Principle vs. Politics in El Paso County, Colorado

I've always been one to stand on principle rather than politics, which is why I'm taking a very dim view of what's shaping up in El Paso county, CO at the moment.

In the Colorado House of Representatives, the state is mulling adopting Health Insurance Exchanges in anticipation of the arrival of Obamacare later in the year.

Republican Majority Leader Amy Stephens is campaigning hard for the GOP majority to pass this measure; but the lengths she's gone to have violated some fundamental democratic principles.

Realizing that there was considerable opposition to the bill amongst Republicans in the state (many of whom consider it a pre-emptive adoption of so-called Obamacare) Representative Stephens aggressively tried to silence dissent with resolutions that forced party members to "toe the line" despite their opposition.

One such example is in El Paso County – where Stephen's supporters introduced a last-minute amendment to an Executive Committee Meeting agenda that forbid party officers from "publicly opposing" elected Republicans – and, more significantly, their policies.

Violations of this resolution included posting on Facebook, Twitter, blogs and online forums – or even arguing against an elected representative's policies in front of a "large audience" or as part of a "large group."

This insidious little resolution essentially forces all officials in the El Paso Country GOP to obediently, unquestioningly and blindly support anything and everything elected Republicans push for; even if it flies in the face of every political principle they have.

Which, oddly enough, is exactly how many members of the El Paso Country GOP feel about Representative Stephen's bill to introduce health insurance exchanges – what's become known as so-called "AmyCare"

Now, I personally support Stephen's measure (after all, health insurance exchanges were originally a Republican invention and even touted as party policy until a few years ago) but I don't support the way Stephens has gone about trying to implement it.

This is one of those matters in which I stand on principle rather than politics – and my principles reject Representative Stephen's dictatorial directive.

This kind of political leadership smacks of everything I detest about European politics (and the way the Democratic party is run.) Amongst such parties, it seems like a "political elite" make the decisions because the rest of the party, and the voters as a whole, can't be trusted with such "important decisions."

It seems Representative Stephens, and the sycophants who enable her, share that disdain for democracy. So much is clear from her dismissal of those who opposed AmyCare: She called them nothing but a few "libertarians and anarchists."

But they're not anarchists, and they're certainly not few in number. In fact, Stephens is pushing an agenda that is clearly in opposition to the wishes of a significant number of her constituents.

But more worrying than Representative Stephen's behavior is that fact that it might only be the tip of the iceberg. An anonymous email sent by a mysterious "Henri Ducard" (the name of the man who trained Batman in the art of crime fighting) revealed that corruption and abuse ran much deeper through El Paso's Republican party than Amy Stephen's fascist resolutions.

Ducard accused the chairman of the El Paso Republicans, Eli Bremer, of organizing closed-door fundraisers, giving friends and cronies well-paid positions in the party and even selling access to GOP celebrities in exchange for power and influence. It seems like the political elite of the El Paso County GOP are trying to turn it into a microcosm of the worst of Washington's political excess.

The problem is that the Republicans they've disenfranchised - the so-called "libertarians and anarchists" - aren't going to let this situation continue for much longer. As one wise pundit said, this situation is a battle for the "heart and soul" of the GOP.

Is it a battle they can win? And can they do so in time for the 2012 elections?

Clear the Bench Colorado - a tea party done right?

I love crass generalizations as much as the next person, but we ought to be wary in making them about the so-called ‘tea party.’

[Because they’ve all got guns! See! I love crass generalizations as much as you do! - Editorial Bear]

It’s easy to lump the whole ‘tea party’ movement in with the nutjobs who scream that Obama is a Kenyan/socialist/Muslim/the Anti-Christ (delete as applicable.)

However, since the movement claims to represent 30% of Americans, such stereotypes ultimately don't stand up to scrutiny.

In fact, when you look past the loudmouths and lunatics in the tea party fringe, even the most liberal-minded of us might be presented with an appalling realization – that some of the stuff the tea party are going on about actually makes sense.

As an example, one of the more pragmatic tea party projects I’ve learned about is the grassroots movement to ‘Clear the Bench Colorado.’

Doing exactly what it says on the tin, Clear the Bench Colorado is a campaign to oust three State Supreme Justices when they come up for reelection in November (in Colorado, Supreme Justices are elected to run 10-year terms, so opportunities like this don’t come around very often.)

The reason being that Clear the Bench Colorado believes these judges - Michael Bender, Alex Martinez and Nancy Rice - have been 'legislating from the bench' for years; undermining democracy in Colorado and exploiting the electorate.

The leader of Clear the Bench Colorado, Matt Arnold, puts forward four examples of rulings in which he believes violate the spirit, if not the letter, of Colorado law.

The first, Mesa County Board of County Commissioners v. State of Colorado, saw the justices side with Mesa County in ‘freezing’ property taxes – effectively linking them directly to climbing house prices. This had the effect of violating one of Colorado’s most celebrated laws; the Taxpayers Bill of Rights (TABOR) which demands that the electorate be allowed to vote on any net tax revenue gain beyond the rate of inflation.

The second ruling, Barber v. Ritter, also saw the justices allow a violation of TABOR, albeit in a different way. They ruled that ‘fees’ were different from ‘taxes’ and not subject to voter approval. As a result, Colorado massively increased a number of ‘fees’ that sounded suspiciously like taxes to me – like the Colorado Car Tax (which sounds exactly, not just suspiciously, like a tax to me!)

The next, Town of Telluride v. San Miguel Valley Corporation, concerned eminent domain. In England, this is called ‘compulsory purchase’ and involves the right of an authority (in this example, the Colorado township of Telluride) to force a landowner to sell them their property. Logically enough, the township of Telluride only had authority to make compulsory purchases within the town limits.

In this case, the Supreme Justices ruled that the township could force a local company to sell them 570-acres even though it was outside the town limits – in fact, they ruled that any municipality could push any eminent domain anywhere in the state (which sounds daft.)

Finally, Matt Arnold brings up Salazar v. Davidson, one of the earliest cases for the supreme court justices currently up for reelection.

In 2001, they ruled that the Colorado Supreme Court was part of the Colorado General Assembly - and used that to weigh in on congressional redistricting (which might explain Colorado’s significant congressional shift from Republican to Democrat.)

The problem here is that this ruling clearly violates the most fundamental facet of the American democracy – the ‘checks and balances’ of separating the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government.

With these four examples, Clear the Bench Colorado raises some totally legitimate concerns that even a socially liberal person like myself is angered by. What's more, Matt Arnold, although a conservative himself, gained my support by wisely sidestepping judicial rulings regarding the traditionally ‘conservative’ agenda of gay rights, abortion and other social issues.

Clear the Bench Colorado wants to jettison the justices because of how they’ve ruled regarding the taxpayer and voter – not how they might rule on issues like gay marriage, or the controversial Amendment 62 (a push to have personhood extended to unborn babies, right from the moment of conception.)

This means even people like myself, who support same-sex marriage and think banning abortion would be a disaster, can support his campaign.

So there we have it - a tea party I wouldn't mind an invite to. Clear the Bench Colorado suffers from association with a movement of characterized by extremists and kooks - but theirs is ultimately an admirable cause.

In fact, it’s perhaps the best example of the what the tea party would like to identify itself as – a true grassroots movement standing up to an abusive authority. In many ways, the aim of Clear the Bench Colorado does resemble what the original ‘Sons of Liberty’ were trying to accomplish when they jettisoned all that tea into Boston Harbor.

You can find out more about Clear the Bench Colorado at their website – and if you’re a Colorado resident, don’t forget to vote to oust Michael Bender, Alex Martinez and Nancy Rice this November 2nd.

America

Today was the first day Autumn really hit me.

It was cold - cold enough to hang up my 'summer' coat (the Indiana Jones leather bomber jacket) and switch to the 'winter' coat (an ankle length Spike coat) and the whiff of creaking leather was enough to send me reminiscing about arriving in America again for the first time in October of 2006.

Nostalgia's a good thing because it reminds you of all the things you love about a place, even when months and years have made you complacent about those advantages.

Today was a rare, but welcome occasion in which I remembered why I loved moving here so much.

For example, I started my day by clambering behind the wheel of a big, old car. Wooden dashboard, leather steering wheel and six-feet of long, sleek bonnet stretching out in front of me. Old cars are a passion for me - and it wasn't until America that I got to drive one again.

As I filled up with petrol, I realised that a tank of 'gas' cost the same number of dollars as it did pounds in Britain - about $35. So many things here in America are cheaper. It's honestly like every dollar buys you what a quid does in the UK. For that reason, we're in the black - whereas in the UK, we always scrimped, saved and hovered one paycheque from oblivion.

At work, I got an email from the editor of a magazine I write for. The fact that I've been able to launch a modest freelance writing career in America - and earn money for it - reveals that opportunities exist here that simply don't back in England.

I'm not sure exactly why. Perhaps it's because Americans appreciate people who do things, rather than people who are qualified to do things. Or maybe it's because I had an opportunity to redefine myself in America - whereas British society defines you - by your accent, your school, where you live and even the color of your hair.

At work, I argued (good naturedly) with somebody who was offended by the adverts being posted across New York for the new Tucker Max movie I Hope They Serve Beer in Hell. It made me grateful for the fact that we live in a country in which freedom of expression is a constitutional right and the politically correct mafia can't ban things indiscriminately like they seem to in England.

During my lunchbreak, I discovered a great new blog by a Colorado librarian called Jamie LaRue - who made a particularly noteworthy comment that I enjoyed because it tied into my reading on the American War of Independence (yes, I'm still wading through The Glorious Cause: The American Revolution, 1763-1789)

"...our whole system of government was based on the idea that the purpose of the state was to preserve individual liberties, not to dictate them."

It reinforced my belief that Stephen King's 'The Stand' is coming true and all the awesome people gravitate towards Colorado (Sasha, Sarah and Coffee Bean, for example) and it reminded me that America was a nation founded on secular freedoms, not religious restrictions (as some people would have you believe.)

As I drove home, I noticed that the Halloween Store on US1 opened today - reminding me that we're one step closer to my favorite holiday of the year (and an excuse to dress up in silly costume.) We've already got Mini Militant's. Watch for pictures soon!

And finally, I came home to my lovely wife and my adorable son and I realised that everything in my life has blossomed in unexpected ways since coming to the United States.

Sure, I grow frustrated with life here sometimes. I'm adopting an almost libertarian distrust of the federal government, even while I argue that we need public involvement in the private health care industry.

[Hey, conservatives argue that the government can't run anything right, and then claim that public health care will so so efficient it'll put private insurers out of business. That's no less retarded! - Editorial Bear]

But America is an opportunity. I realise that your destiny here is largely of your own creation and I never felt like that in Britain.

I look at my brother in law, who started a million-dollar business without ever going to college. I see the example of Warren Buffett and Michael Bloomberg, who built their fortunes gambling with pennies. I even look at Barack Obama, who was an undistinguished kid from a modest background who made history when he strode into the White House.

Sometimes I feel deflated, living in our tiny rented house and living our modest little lives. But then I remember that all my hopes and dreams are out here, in America. At least, they are if I can just summon the power to seize them. Maybe I never will, but for some reason, I still feel like I'm inching my way closer and closer to them each day that I spend here.

Is Abortion Murder?

Batting back and forth with other bloggers, the subject of abortion came up once again. The most overused phrase in this debate is 'life begins at the moment of conception.'

But is that true?

Like many assumptions conservative Christians make, the idea of life beginning at the moment of conception isn't particularly scientific. The idea of when 'life' begins is often called 'ensoulment' by Christians - and when in the process of gestation that takes place is hotly debated between the religious and the rational.

Many Christian sects specify unequivocally that life begins at the moment of conception - it's part of Catholic dogma (which, unlike Catholic doctrine, is inarguable.) Ironically, however, this contradicts the Bible, which clearly states that a life begins at the moment of (or some time after) birth.

One of the problems of claiming that life begins at the moment of conception is that is often doesn't. The majority of fertilized eggs never implant in the uterine wall - a woman could be 'pregnant' for days or hours and never even know it.

Likewise, it's difficult to argue that life begins even after that, as up until the second trimester, a full third of most pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion. In Britain, most pregnant women don't announce their pregnancy until the twelfth or thirteenth week as the chances of disappointment are so high.

Following the start of the second trimester, most babies are in there for the long haul. To many couples, this is when it feels like you're 'really' pregnant. However, some scientists argue that even this milestone shouldn't be considered the 'start' of life, as a baby isn't 'viable' until much later - as early as the 21st week, but generally much later.

However, advances in medical science are making that period shorter and shorter, although it's doubtful (and probably undesirable) that this would ever made a first trimester fetus viable.

The final milestone scientists consider is the period at which point a fetus develops the capacity for feeling pain - generally around the 26 week period. However, as premature babies are being successfully delivered before this stage is reached, it's generally lost it's significance in terms of the abortion debate.

Conclusion

So does life begin at the moment of conception?

Scientifically speaking, I'd say almost certainly 'no'. However, to many pregnant couples, the answer is almost certainly 'yes.' Scientists might disagree, but for many couples, 'life' begins when they stare at a positive pregnancy test or start thinking of names. That's what makes a miscarriage so upsetting.

However, other couples don't consider a pregnancy 'real' until that twelve-week milestone, or when the baby first kicks. After my wife and I went through two miscarriages, on pregnancy number three we certainly didn't hold our breath until the start of the second trimester - and the result was our beautiful Baby Boozer.

So given that the majority of fertilized eggs never get implanted, and a significant percentage of early pregnancies aren't viable, I think a rational person would probably accept that 'life' doesn't begin until the fetus has some chance of making it out into the real world.

For some, that's the start of the second trimester. For others, it's the moment a fetus is considered viable. Thanks to advances in medicine, the gap between those time lines is rapidly diminishing anyway, so soon both camps will share a general consensus on the issue.

That's why, from an objective, rational point of view, I think abortions up to the twelve week mark are tolerable. That's why I'm in vehement opposition to bills like 2008 Colorado Amendment 48, which tried to define a person's life as beginning at the moment of fertilization (which would have not only banned abortions, but the morning after pill, IUD and many other forms of contraception.)

However, following the 12 week mark, I think I'd agree that abortions start stepping onto shaky moral territory. Life begins, as far as I'm concerned, from the moment a baby could be born and stand a reasonable chance of surviving (with appropriate medical attention.)

Certainly, this is just my opinion - but unlike the concept of 'life begins at the moment of conception,' it's an opinion I've reached rationally, by examining the facts. It's also the opinion of most scientists and thinking people.

However, I reached that opinion fully aware that there's nothing truly objective when a pregnancy is concerned. As I wrote earlier - life truly 'begins' when a mother-to-be decides it does - whether that's the moment she sees the positive pregnancy test, views the heartbeat on an ultrasound or even just cradles her baby in her arms for the first time.

The Cake Metaphor

Take eggs, flour and milk. Mix them all together and pour the mixture in a tin. Place it in the oven at 350 degrees and cook for half an hour. But during that cooking time, consider: When does it become a 'cake?'

• Does 'cake' begin at the moment the eggs, flour and milk are whirred together in the food processor?
• Does 'cake' begin at the moment the cake begins to rise? Or when the gooey mixture becomes sponge?
• Or is it only 'cake' when it emerges from the oven, golden brown and smelling delicious?

If you can answer that question convincingly, you're probably qualified to tackle the debate about abortion.

Obama dares to confront Evangelical Hypocrisy

"Even if we had only Christians in our midst - if we expelled every non-Christian from the United States of America - whose Christianity would we teach in the schools?"

Bang. Nailed it right on the head. Well played, Mr Obama.

Barack was speaking in Colorado, trying to bridge the divide between the Democratic party and the Evangelical right wing (who could possibly muster up to eighty million votes in the coming election.)

With John McCain losing out because of his lack of 'conservative credentials' (i.e. he won't pander to the pious nutjobs who lead the Evangelical movement) Obama was hoping to convince some Christian groups to support him in the upcoming election.

He's not doing too bad a job, either. Up to 15% of conservative Christians who'd previously identified as 'Republican' have left that party - dismayed by the war in Iraq and the gloomy state of the economy.

But his comments today have upset some people - including James Dobson, chairman of Focus on the Family and 'Kingmaker of the Religious Right.'

"I think he's deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit his own worldview, his own confused theology," Dobson said. "He is dragging biblical understanding through the gutter!"

Basically, unless you're shouting out your hatred and intolerance for gay people, you've got no right to call yourself a Christian.

Fortunately, most sensible people agree that James Dobson is a complete and utter idiot.

Before Obama, the last person he'd picked a fight with was annoying cartoon character Spongebob Squarepants, who he accused of promoting a 'homosexual agenda.'

He also wrote a popular book 'Dare to Discipline,' which advocated corporal punishment for children - and warned parents that if their kid cried as a result, they should "offer him a little more of whatever caused the original tears." [i.e. wallop him again - Editorial Bear.]

Unfortunately, non-sensible people hugely outnumber the sensible ones and Dobson boasts of having delivered election victories to Bush in both Ohio and Florida in the 2000 election. He even warned the president that unless Bush upped the pressure against advocates of abortion and gay rights, he'd 'pay a price in four years time.'

Obama's measured and thoughtful speech might have impressed many people today - but it didn't impress Dobson and I've got a feeling we'll hear an awful lot more bullshit from him as a result.