Well, ask your state representative to say no, as this isn’t currently scheduled to be voted on by the citizenry.
Senate contact list.
State Senate districts.
Douglas County senator is Ted Harvey, ted.harvey.senate@state.co.us .
IMO the bill is yet another ill-informed and extremely unwise alteration of our constitutional rights and protections.
“The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and the District of Columbia).”
I don’t WANT to be governed by 51% of any gang of thugs that can be assembled (or more politely, by whatever the majority FEELS like doing).
“…this meant that some men (the majority or any gang that claims to be its spokesman) are ethically entitled to pursue any whims (or any atrocities) they desire to pursue, while other men are ethically obliged to spend their lives in the service of that gang's desires.” (A. Rand, The Objectivist Ethics.)
Actual text of the bill.
Good articles:
WSJ
Amy Oliver Blog (EXCELLENT academics’ articles linked in this page’s margin.)
InDenverTimes (At the end of this article there is a VERY lengthy explanation FOR electoral reform from commenter “Susan”.)
Explanation of National Popular Vote Bill The national website FOR electoral reform.
Editorials and commentaries:
Electoral Nonsense Grand Junction Sentinel
Electoral College: The system works
Gen. Info:
What is the Electoral College?
Constitutional Topic: The Electoral College
The Pursuit of Happiness ~ Democracy or Republic?
The Electoral College: Enlightened Democracy
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
GOP’s Sen. Specter switches parties
You just can't make this stuff up.
GOP's Sen. Specter switches parties
I suspect the senator has been a wolf in sheep's clothing anyway, but I'm concerned about the serious threat to our constitutional republic and an individual's minority rights. (Right now that minority would be ME as a Conservative AND a Republican.) We are dangerously close to pure democratic rule (a.k.a. mob rule, 51% of ANYbody that wants ANYthing that FEELS good to them).
Some noteworthy points (IMO) from the above linked article:
"Specter faced an extraordinarily difficult re-election challenge in his home state of Pennsylvania in 2010, having first to confront a challenge from his right in the Republican primary before pivoting to a general election campaign against a Democrat.
"I am unwilling to have my twenty-nine year Senate record judged by the Pennsylvania Republican primary electorate," he said in the statement. "
"Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele responded to the switch in a statement, saying, "Let's be honest - Sen. Specter didn't leave the GOP based on principles of any kind. He left to further his personal political interests because he knew that he was going to lose a Republican primary due to his left-wing voting record.""
"Sen. Arlen Specter is one smart senator," added Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va. "He is an independent thinker of the type that the framers of the Constitution had in mind when they conceived the office of U.S. senator." [Boy, there's an endorsement! Not! -JH]
And some of us (ME) wonder why Atlas is Shrugging.
GOP's Sen. Specter switches parties
I suspect the senator has been a wolf in sheep's clothing anyway, but I'm concerned about the serious threat to our constitutional republic and an individual's minority rights. (Right now that minority would be ME as a Conservative AND a Republican.) We are dangerously close to pure democratic rule (a.k.a. mob rule, 51% of ANYbody that wants ANYthing that FEELS good to them).
Some noteworthy points (IMO) from the above linked article:
"Specter faced an extraordinarily difficult re-election challenge in his home state of Pennsylvania in 2010, having first to confront a challenge from his right in the Republican primary before pivoting to a general election campaign against a Democrat.
"I am unwilling to have my twenty-nine year Senate record judged by the Pennsylvania Republican primary electorate," he said in the statement. "
"Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele responded to the switch in a statement, saying, "Let's be honest - Sen. Specter didn't leave the GOP based on principles of any kind. He left to further his personal political interests because he knew that he was going to lose a Republican primary due to his left-wing voting record.""
"Sen. Arlen Specter is one smart senator," added Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va. "He is an independent thinker of the type that the framers of the Constitution had in mind when they conceived the office of U.S. senator." [Boy, there's an endorsement! Not! -JH]
And some of us (ME) wonder why Atlas is Shrugging.
Speaking of Waterboarding
I. There goes that catchy title thing again. I'm lovin' (NOT) the unpleasant topics these days, but I do like to do difficult things first, and asking the hard questions is part of that.
But about that 'boarding. It was referred to (and I commented) in this blog: Let this one go Mr. President, let it go. and the blog's link to Presidential Poison in the WSJ, about possible indictments for interrogators. Here is an even BETTER opinion piece (IMO) on the subject in the WSJ: Misconceptions About the Interrogation Memos. (It's better because I agree with the opinion, of course.)
On the other side of the coin is this piece I do NOT agree with in the latest Time Mag: Dumb IntelligenceBy Robert Baer Thursday, Apr. 23, 2009. (Two points for catchy oxymoronic title, at least.)
Says Baer: "President Obama's decision to declassify Justice Department memos detailing the interrogation techniques legalized by his predecessor has sparked a predictable partisan furor. Bush Administration officials say the release has somehow compromised national security and let the enemy in on our secrets--even though U.S. interrogators' use of harsh and even sadistic techniques has been known for years."
I say "has been know for years" makes it OK to substantiate with specific memos? I say not.
Baer says: "Obama apparently spent weeks debating the merits of releasing the documents and was lobbied by CIA Director Leon Panetta to keep them classified. In the end, the case for transparency was too great. The harsh tactics--isolation, sleep deprivation, humiliation, waterboarding--not only had been widely reported, but much of it was also acknowledged to have originated in..." etc. etc.
I say two points for Panetta for "trying" to keep them classified. And "isolation, sleep deprivation, humiliation" (GASP!) are harsh?! Oh the inhumanity. (See the Misconceptions article about Abu Ghraib prison abuses.)
Baer even confirms: "From the interrogations of Abu Zubaydah, Mohammed and other al-Qaeda prisoners, the CIA learned a lot more than it knew before about the group's communications, its use of safe houses and codes, and the outlines of its worldview. Valuable stuff, but stuff that could have been extracted through patient and relentless persuasion."
I say "could have been extracted"? I don't know that.
Finally, Baer says: "A thorough clearing of the air will help discredit the idea that we either torture terrorists or become victims." And "There are ticking time bombs out there. But torture won't get us any closer to discovering when they're going to go off."
I say the 'tortures' he has mentioned (isolation, sleep deprivation, humiliation, waterboarding), are debatably "harsh tactics" and do not require a clearing of the air at the expense of our security and self-defense.
Following are harsh tactics:
1. Daniel Pearl - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
2. Nick Berg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
3. TODAYonline - Eloping couple executed in Pakistan
4. Afghan law "legalizes" rape
To name but a few.
There are numerous pro and con articles and letters on the subject in the 28 April Denver Post:
Loose lips or loose pix; same result by Cal Thomas
Letters pro and con
The dirty little secret by Mark Danner (linked to the Wash. Post as I couldn't find the Denver Post link online)
The letters refer to David Harsanyi's 24 April piece This Tortuous Debate. I agree with Harsanyi's queries as to just what is torture, I strongly disagree on his call for disclosure and transparency.
I particularly agree with Cal Thomas' statements and quotes from his article, some of which I reprint here:
"Porter Goss, the former director of the CIA and former chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, wrote an op-ed column for The Washington Post recently in which he said, "The suggestion that we are safer now because information about interrogation techniques is in the public domain conjures up images of unicorns and fairy dust. We have given our enemy invaluable information about the rules by which we operate."
Dr. Mark M. Lowenthal, former assistant director of Central Intelligence for Analysis and Production, told ABC News the release of interrogation photos is "prurient" and "reprehensible." Lowenthal added, "We ask people to do extremely dangerous things, things they've been ordered to do by legal authorities, with the understanding that they will get top cover if something goes wrong. They don't believe they have that cover anymore." Terrorist states and the freelancers they support can only be thinking that our "icky" feelings toward the necessities of war will give them an opening they can exploit to kill us and ruin our economy and way of life.
War is hell and that's what we should make it for our enemies, because hell is precisely what they intend to make for America and the West. Releasing pictures that reveal interrogation techniques and other information can help the enemy construct that road to hell for us, paved with our good intentions."
But about that 'boarding. It was referred to (and I commented) in this blog: Let this one go Mr. President, let it go. and the blog's link to Presidential Poison in the WSJ, about possible indictments for interrogators. Here is an even BETTER opinion piece (IMO) on the subject in the WSJ: Misconceptions About the Interrogation Memos. (It's better because I agree with the opinion, of course.)
On the other side of the coin is this piece I do NOT agree with in the latest Time Mag: Dumb IntelligenceBy Robert Baer Thursday, Apr. 23, 2009. (Two points for catchy oxymoronic title, at least.)
Says Baer: "President Obama's decision to declassify Justice Department memos detailing the interrogation techniques legalized by his predecessor has sparked a predictable partisan furor. Bush Administration officials say the release has somehow compromised national security and let the enemy in on our secrets--even though U.S. interrogators' use of harsh and even sadistic techniques has been known for years."
I say "has been know for years" makes it OK to substantiate with specific memos? I say not.
Baer says: "Obama apparently spent weeks debating the merits of releasing the documents and was lobbied by CIA Director Leon Panetta to keep them classified. In the end, the case for transparency was too great. The harsh tactics--isolation, sleep deprivation, humiliation, waterboarding--not only had been widely reported, but much of it was also acknowledged to have originated in..." etc. etc.
I say two points for Panetta for "trying" to keep them classified. And "isolation, sleep deprivation, humiliation" (GASP!) are harsh?! Oh the inhumanity. (See the Misconceptions article about Abu Ghraib prison abuses.)
Baer even confirms: "From the interrogations of Abu Zubaydah, Mohammed and other al-Qaeda prisoners, the CIA learned a lot more than it knew before about the group's communications, its use of safe houses and codes, and the outlines of its worldview. Valuable stuff, but stuff that could have been extracted through patient and relentless persuasion."
I say "could have been extracted"? I don't know that.
Finally, Baer says: "A thorough clearing of the air will help discredit the idea that we either torture terrorists or become victims." And "There are ticking time bombs out there. But torture won't get us any closer to discovering when they're going to go off."
I say the 'tortures' he has mentioned (isolation, sleep deprivation, humiliation, waterboarding), are debatably "harsh tactics" and do not require a clearing of the air at the expense of our security and self-defense.
Following are harsh tactics:
1. Daniel Pearl - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
2. Nick Berg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
3. TODAYonline - Eloping couple executed in Pakistan
4. Afghan law "legalizes" rape
To name but a few.
There are numerous pro and con articles and letters on the subject in the 28 April Denver Post:
Loose lips or loose pix; same result by Cal Thomas
Letters pro and con
The dirty little secret by Mark Danner (linked to the Wash. Post as I couldn't find the Denver Post link online)
The letters refer to David Harsanyi's 24 April piece This Tortuous Debate. I agree with Harsanyi's queries as to just what is torture, I strongly disagree on his call for disclosure and transparency.
I particularly agree with Cal Thomas' statements and quotes from his article, some of which I reprint here:
"Porter Goss, the former director of the CIA and former chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, wrote an op-ed column for The Washington Post recently in which he said, "The suggestion that we are safer now because information about interrogation techniques is in the public domain conjures up images of unicorns and fairy dust. We have given our enemy invaluable information about the rules by which we operate."
Dr. Mark M. Lowenthal, former assistant director of Central Intelligence for Analysis and Production, told ABC News the release of interrogation photos is "prurient" and "reprehensible." Lowenthal added, "We ask people to do extremely dangerous things, things they've been ordered to do by legal authorities, with the understanding that they will get top cover if something goes wrong. They don't believe they have that cover anymore." Terrorist states and the freelancers they support can only be thinking that our "icky" feelings toward the necessities of war will give them an opening they can exploit to kill us and ruin our economy and way of life.
War is hell and that's what we should make it for our enemies, because hell is precisely what they intend to make for America and the West. Releasing pictures that reveal interrogation techniques and other information can help the enemy construct that road to hell for us, paved with our good intentions."
Cheapening Murder?
(Well, for title the instructions sometimes say "give us something catchy".) This is about the Colorado legislature bill to repeal the death penalty. ( Denver Post article and discussion.) In a TV panel discussion a couple of years ago about dropping the death penalty I heard Dennis Prager say "It cheapens murder". The rest of the panel looked at him aghast, and I didn't get it at first either. But what he was saying was, if the price for taking another person's life is not expensive, such as the death penalty, it cheapens the crime, making it no big deal.
With no death penalty a person may be more inclined to take another's life if they know they can only get jail time, even if it's life in prison, for doing so. On the other hand I've often heard it said that if you take one life you might as well take as many as you want as you can only pay with one death penalty. (And you still may have a chance at jail time.) Lovely logic either way.
Certainly taking a human life, whether as a crime or a legal punishment, is a horrible thing. Death could be said to be a cruel and unusual punishment, as might be said about a life without parole spent in incarceration (except that the incarcerated IS alive, but his murder victim is not).
I have often felt that someone taking another's life has given up their own right to life. (Just talking crime here, not war and "legitmate" (?) life-taking.) If we want to hold life as extremely precious then the penalty for taking another's life has to be extremely expensive. My vote would be for the death penalty. Could I throw the switch on a convicted killer myself? I don't know, but if it was because I'd lost a family member or loved one I'd have to give it some very, very serious thought. Who is going to fire the last shot, the killers or the victims? What do you think?
With no death penalty a person may be more inclined to take another's life if they know they can only get jail time, even if it's life in prison, for doing so. On the other hand I've often heard it said that if you take one life you might as well take as many as you want as you can only pay with one death penalty. (And you still may have a chance at jail time.) Lovely logic either way.
Certainly taking a human life, whether as a crime or a legal punishment, is a horrible thing. Death could be said to be a cruel and unusual punishment, as might be said about a life without parole spent in incarceration (except that the incarcerated IS alive, but his murder victim is not).
I have often felt that someone taking another's life has given up their own right to life. (Just talking crime here, not war and "legitmate" (?) life-taking.) If we want to hold life as extremely precious then the penalty for taking another's life has to be extremely expensive. My vote would be for the death penalty. Could I throw the switch on a convicted killer myself? I don't know, but if it was because I'd lost a family member or loved one I'd have to give it some very, very serious thought. Who is going to fire the last shot, the killers or the victims? What do you think?
What are YOU Reading?
But first, a word from the blog post sponsor (me). I want to tell you what I'm currently reading.
Here is what I"ve just FINISHED:
I recently read THE ASSOCIATE by John Grisham, and, darn that Grisham, it's another gripping page-turner. Other Grisham books I've read (and enjoyed) just in the last year are The Street Lawyer, THE APPEAL, and PLAYING FOR PIZZA.
I'm also just finished the print edition of The Politically Incorrect Guide(tm) to the Constitution by Kevin R. Gutzman. I've listened to the excellent audiobook version twice, but there are so many law cases and sidebars that it's nice to have the hard copy to jump back and forth on.
The third book I'm recently read(well, listened to actually, and for the second time) is The Truth About Muhammad By Robert Spencer. Like his book The Politically Incorrect Guide(tm) to Islam (and the Crusades) it is packed with facts, the conclusions to draw are your own. It's a good gym book to listen to while exercising, though I'm finding if I don't pay attention I have to do some rewinding often. (Not every audiobook is a gym book.)
What's next on my list?
1. Re-read (now in progress) The American President: A Complete History (Amazon) by Kathryn Moore (how quickly I've forgotten the details).
2. The Politically Incorrect Guide to Capitalism by Dr. Robert P. Murphy, the print version. Another great audiobook that needs print backup due to sidebars and details.
3. Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal by Ayn Rand. (What else are we talking about these days?) (I'll probably be reading and re-reading A.R. the rest of my life. The logic and reason awakens me like fresh air or a cold splash of water.)
4. Whooo knoooows what else.
But anyway, what are YOU reading?
Here is what I"ve just FINISHED:
I recently read THE ASSOCIATE by John Grisham, and, darn that Grisham, it's another gripping page-turner. Other Grisham books I've read (and enjoyed) just in the last year are The Street Lawyer, THE APPEAL, and PLAYING FOR PIZZA.
I'm also just finished the print edition of The Politically Incorrect Guide(tm) to the Constitution by Kevin R. Gutzman. I've listened to the excellent audiobook version twice, but there are so many law cases and sidebars that it's nice to have the hard copy to jump back and forth on.
The third book I'm recently read(well, listened to actually, and for the second time) is The Truth About Muhammad By Robert Spencer. Like his book The Politically Incorrect Guide(tm) to Islam (and the Crusades) it is packed with facts, the conclusions to draw are your own. It's a good gym book to listen to while exercising, though I'm finding if I don't pay attention I have to do some rewinding often. (Not every audiobook is a gym book.)
What's next on my list?
1. Re-read (now in progress) The American President: A Complete History (Amazon) by Kathryn Moore (how quickly I've forgotten the details).
2. The Politically Incorrect Guide to Capitalism by Dr. Robert P. Murphy, the print version. Another great audiobook that needs print backup due to sidebars and details.
3. Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal by Ayn Rand. (What else are we talking about these days?) (I'll probably be reading and re-reading A.R. the rest of my life. The logic and reason awakens me like fresh air or a cold splash of water.)
4. Whooo knoooows what else.
But anyway, what are YOU reading?
I (heart) SKIING!!
(First posted 04/02/2009 HERE.)
I "LOVE" skiing, that is. Lest I become the unofficial W(h)ine Czar due to my political obstinance with the current government administration in most of my blogs, I want to share with you what a GRRRR8 winter it has been for skiing this year. I have experienced the best snow conditions I've seen in quite a long time. It helped that it snowed like crazy in the mountains, stayed dry most of the winter in Denver, and the highways remained more than passable between the two. You can't enjoy good skiing if you can't get there!
Admittedly, as a 38-year-experienced, advanced-but-not-expert skier, I no longer seek the steep and deep like I used to. As a retiree I also immensely enjoy the weekDAY drive to and from the mountains, and the smaller weekday crowds. For the last 3 seasons I've had a Copper Mountain-Winter Park combined ski pass and I skied Breckenridge-Keystone for 10+ years preceding that.
The snow was just superb this year and there was plenty of it. I did ski some of the coldest days I've skied in many years (good for the snow conditions though). It was also extreeeemly windy on some days (goes with the territory). But every time I thought the skiing couldn't get any better, the next day up would be even BETTER!
To top it all off I skied very good conditions yet again yesterday on the deepest ski area snowpack of the entire season. I thought it would have been over by now but the Spring snowstorms and cold temps have extended January-style skiing right up to near the end. After skiing for so many years I sometimes wonder when I'll get bored with it all. NOT YET!
I "LOVE" skiing, that is. Lest I become the unofficial W(h)ine Czar due to my political obstinance with the current government administration in most of my blogs, I want to share with you what a GRRRR8 winter it has been for skiing this year. I have experienced the best snow conditions I've seen in quite a long time. It helped that it snowed like crazy in the mountains, stayed dry most of the winter in Denver, and the highways remained more than passable between the two. You can't enjoy good skiing if you can't get there!
Admittedly, as a 38-year-experienced, advanced-but-not-expert skier, I no longer seek the steep and deep like I used to. As a retiree I also immensely enjoy the weekDAY drive to and from the mountains, and the smaller weekday crowds. For the last 3 seasons I've had a Copper Mountain-Winter Park combined ski pass and I skied Breckenridge-Keystone for 10+ years preceding that.
The snow was just superb this year and there was plenty of it. I did ski some of the coldest days I've skied in many years (good for the snow conditions though). It was also extreeeemly windy on some days (goes with the territory). But every time I thought the skiing couldn't get any better, the next day up would be even BETTER!
To top it all off I skied very good conditions yet again yesterday on the deepest ski area snowpack of the entire season. I thought it would have been over by now but the Spring snowstorms and cold temps have extended January-style skiing right up to near the end. After skiing for so many years I sometimes wonder when I'll get bored with it all. NOT YET!
"Atlas" flogged — yet again
(First posted 04/03/2009)
Here is another erudite article on Ayn Rand's ATLAS SHRUGGED in today's (04/03/09) Denver Post: "Atlas" flogged -- yet again. What with the government seemingly taking over just about everything ("We're from the Government and we're here to help!"), this unintentionally prescient novel (about the government taking over just about everything) is enjoying a resurgence of sales and readership.
Ayn Rand's works continue to be a subversive bastion of logic, reason, objectivity, and RATIONAL self-interest. Although I've read the 1,000-page Atlas Shrugged twice and listened to the unabridged 51-hour audiobook version once, I suggest Fountainhead or We The Living as more easily consumed introductions to her work. The brand new book OBJECTIVELY SPEAKING, an edited compilation of many live interviews, I've found to be a superb introduction to her ideas also. Enjoy.
Here is another erudite article on Ayn Rand's ATLAS SHRUGGED in today's (04/03/09) Denver Post: "Atlas" flogged -- yet again. What with the government seemingly taking over just about everything ("We're from the Government and we're here to help!"), this unintentionally prescient novel (about the government taking over just about everything) is enjoying a resurgence of sales and readership.
Ayn Rand's works continue to be a subversive bastion of logic, reason, objectivity, and RATIONAL self-interest. Although I've read the 1,000-page Atlas Shrugged twice and listened to the unabridged 51-hour audiobook version once, I suggest Fountainhead or We The Living as more easily consumed introductions to her work. The brand new book OBJECTIVELY SPEAKING, an edited compilation of many live interviews, I've found to be a superb introduction to her ideas also. Enjoy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)