rig count has dropped by 64 from last year, from 1399 to 1335, or a 4.6 percent drop.

Baker Hughes offers an Excel file called "Rigs By State—Current & Historical Data." This includes a monthly count from 2000. Here I'll list the average counts for Colorado from the January listings:

January, 2000: 18

January 2001: 26

January, 2002:25

January, 2003:31

January, 2004: 45

January, 2005: 65

January, 2006: 84

January 2007: 96

January 2008: 100

January 2009: 87

January 2010: 45 (The February 5 figure is 48.)

The recent low is October 16, 2009, with 36 rigs. The high is November 7, 2008, with 124 rigs. (May of 2008 is nearly as high.)

Based on these figures, then, both McInnis and Penry are roughly correct in their estimations of lost rigs, depending on which time frame we care to specify. From the highest mark to the latest figures, the number of rigs has dropped by 76, or 61 percent.

I'm confident the folks at Colorado Pols will apologize to Penry at their earliest convenience.

Of course, the lost-rigs figure does not prove the political rules are responsible for the lost rigs. As (http://cogcc.state.co.us/Contacts/COGCC_staff.html) David Neslin pointed out to me today over the phone, we're in the middle of a recession, and natural gas prices have tanked; "as a result, drilling activity and natural gas development declined across the nation."

I don't know how to square Neslin's comment, "production was up a little bit in Colorado last year from 2008," with the loss of rigs in 2009. Again, I don't know how closely rig-count is related to total production. But I sure wish an expert in the field would lay out the full set of facts!

Or, fancy this: somebody who gets paid to report the news might, you know, actually research the issue rather than rely on sound-bites from bureaucrats and politicians.

Comment by Mike Spalding February 11, 2010 at 11:27 AM As an investor I'm sure that the rig count decrease is mostly because of the price of natural gas. It has stayed in the low $3 area even during an unusually cold winter. No one wants to operate a rig when you are barely above break even (around 2—2.75 depending on the area). Inept moves by the state government aren't helping but these will only become a factor when it is worth drilling again.

Comment by Nathan February 22, 2010 at 8:51 PM No, Mike is wrong: the rig count decrease is due to a number of factors, and not just the price of natural gas. I haven't kept very much track of the actual count of working rigs—but keep in mind that the Baker Hughes count is considered to be the professional and accurate count of work being done in the Patch. What I am aware of, because of the impact it has on the economy in the Four Corners, and on many of my clients, and many of my friends and neighbors, is that the number of rigs drilling new wells has dropped significantly due to a number of reasons, some of which have been growing steadily worse over the past several years. Not only state regulations but local regulations have driven up the cost, caused delays, and reduced the availability of workers, access, and rigs. No one of these factors can be said or shown to have accounted for the decline: it is the total cumulative effect. I have personally seen wells, already permitted by state (and often, federal) agencies delayed for months and months due to the vindictive actions of county officials (both elected and unelected), delayed more months by attempts to prevent the drilling by various special interest groups (including but not limited to environists), and delayed still further by unjustified, arbitary acts of state, federal, and local officials where new interpretations of the laws and regulations (themselves constantly changing) have required obtaining additional permits and clearances, preparation of studies, conduct of field research, and other actions in a vast network of petty bureaucracy, each taking its toll in dollars spent, manhours consumed, and further delays. In many cases, these delays have caused companies to find projects delayed while gas prices dropped, thus leading to withdrawal of investments and reallocation of their resources to out-of-state where the delays and costs are less onerous. An example is the recent BPAmoco moratorium on new wells for the next six months in LaPlata County; another is the delays caused to drilling in both Archuleta County and Montezuma County by major cost increases and delays in obtaining temporary CDOT access permits; yet another is the denial of permits for various necessary support operations (such as pipeline construction) which has meant that wells drilled cannot produce anything because gas can't be transported to market. When you add the tremendous uncertainty created by new laws concerning produced water and water rights and permitting; a clear and unmistakable anti-industry bias in both the Executive and Legislative branches, and a steady drumbeat condemning the oil and gas industry as evil, is it any wonder that the owners of drilling rigs seek other and more hospitable climes?

'Personhood' Measure May Lack Signatures

February 15, 2010

The so-called "personhood" effort, which would ludicrously define a fertilized egg as a "person" with full legal rights, submitted signatures for the 2010 ballot on February 12. The number of valid signatures may fall short of the legally required minimum, and, should the Secretary of State declare as much, the group will have an additional fifteen days to try to close the gap.

I imagine no one in the state is happier about the measure's potential demise than Republican strategists, who are busily attempting to persuade voters that this year's election is about jobs, not the GOP's promiscuous relationship with the religious right.

I knew the effort was in trouble when, the day before the deadline, the(http://www.personhoodcolorado.com/) Personhood CO web page announced the group still needed "hundreds of signatures" to make the ballot.

Keith Mason of Personhood USA put a happy face on the effort in a February 12 (http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/8194513038.html) media release, completely ignoring the likely problem of invalid names. Mason announced, "The signatures submitted totaled 79,817, although only 76,047 were required." The release claims, "Once the signatures are verified by the Colorado Secretary of State, the amendment will be placed on the 2010 ballot and put to a vote."

Wendy Norris offers a more realistic assessment at (http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2010/02/15/elections-expert-little-chance-colorado-personhood-will-make-ballot) RH [Reproductive Health] Reality Check:

Tyler Chafee, senior associate with RBI Strategies and Research, said, "There is very little chance that voters will be seeing this measure on the 2010 ballot."

State initiatives generally try to collect 30 percent more signatures than required to cover the expected names that are disqualified because they are not registered voters. Chafee predicts the latest attempt by anti-choice activists will fall about 13,000 signatures short. He based his estimate on the same signature approval rate, a relatively high 79 percent ratio, on the group's 2008 petitions. In that campaign, more than 131,000 names were submitted to the Colorado Secretary of State, almost double the required number and 50,000 more than this go-around.

Norris also explains what happens next:

Now, the secretary of state's office now has 30 days to verify that the petition signatures are from legally registered voters. ... Should the campaign come up short, proponents will have an additional 15 days to secure the remaining signatures needed.

But based on the daily signature gathering rate over the 172 days they circulated petitions through Friday's deadline, the group would have to get new names at twice that clip to reach the estimated 13,000 deficit within two weeks.

Aside from her wishy-washy comment that the measure "just goes too far," Amanda Mountjoy of the Republican Majority for Choice (http://www.gopchoice.org/) released an admirably strong condemnation of the proposal:

Today [February 12] marks a setback in our state's efforts to overcome the wave of big government intrusion and waste sweeping our nation. The problem with the "personhood" amendment lies in its fundamental contradiction. It poses as a measure designed to protect basic rights. In fact, personhood would violate the rights of Colorado women by granting competing rights to a fertilized egg, and would put government smack dab in the middle of medical decisions ranging from birth control, to in-vitro fertilization, to miscarriages, and abortion.

As Republicans, we cannot sit by while single-issue fundamentalists dramatically change our state constitution. We are already disheartened over the creation of new big government bureaucracies in Washington, DC. We will not allow those same intrusions to take hold in our state and hand over government control on such private decisions.

The media coverage of the measure reveals a great deal about the motives of its supporters. I will write a subsequent post about that. For now, though, I hold out hope that the measure won't make the ballot. I have plenty of battles to fight already!

For background, see the paper on the 2008 measure:

(http://www.seculargovernment.us/docs/a48.pdf) Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life: Why It Matters That a Fertilized Egg Is Not a Person

Seeking Substance in the Energy Debate

February 15, 2010

The following article originally was (http://www.gjfreepress.com/article/20100215/OPINION/100219938/1062&parentprofile=1062) published February 15 by Grand Junction's Free Press.

Seeking substance in the energy debate

by Linn and Ari Armstrong

Scott McInnis, the presumptive Republican candidate for governor, blasted his Democratic opponent John Hickenlooper over energy policy in a February 9 speech to the Colorado Mining Association.

Hickenlooper, McInnis said, "sat on his hands" as the state's Democrats imposed "rules and regulations" that took "Colorado from number one to rock bottom on states that are friendly to do natural gas and energy business in" (as reported by the (http://www.thedenverdailynews.com/article.php?aID=7254) Denver Daily News).

The next day, ColoradoPols.com, a partisan left-wing group, (http://www.coloradopols.com/diary/11532/please-stop-lying) accused McInnis of lying. Citing a story in the Daily Sentinel, Colorado Pols claimed, "Colorado in fact issued more drilling permits than surrounding states last year." Moreover, as the AP reported, "1,487 new wells were drilled in Colorado last year."

So who's telling the truth? Did the Democrats' controls drive energy-related jobs out of the state, or did Colorado's energy industry continue to perform relatively well despite the recession? Both sides are exaggerating their claims and ignoring important nuances of the discussion.

We know that going through energy policy takes some hard work. We urge readers to stick with us—especially if you intend to vote this November. If you don't want politics to be controlled by big money and hyperventilating attack ads, you have to vote based on ideas and facts. That means you have to research the debates and seriously question candidates on both sides.

Energy is important. As the (http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/02/03/business/AP-US-CO-Job-Losses-Top-Town.html) AP reported earlier this month, Grand Junction "led the nation with job losses last year," suffering particularly from "job losses in the energy field. Its unemployment rate nearly doubled in the same period last year, from 4.7 percent to 9 percent."

We've been advocating the Politics of Substance with our columns and with our candidate survey. McInnis, by the way, has promised to answer our survey, and we hope Hickenlooper does as well. We will publish their complete comments at FreeColorado.com, and we look forward to evaluating their remarks. See (http://www.freecolorado.com/2010/01/colorado-2010-candidate-survey.html) http://tinyurl.com/cosurvey10.

Regarding the energy debate, the first thing to notice is that the guy painting the rosy picture of Colorado's energy industry is David Neslin, the director of the state's Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. Neslin favored the rules that McInnis wants to change.

Any direct comparison between Colorado and its neighbors is worthless. It's sort of like saying the Denver Nuggets are doing great because they can outplay the local high school team. What matters is not how Colorado compares to its neighbors, but whether Colorado is performing to its potential.

Walk over to your computer and search the internet for "Piceance Basin." You will find a (http://geosurvey.state.co.us/wateratlas/chapter6_2page1.asp) Geological Survey map showing a large region of Western Colorado encompassing Grand Junction. What's important about this area is that it is a major reserve of natural gas (as Gary Harmon described in a great (http://www.gjsentinel.com/news/articles/natural_gas_operations_in_pice1) article over at the Sentinel last December).

What about the claim of new wells drilled in Colorado last year? The number of wells drilled tells us little about trends of overall production. Plus, what matters is the change in new wells from year to year.

We talked with Neslin on the phone, and he said "production was up a little bit in Colorado last year from 2008." But would production have been even higher with improved rules?

Morever, the comparison to 2008 is misleading, because companies were already changing their behavior in 2008 in anticipation of the rules. Last year the (http://denver.bizjournals.com/denver/stories/2008/05/19/story1.html) Denver Business Journal reported that, when Encana Oil & Gas had $500 million to spend, "None of it went to Colorado; all of it went to operations in Wyoming, Texas and elsewhere, according to the company, which cited 'uncertainty' about the proposed regulations for its decisions."

The upshot is that the article by Colorado Pols calling McInnis a liar is a partisan hack job that twists the facts to support its political agenda.

But McInnis is also stretching the facts. The political rules may be one factor hampering Colorado's energy industry, but it probably isn't the most important one.

In a (http://www.scottmcinnisforgovernor.com/media/press-releases/mcinnis-says-ritter-to-left-of-key-democrats-on-natural-gas.aspx) media release, McInnis claims that Colorado is losing energy jobs to Pennsylvania because of the relatively better political rules there. But, as Harmon wrote, extracting the natural gas from our region can be difficult. Harmon wrote that "the Marcellus Shale formation in the eastern United States has become more attractive" due to drilling advances. (It's also close to eastern customers.) That formation happens to run through Pennsylvania.

Energy policy is far too important to be dumbed down for partisan advantage. People's jobs and livelihoods depend on energy production. As consumers we depend on natural gas to heat our homes and provide additional energy.

We think McInnis can make a good case that overbearing rules have softened Colorado's energy industry relative to where it could be. But it is a complex field influenced by technological advances, federal rules, geology, prices, and costs. McInnis will be more persuasive when he offers the relevant context and nuance.

Linn Armstrong is a local political activist and firearms instructor with the Grand Valley Training Club. His son, Ari, edits FreeColorado.com from the Denver area.

What Are the Implications of 'Personhood?'

February 16, 2010

If fully implemented, the so-called (http://ariarmstrong.com/2010/02/christian-soldiers-seek-abortion-ban/) "personhood" measure that may again appear on Colorado's ballot to define a fertilized egg as a person will outlaw all or almost all abortions, excepting procedures necessary to save the life of the woman. On that point advocates and critics of the measure agree. More contentious are claims about the measure's impact on birth control, fertility treatments, and legal issues surrounding miscarriages and women's health.

Ironically, a document from PersonhoodCO (the organization supporting the measure), (http://www.personhoodcolorado.com/content/scare-tactic-alert) "Scare Tactic Alert", attacks straw men, ignores substantive criticism, and obscures key issues of the debate even as it promises to reveal the "outright lies" of critics and to give "truthful answers." However, the document does clearly reveal the intentions of the measure's supporters on a number of important points. It is worth reviewing to note both where it misleads and where it clarifies the positions of the measure's sponsors.

"It Will Ban Abortion"

The document says flatly of the measure: "It will ban abortion." If passed and implemented, it will ban all elective abortions. It will ban all abortions even in cases of rape, incest, and fetal deformity.

Embryonic Stem-Cell Research Will Be Banned

Under the "personhood" measure, any scientific research or medical procedure that involved the destruction of a fertilized egg (or embryo at any stage) would be outlawed, as the measure's sponsors loudly declare.

Abortion Will Be Deemed Murder

The document makes clear that, under the "personhood" measure, a woman will be criminally charged for getting an abortion. A woman will be charged with a crime if she "acted with criminal culpability which includes the performance of an act and a matching criminal intent. These standards would be the same as would be applied to any mother who harms her children, born or preborn."

The document confirms: "actions taken with criminal intent will be punished under the existing criminal code, irrespective of whether the child is in or out of the womb."

Abortion Could Trigger the Death Penalty

Not only would abortion be considered murder under the "personhood" measure, it could be punished with the death penalty. This applies both to doctors who perform abortions and women who get them.

The document denies that the measure "will threaten doctors who perform legitimate surgeries." However, a "legitimate" surgery, according to the document, cannot include any intention "to kill the child in the womb."

The document states: "In Colorado, the death penalty is only available for first degree murder with aggravating factors. First degree murder requires deliberation and intent."

While the document does not directly state that the death penalty could also apply to women who obtain abortions, the document states that women will be punished "under the existing criminal code." By implication, if a woman deliberately and intentionally aborts an embryo or fetus, she could be subject to the death penalty.

Colorado Statute 18-1.3-1201(1)(a) states, "Upon conviction of guilt of a defendant of a class 1 felony, the trial court shall conduct a separate sentencing hearing to determine whether the defendant should be sentenced to death or life imprisonment..."

Birth Control That Can Prevent Implantation Will be Outlawed

The "Scare Tactic Alert" document claims it is a "lie" that the measure "will ban contraception." However, the document also defines "contraception" strictly to mean something that prevents the fertilization of an egg. Any form of birth control that prevents a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus will be outlawed under the measure. Notably, this includes the birth control pill.

The document states: "the beginning of life (under normal sexual reproduction) takes place when the sperm touches the ovum. Barrier methods of contraception that prevent the union of the sperm and the egg will not be outlawed, since neither a sperm nor an egg by itself is a human being."

The birth control pill acts primarily as a contraceptive, in that it prevents the fertilization of an egg. However, according to the documentation distributed by the manufacturers of the birth control pill, it can also act to prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg.

For example, my wife takes TriNessa. According to (http://www.webmd.com/drugs/drug-78126-TriNessa+28+Oral.aspx?drugid=78126&drugname=TriNessa+(28)+Oral) WebMD, this birth control pill acts to "prevent pregnancy in 3 ways. One way is by preventing the release of an egg (ovulation). A second way is by changing the cervical mucus, making it more difficult for an egg to meet sperm (fertilization). A third way is by changing the womb lining, making it difficult for a fertilized egg to attach to the lining of the womb (implantation)."

(http://pi.watson.com/data_stream.asp?product_group=1321&p=pi&language=E) Watson Pharmaceuticals, the producer of TriNessa, agrees that this pill can act to "reduce the likelihood of implantation."

As Diana Hsieh and I (http://www.seculargovernment.us/docs/a48.pdf) review in our paper on the subject (page 4), the birth control pill is more effective than condoms at preventing unwanted pregnancy. My wife and I find it to be the best form of birth control for us, and we utterly reject the insane claims of of the "personhood" advocates that using the birth control pill is morally wrong, much less the equivalent of murder that should subject women to severe criminal penalties.

Most Fertility Treatments Would Be Outlawed

PersonhoodCO claims it is a "lie" that the measure "will ban in vitro fertilization." However, as Diana and I explain in our paper, fertility treatments generally involve the destruction of fertilized eggs as a necessary aspect of effective treatment (see pages 6-7).

The "Scare Tactic Alert" document admits that fertility treatments that involve the destruction of fertilized eggs would be banned. The measure would, in effect, practically ban fertility treatments for nearly all women.

As Diana and I summarize, "[F]ertility clinics would be left with two options. They could fertilize one egg at a time, vastly raising the costs and time of the procedure because most eggs don't fertilize. Or they could implant all fertilized eggs into the woman, in some cases posing a health risk or producing more children than a couple can raise well. The practical result of Amendment 48 likely would be to shut down Colorado's seven reproductive clinics."

Doctors Would Be Subject to Prosecutorial Oversight

PersonhoodCO states, "[I]n those extremely rare situations where a woman needs treatment that might unintentionally result in the death of the child, the doctor would not have acted with intent to kill or even harm the child, but with intent to cure the mother." (Note here that PersonhoodCO is simply defining any procedure "where a woman needs treatment" as not counted as an "abortion.") Furthermore, when abortion was outlawed "there were no prosecutions of doctors for legitimate medical treatment," the document claims.

There are two main problems with these claims of PersonhoodCO. First, what counts as a "legitimate medical treatment" is precisely the issue in question. Now, who decides such matters is the woman in consultation with her doctor. Under the "personhood" measure, politicians, prosecutors, and judges will decide. Knowing this, doctors will tend to err on the side of not acting to protect a woman's health. If a doctor chooses not to take action in a difficult case, he will suffer no criminal penalty even if the woman dies. If the doctor chooses to act, he may be charged with murdering a zygote by a prosecutor who doubts the procedure was necessary.

Second, today doctors have much better equipment and procedures than they had several decades ago, so doctors today simply have more opportunities to medically intervene to protect a woman's health.

The broader issue is that doctors may effectively be prevented from acting in cases where "only" the woman's health, rather than her life, is at risk. By the logic of the "personhood" measure, a doctor should at least sometimes allow a woman to suffer long-term health consequences in order to save a zygote. The measure takes such determinations out of the hands of women and doctors and places them in the hands of government officials.

Suspicious Miscarriages Could Invite Prosecution

PersonhoodCO claims it is a "lie" that the measure "will threaten women who miscarry with criminal prosecution." The problem with that claim is that telling the difference between an unintentional miscarriage and an intentional act can be difficult. Who gets to decide whether a woman's diet, herbal remedies, or physical damage was intended to cause an abortion? Again, under the "personhood" measure, the answer is government officials, so far as prosecution is concerned.

The Abortion Industry?

One of the more dishonest claims made by PersonhoodCO is that criticisms are coming from "the abortion industry." No doubt clinics that perform abortions also oppose the measure. However, many independent critics, including Diana and me, are in no way a part of the "abortion industry," and PersonhoodCO's smears are childish and dishonest.

Diana and I wrote our paper, (http://www.seculargovernment.us/docs/a48.pdf) Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life: Why It Matters That a Fertilized Egg Is Not a Person, without financial compensation. We wrote and promoted that paper because we are horrified by the vicious nature of the "personhood" measure.

Any reader of our paper will realize that PersonhoodCO is attacking straw men in its "Scare Tactic Alert." We do not, for example, claim that the measure "will ban contraception." Instead, we claim, as PersonhoodCO itself claims, that the measure will ban forms of birth control that may prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg.

Conclusion

At least the "Scare Tactic Alert" clearly lays out many of the intentions and implications of the "personhood" measure. Unfortunately, the document also smears critics of the measure, distorts what critics of the measure have said about it, ignores substantive criticism published in 2008, and understates the impacts of the measure in areas such as the potential for criminal prosecution in cases of suspicious miscarriages.

By implying that all criticisms of the "personhood" measure are "scare tactics," PersonhoodCO wrongly suggests that substantive criticisms of the measure have been exaggerated. Notably, not a single advocate of the "personhood" measure has attempted to directly refute anything from the 2008 (http://www.seculargovernment.us/docs/a48.pdf) paper.

Critics of the "personhood" measure do not need to resort to "scare tactics" to defeat it. The objective facts about the measure and its implications are truly horrifying.

'Christian Soldiers' Seek Abortion Ban

February 16, 2010

Anyone still unclear about the faith-based impetus of abortion bans should consider that, at a recent news conference, advocates of the so-called "personhood" measure broke out singing "Onward, Christian Soldiers" (as (http://www.thedenverdailynews.com/article.php?aID=7303) reported by the Denver Daily News). The proposal would grant full legal rights to fertilized eggs, banning abortion and any other action that could harm a zygote or embryo, with the possible exception of procedures to save a pregnant woman's life.

As I (http://blog.ariarmstrong.com/2010/02/personhood-measure-may-lack-signatures.html) noted earlier today, the "personhood" measure seems to be in trouble, as the number of certified signatures will likely fall below the required minimum. As the News also points out, the number of signatures collected this year is nearly forty percent lower than the number collected in 2008. Wendy Norris (http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2010/02/15/elections-expert-little-chance-colorado-personhood-will-make-ballot) notes that this year's news conference attracted only around twenty-five participants, a third of the 2008 showing. (Meanwhile, Norris (http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2010/02/10/radical-antichoice-group-rocked-founder-resignations) reports, infighting has overtaken a national group supportive of the "personhood" drive.) While such internal struggles are good news to those favoring legal sanity and reproductive rights, the movement remains a potent threat, and one that must be fought on ideological grounds.

Obviously, the "personhood" movement is grounded in sectarian, religious faith. The purpose of the group is to impose sectarian beliefs by political force. (We will properly leave aside the fact that the Christian Bible does not actually demand abortion bans.)

Norris offers additional detail about the news conference. Gualberto Garcia Jones, one of the measure's main supporters, referred to advocates of the measure as an "army of faithful pro-life warriors." Leslie Hanks, another speaker at the conference, "thanked Focus on the Family Founder Dr. James Dobson." Hanks also recognized the Reverend Bob Enyart, who (http://www.seculargovernment.us/docs/a48.pdf) has advocated the death penalty for doctors and women who facilitate or obtain an abortion once the practice is outlawed (see page 16, note 1; see also (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lzOcTJpgx0k) Enyart's YouTube video on the matter, in which Enyart also advocates the death penalty for adultery).

As Westword (http://blogs.westword.com/latestword/2010/02/personhood_amendment_itll_keep.php) reports, Keith Mason, spokesman for Personhood USA, has no intention of giving up: "we're going to keep fighting until we win."

Ironically, Personhood USA's own (http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/8194513038.html) media release makes no mention of the group's faith-based roots. That did not cause Christian News Wire, "the nation's leading distributor of religious press releases," from suffering any confusion on the point.

Though the advocates of the measure clearly want to ban abortion because they believe such is the will of God, their formal arguments make scant reference to sectarian beliefs, for two reasons. First, the organizers want to potentially appeal to those of different worldviews, including other Christians who doubt their religion demands a ban on abortion. Second, the organizers are aware that strictly faith-based arguments likely would not withstand judicial scrutiny, which is why, for instance, advocates of "Intelligent Design" in tax-funded schools tried to distance their arguments from their sectarian origins.

Regardless of the motives behind the measure, its critics must defeat the arguments made in the proposal's favor, even when those arguments are merely pretext for a sectarian purpose.

Diana Hsieh and I thoroughly critiqued the "personhood" measure in our 2008 paper, (http://www.seculargovernment.us/docs/a48.pdf) Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life: Why It Matters That a Fertilized Egg Is Not a Person. Here it is worth pointing out the textual change of the measure as well as some of the bad arguments that continue to be made in the proposal's favor.

The 2008 measure stated, "As used in sections 3, 6, and 25 of Article II of the state constitution, the terms 'person' or 'persons' shall include any human being from the moment of fertilization." Those other sections pertain to rights to life, liberty, property, equality of justice, and due process of law.

The 2010 proposal changes the language: "As used in sections 3, 6, and 25 of Article II of the state constitution, the term 'person' shall apply to every human being from the beginning of the biological development of that human being."

Why the change? Mason explains to Westword:

The differences between this year's amendment and its 2008 predecessor "are minor," Mason concedes. "There's a slight change in the language. Now it says a person is a human being 'from the beginning of the biological development of that human being' in lieu of 'from the moment of fertilization.'"

He credits this change to Dianne Irving, a faculty member at Georgetown University: "She felt using the term 'biological beginning' was more inclusive and would include all babies—even test tube babies. And that's our goal—to protect every human."

In other words, the language was changed to make the measure even broader. Its advocates want the measure to do everything the 2008 language would have done, plus protect non-fertilized zygotes potentially created through (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2009/07/personhood-returns-for-2010.html) cloning.

Ironically, though, the change in language could actually give the courts (so long as they are not overrun by religious zealots) license to interpret the measure less broadly, not more. The courts could define a "human being" as starting its "biological development" from birth. While the implications of the 2008 language were anything but clear, at least that language unambiguously referred to "fertilization." The new language is by one natural interpretation essentially a tautology: something is a human being from the moment it is a human being. But when something becomes a "human being" in the sense of personhood is precisely the issue in question.

This definitional problem points to a fundamental error made by those advocating the "personhood" measure. As Diana Hsieh and I wrote in 2008:

[T]he advocates of Amendment 48 depend on an equivocation on "human being" to make their case. A fertilized egg is human, in the sense that it contains human DNA. It is also a "being," in the sense that it is an entity. That's also true of a gallbladder: it is human and it is an entity. Yet that doesn't make your gallbladder a human person with the right to life. Similarly, the fact that an embryo is biologically a human entity is not grounds for claiming that it's a human person with a right to life. Calling a fertilized egg a "human being" is word-play intended to obscure the vast biological differences between a fertilized egg traveling down a woman's fallopian tube and a born infant sleeping in a crib. It is intended to obscure the fact that anti-abortion crusaders base their views on scripture and authority, not science.

No doubt the advocates of the proposal will seek to argue that "the beginning of the biological development of that human being" (normally) refers to the moment of fertilization. Those advocates have made it abundantly clear that their long-term goal is to elect sectarian politicians who will appoint sectarian judges who will interpret the "personhood" measure to grant full legal rights to fertilized eggs. In the meantime, however, if the "personhood" measure were passed, it would generate years of expensive and unresolved legal wars.

At least the advocates of the measure are clear that they do in fact want to ban abortion from the moment of conception. Garcia-Jones (http://www.thedenverdailynews.com/article.php?aID=7303) said, "The point of what we're trying to do, just for everyone who thinks we're trying to be sneaky, we're trying to end abortion." The group's web page (http://www.personhoodcolorado.com/content/questions-about-personhood) states:"The goal is very simple, END ABORTION NOW by protecting all innocent human life from the beginning of biological development." The same page clearly counts fertilized eggs as "human beings."

Unfortunately, one consequence of the measure's language change will be to further confuse many voters about the intent and implications of the measure. While the advocates of the measure want to equate the moment of fertilization with the beginning of a human being, in the full sense of personhood with all the legal rights of a born infant, many voters will understandably think the measure means something else. If the measure were to pass and land in court, perhaps lawyers would drag in voters from 2010 to testify about the various interpretations given the measure.

Another variant of the group's equivocation is its use of the phrase, "preborn baby," invoked by Garcia-Jones in the group's recent (http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/8194513038.html) media release. Ordinarily a "baby" means a born infant. However, often a pregnant woman will refer to her fetus as a "baby" as well. But merely using the same word to refer to a fertilized egg, a fetus, and a born infant does not make them equivalent. Again the advocates of the "personhood" measure rely on word games, rather than arguments, to "prove" that a fertilized egg should be granted the full legal rights of a born infant.

I'll have more to say about the claims of the "personhood" crusaders in a subsequent post. The critical point here is that the advocates of the "personhood" measure are motivated by sectarian faith, and they wish to impose their sectarian beliefs on the rest of us by political force. The non-sectarian arguments they offer are extremely weak, amounting to little more than word games intended to disguise the fundamentally sectarian nature of their cause. That cause should be rejected accordingly.

NYT Smears Tea Partiers

February 17, 2010

I was initially baffled by a (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/16/us/politics/16teaparty.html) New York Times article on the Tea Parties, until I realized that the left, with its worship of command-and-control, literally cannot conceive of true grass-roots activism.

Do nuts and conspiracy theorists ever show up at leftist rallies? Obviously. All the time. But, because such rallies are officially organized by some recognized leftist group, the nuts can be ignored, and the leftist media need only report the official views of the organizing group.

But there is nobody organizing the Tea Parties. There are many amorphous, loosely organized groups, and in some cases some of these groups have developed more or less formal leadership. But there is no official spokesperson for a Tea Party. Somebody announces their intention to rally, and other people join in for their own reasons. In some cases some major group, such as the Independence Institute, has sponsored a rally in Colorado, but even then the individual participants came for their own reasons.

Obviously the Tea Parties have been spurred by annoyance with the way things are going in the District of Charlatans. But beyond that, there is no official doctrine of the Tea Parties. The only thing that can be said of the Tea Partiers is that they are upset about current trends, and beyond that they have their own ideas. Tea Parties are a collection of individuals, and that is something the leftist media simply cannot understand.

The approach of David Barstow of the New York Times, then, is to point out that some Tea Partiers are nutty, and smear all other Tea Partiers by implication and guilt by association.

I have attended a number of rallies loosely fitting into the Tea Party movement. I have spoken at a couple of them. I have interviewed many participants. Sure, I've seen some nuts. I've seen the anti-abortion zealots, the anti-immigrant bigots, a few with tasteless Nazi signs, and the conspiracy theorists. But they are certainly not representative of Tea Partiers.

Instead, based on my interviews with numerous participants at these rallies, I have found basically thoughtful voters who generally favor Constitutionally limited government and freer markets. Quite a number of people I've interviewed have expressed an integrated and sensible ideology of liberty, while others have given me confused doctrines offering a mish-mash of freedom and political controls.

Here are links to some of my coverage of these events:

(http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/02/pork-roast-rally-in-photos.html) Pork Roast Rally in Photos

(http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/08/meet-mob-longmont-protests-obamacare.html) Meet the 'Mob:' Longmont Protests Obamacare

(http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/09/denver-912-rally-freedom-forever.html) Denver 9/12 Rally: Freedom Forever

(http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/07/pro-liberty-health-rally-draws-hundreds.html) Pro-Liberty Health Rally Draws Hundreds

(http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/04/denver-tea-party-ralliers-in-their-own.html) Denver Tea Party Ralliers In Their Own Words

(http://www.freecolorado.com/2010/01/coloradans-speak-out-against-obama-care.html) Coloradans Speak Out Against Obama Care

(http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/07/july-4-tea-party-arvada-colorado.html) July 4 Tea Party Arvada Colorado

Barstow claims that "Tea Party members joined a coalition, Friends for Liberty, that includes representatives from Glenn Beck's 9/12 Project, the John Birch Society, and Oath Keepers, a new player in a resurgent militia movement. ... These people are part of a significant undercurrent within the Tea Party movement that has less in common with the Republican Party than with the Patriot movement, a brand of politics historically associated with libertarians, militia groups, anti-immigration advocates and those who argue for the abolition of the Federal Reserve."

At least Barstow does not claim to be describing all participants of the Tea Parties. He merely taints the rest by associative guilt.

It is true that there are some people who would claim all the labels that Barstow vomits onto the page. It is also true that many Tea Partiers would reject all those labels. Many libertarians who want to abolish the Federal Reserve also advocate open immigration.

As for me, I reject libertarianism (though I used to be a Libertarian), I am part of no "milita group" save the one defined by Colorado's Constitution, I think Glenn Beck is often a clown but that he sometimes gets something right, I think the Birchers are flat-out nuts, I have no idea who the "Oath Keepers" are, I favor open immigration, and, yes, I think the Federal Reserve should be abolished in favor of a free market in currency.

And I refuse to let some idiot newspaper reporter guilt me out of civic participation because a few nuts or (gasp!) people who disagree with me happen to attend the same rally. I will speak for myself. "I will not be labeled, cataloged, filed, or coded."

I will advocate liberty and individual rights by whatever just means I can, regardless of what the New York Times thinks of it.

Sens. Udall, Bennet Screw Responsible Credit Users

February 17, 2010

Nearly a year ago I (http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/05/credit-controls-punish-responsible.html) warned that the credit card controls championed by Senator Mark Udall (and subsequently by (http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_14401852) Senator Michael Bennet) would "punish the responsible" and "make it harder for responsible cardholders to negotiate good terms."

Well, today my wife and I got a letter from Citibank regarding our credit card with the company:

Effective April 1, 2010, an annual fee of $60 is being added.

The reason we are making this change is to maintain the quality of our service amid the rising cost of doing business [emphasis added]. ... Each year, we'll credit the $60 fee back to your account once you have made $2,400 in purchases...

What great timing! It was just yesterday that Bennet (http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_14401852) promised people "notices in the mail from their credit card companies notifying them of upcoming changes in their accounts." That is most definitely a "change," apparently part of that grander package of "change" we have all been promised.

We're not going to commit to charging that amount with Citibank every year, and we're certainly not going to pay a $60 annual fee. Therefore, we're going to cancel the card, reducing our total credit availability.

While obviously Citibank is not going to finger Senators Udall and Bennet, particularly in today's vicious political climate for businesses, the most obvious contributer to this "rising cost of doing business" is the Congressional legislation.

Rarely a day goes by when I do not regret voting for that economic illiterate Mark Udall.

Comment by Ari February 17, 2010 at 12:13 AM However, I had good reason to vote for Udall as the lesser of evils, and I would not change my vote if I could. I do wish that Udall's challenger had been a consistent defender of liberty, thereby earning my vote. Whatever his flaws—and they are many—Udall's letter on the separation of church and state remains one of the most eloquent statements I have ever read by a modern elected official.

McPheters: FBI Agent, Mormon Bishop

February 20, 2010

Yesterday I dropped by the local Costco and was surprised to run across an author at a book signing. The author was (http://mikemcpheters.com/) Mike McPheters; the book isAgent Bishop, the account of his life as an FBI agent and Mormon bishop. I asked him if I could come back with my video camera, and he agreed.

In the following video McPheters discusses his past and his book.

[February 21 Update:] Then we discussed several political issues: welfare, the draft, drug policy, and immigration. My goal was to discuss some tough questions with a light touch; I wasn't trying to provoke debate. I should note, though, that I regard the draft as a violation of individual rights, I oppose the drug war and believe it causes enormous (http://www.independent.org/store/book_detail.asp?bookID=13) harm, and I favor open immigration (with the caveats that I mention in the interview). I broke up our conversation by topic.

McPheters on Church and Welfare

McPheters on the Draft

McPheters on Drug Policy

McPheters on Immigration

New Interview on Values of Harry Potter

February 20, 2010

This past Thursday I went to the (http://www.i2i.org/) Independence Institute to join Penn Pfiffner for a interview about my book, (http://www.valuesofharrypotter.com/) Values of Harry Potter. (Be sure to read my (http://www.freecolorado.com/ftcdisclosures.html) FTC disclosures regarding the Institute, lest you be unduly influenced!)

We discussed the theme of the heroic valuer found in J. K. Rowling's novels, the virtue of independence as practiced by the heroes, and the significance of the Unforgivable Curses. (Penn also offered a delightful FTC disclosure, as I had sent a review copy to the Institute. That government outfit is "more meddlesome than the Ministry," I mocked.)

The (http://audio.ivoices.org/mp3/iipodcast382.mp3) iVoices podcast is around eight minutes in length; (http://audio.ivoices.org/mp3/iipodcast382.mp3) listen in!

Help Brad Beck Shave His Head for Cancer Research

February 21, 2010

Brad Beck, founder of Denver's (http://liberty.freetoasthost.org/) Liberty Toastmasters, will be shaving his head to raise money for the (https://www.stbaldricks.org/participants/mypage/participantid/361270) St. Baldrick's Foundation for childhood cancer research.

The Better Business Bureau (http://www.bbb.org/charity-reviews/national/cancer/st-baldricks-foundation-in-pasadena-ca-2177) lists St. Baldrick's as meeting "the 20 Standards for Charity Accountability."

(https://www.stbaldricks.org/participants/mypage/participantid/361270) Pitch in!

Cleve Tidwell: Colorado 2010 Candidate Survey

February 22, 2010

(http://tidwellforsenate.com/) Cleve Tidwell is a candidate for U.S. Senate. Questions are shown in bold. See the other replies to the survey at (http://www.freecolorado.com/2010/01/colorado-2010-candidate-survey.html) http://tinyurl.com/cosurvey10.

SUMMARY

In a Twitter-length reply (140 characters maximum), please state why you are running for political office.

[No answer.]

ECONOMIC ISSUES

* Should the federal or state government spend money in an attempt to "stimulate" the economy? If so, on what sorts of projects?

The government cannot, in any way, spend its way out. Only business creates jobs. Period.

* Should tax dollars be directed toward energy projects, tourism, or any other form of business subsidies?

No. Tax credits or reductions for generating jobs and business for this should be done

* Should state or federal spending (depending on which office you seek) be higher or lower than it is currently?

Dramatically lower; spending frozen (except for emergencies) and deficit *elimination* targeted

* Should the state or federal minimum wage (depending on which office you seek) be repealed, maintained, or increased?

Reduced in order to allow businesses to hire more people and get them back to work

* Should college education be subsidized by tax dollars?

Agree with the principal that in exchange for military service education subsidized, otherwise no.

* Should antitrust law or its enforcement be changed?

Yes

* (Federal-level candidates:) Should Sarbanes-Oxley be repealed?

Yes

SOCIAL AND CHURCH/STATE ISSUES

What do you believe is meant by the "separation of church and state," and do you endorse it?

This was a Jefferson statement not the first amendment statement it gives us the freedom of religion and gov out

of our person live.

* Should religious institutions receive tax dollars for providing welfare or other faith-based services?

* Should the teaching of creationism or Intelligent Design be subsidized by tax dollars?

Federal government has no business in the affairs of peoples beliefs

* Should tax-funded schools establish a period of permitted or required prayer?

Federal government has no business in the affairs of peoples beliefs

* Should government officials promote religiously oriented displays and comments on government property and at government events?

Federal government has no business in the affairs of peoples beliefs

* Do you support gay marriage?

'Marriage' is not a domain of federal government.

* If you answered no to the question above, do you support domestic partnerships, civil unions, or comparable legal recognition of gay couples?

This is a local issue and not one to be decided by the federal government—personally I do not support it.

* Should gay couples be allowed to adopt children by the same standards as heterosexual couples?

This is a local issue and not one to be decided by the federal government

* Should government never, always, or sometimes mandate parental notification and consent before a minor may legally obtain an abortion, and, if sometimes, under what conditions?

This is a local issue and not one to be decided by the federal government- is not defined under the constitution

* Should government mandate waiting periods or ultrasounds before a woman may legally obtain an abortion?

This is a local issue and not one to be decided by the federal government- is not defined under the constitution

* Do you endorse the "personhood" measure that may appear on the 2010 ballot?

May be on the ballot—this is a local issue and not one to be decided by the federal government- is not defined

under the constitution

* Should abortion be legal in cases of fetal deformity?

This is not one to be decided by the federal government- is not defined under the constitution