Colorado's Election Results By Diana Hsieh @ 11:05 AM
Ari Armstrong has a great review of Colorado's election results. In essence, the religious right was trounced -- badly -- in Colorado. As Ari says, "By hitching their party to the religious right, Republicans have driven themselves to overwhelming losses." I couldn't be happier about that!
In particular, Amendment 48 -- the measure that would have granted full legal rights to fertilized eggs -- was beaten by a stunning margin: 72% against and 27% in favor (87% of precincts reporting). That means -- I suspect -- that such "zygotes are people too" measures won't be tried again in the near future. Hooray!
I'm quite pleased with the small part that the Coalition for Secular Government played in the defeat of Amendment 48. You can find the full list of our op-eds, letters, to the editor, and press releases at the bottom of this page. Our issue paper -- Amendment 48 is Anti-Life -- was downloaded over 3700 times.
The other measure that I actively opposed was Amendment 59, a permanent tax hike. With the help of Ari Armstrong and Brian Schwartz, I created a single-page web site outlining the reasons to vote no on the measure a few weeks before the election. It got about 7500 hits. Despite tons of money spent in favor of it, the measure was defeated: 55% opposed to 45% in favor (87% of precincts reporting). Given the not-so-encouraging polling before the election, that was a delightful surprise.
Go read Ari's blog post for the full details. He has more good news.
A False Friend of Liberty By Diana Hsieh @ 12:06 AM
Note: I meant to post this some weeks ago, but the bailout derailed that plan. While it pertains to the just-past election, it's still relevant.
The Constitution Party seeks to impose Biblical law on America. I was going to quote some relevant sections of their platform, but the Preamble says it all:
The Constitution Party gratefully acknowledges the blessing of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as Creator, Preserver and Ruler of the Universe and of these United States. We hereby appeal to Him for mercy, aid, comfort, guidance and the protection of His Providence as we work to restore and preserve these United States.
This great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been and are afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.
The goal of the Constitution Party is to restore American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations and to limit the federal government to its Constitutional boundaries.
Let's consider what that would mean in practice.
On abortion:
The pre-born child, whose life begins at fertilization, is a human being created in God's image. The first duty of the law is to prevent the shedding of innocent blood. It is, therefore, the duty of all civil governments to secure and to safeguard the lives of the pre-born. ...
We affirm the God-given legal personhood of all unborn human beings, without exception. As to matters of rape and incest, it is unconscionable to take the life of an innocent child for the crimes of his father.
No government may legalize the taking of the unalienable right to life without justification, including the life of the pre-born; abortion may not be declared lawful by any institution of state or local government - legislative, judicial, or executive. The right to life should not be made dependent upon a vote of a majority of any legislative body. ...
In addition, we oppose the funding and legalization of bio-research involving human embryonic or pre-embryonic cells.
Finally, we also oppose all government "legalization" of euthanasia, infanticide and suicide.
On drugs:
The Constitution Party will uphold the right of states and localities to restrict access to drugs and to enforce such restrictions. We support legislation to stop the flow of illegal drugs into these United States from foreign sources. As a matter of self-defense, retaliatory policies including embargoes, sanctions, and tariffs, should be considered.
On marriage:
The law of our Creator defines marriage as the union between one man and one woman. The marriage covenant is the foundation of the family, and the family is fundamental in the maintenance of a stable, healthy and prosperous social order. No government may legitimately authorize or define marriage or family relations contrary to what God has instituted.
... Finally, we oppose any legal recognition of homosexual unions.
... We affirm the value of the father and the mother in the home, and we oppose efforts to legalize adoption of children by homosexual singles or couples.
Gambling:
Gambling promotes an increase in crime, destruction of family values, and a decline in the moral fiber of our country. We are opposed to government sponsorship, involvement in, or promotion of gambling, such as lotteries, or subsidization of Native American casinos in the name of economic development. We call for the repeal of federal legislation that usurps state and local authority regarding authorization and regulation of tribal casinos in the states.
On immigration:
We favor a moratorium on immigration to these United States, except in extreme hardship cases or in other individual special circumstances, until the availability of all federal subsidies and assistance be discontinued, and proper security procedures have been instituted to protect against terrorist infiltration.
On the judiciary:
We commend Former Chief Justice Roy Moore of the Alabama Supreme Court for his defense of the display of the Ten Commandments, and condemn those who persecuted him and removed him from office for his morally and legally just stand.
On statehood:
We acknowledge that each state's membership in the Union is voluntary.
By endorsing a candidate from the Constitution Party, Ron Paul has clearly shown that he's no friend of liberty. Instead, he's endorsed a theocratic government in which Christians would force everyone to comply with the demands of their faith at the point of a gun.
The fact that Ron Paul is still regarded as a defender of liberty within libertarian circles shows -- yet again -- the effects of rejecting any philosophical foundation for liberty. The word "liberty" loses all of its meaning, such that statists (and kooks) of all stripes are regarded as pro-liberty friends and allies.
Election Open Thread By Diana Hsieh @ 10:54 PM
I'm so happy that the election is over that I feel almost giddy. I'll wait for the final results tomorrow to make any comments, but in the meantime, this post can serve as an open thread for election commentary. As usual, please refrain from posting personal attacks, pornographic material, and commercial solicitations.
Voting By Diana Hsieh @ 10:35 PM
I'm voting by mail, so I need to fill out and mail my ballot tomorrow. And wow, I'm just not sure that I can bring myself to vote for Obama. So I might abstain.
If only I could make my choice so funny as Leonard Peikoff's Podcast #33, I'd be just a wee bit happy about it. As it is, I'm just sick about the whole thing -- and very, very worried that we'll face an even worse choice in 2012.
Abortion Is a Woman's Right By Diana Hsieh @ 12:46 PM
Last week, I sent out the following op-ed on abortion -- particularly focusing on Colorado's Amendment 48 -- to the various Colorado papers:
Abortion Is a Woman's Right
Colorado voters face a stark moral choice in this election: vote yea or nay on Amendment 48. That ballot measure would grant fertilized eggs the legal standing of persons--including "inalienable rights, equality of justice, and due process of law"--in the state constitution.
If fully implemented, almost all abortions would be outlawed in Colorado, including in cases of rape, incest, and fetal deformity. Any woman who terminated a pregnancy would be guilty of murder, subject to life in prison or the death penalty. To take the birth control pill, which might sometimes prevent the implantation of an embryo in the womb, would be a criminal act. Miscarriages might be investigated by zealous prosecutors.
Roe v. Wade would not necessarily protect women against these ominous legal controls. Rather, Amendment 48 might be used to challenge that landmark case--or to inspire a nationwide movement for a similar federal constitutional amendment.
Despite its draconian effects, this proposed amendment has gathered solid support from Colorado voters. A recent poll shows that 39% favor it, 50% oppose it, and 11% are undecided.
Why such strong support? Over the past two decades, the religious right has effectively waged a holy war on abortion. Abortion is the murder of an innocent human life, they say. It violates the God-given right to life of a "preborn child." It is part of a "culture of death." So most Americans regard abortion as morally wrong except when a pregnancy threatens the woman's mental or physical health.
Yet the religious right's attacks on abortion are completely and utterly wrong. They evade the true meaning of the biological facts of pregnancy.
Opponents of abortion claim that embryos and fetuses have the same right to life as babies because they are distinct, living human beings. Undoubtedly, an embryo or fetus is alive, not inert matter. It's also human--not canine or hippopotamus. Yet every distinct, living skin cell a person washes off in the shower also contains human DNA. A tumor is human tissue distinct from its host. The embryo or fetus is different: it might develop into a born baby. Yet the differences between an embryo or fetus and that born baby are vast.
In the early stages of pregnancy, the embryo has nothing in common with an infant except its DNA. Its form is similar to the embryos of other mammals; it cannot survive outside the womb; it lacks any kind of awareness. To call that clump of cells a "person" is sheer nonsense.
Even when more developed, the fetus is not a biologically separate entity capable of independent action, like a baby. It exists as part of the woman carrying it, wholly contained within and dependent on her. It goes where she goes, eats what she eats, and breathes what she breathes. It lives as she lives, as an extension of her body. It is not yet an individual human life; it is not yet a person.
That situation changes radically at birth. A baby lives a life of its own. Although still very needy, he maintains his own biological functions. He breathes his own air, digests his own food, and moves on his own. He interacts with other people as a creature in his own right, not merely as a part of a pregnant woman. His life must be protected as a matter of right.
So a woman has every right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy--for any reason. If an abortion will protect and further her own life and happiness, then she ought to pursue that option with a clear conscience.
Amendment 48 would obliterate the moral right of every pregnant woman to control her own body. It is based on sectarian religious dogma, not objective facts. Please vote "No" on 48.
Diana Hsieh is the co-author of "Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life: Why It Matters That a Fertilized Egg Is Not a Person," an issue paper available at http://www.seculargovernment.us.
I haven't checked the various papers to see where it has been published, but I do know that the Pagosa Daily Postpublished it on October 23rd. They then published a a lengthy reply on October 27th. (I won't reproduce it here; it's too long and too wrong.) On the 29th, they published a great letter in reply by Gideon Reich of Armchair Intellectual:
Van Horn Opinion Misses the Point Gideon Reich
Steve Van Horn's rebuttal in the Post to Diana Hsieh's excellent article on abortion shows a complete lack of understanding of the one crucial concept in the abortion debate: Individual Rights. Far from being mythical supernatural endowments implanted at conception, or social conventions subject to popular vote, rights derive from a human being's nature as a rational being. His existence requires the free exercise of his rational faculty to sustain his own life.
A "right," as Ayn Rand pointed out, "is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context." Thus, the freedom of action that ought to be guaranteed to an individual is the freedom to think and act without interference from others in society for the achievement of his goals, as long as he respects the right of others do the same.
The very first requirement for such a freedom to apply is that the "individual" in question actually be a separate individual in a social context -- not a mere potential that is part of another actual individual. As Ms. Hsieh has eloquently shown, the unborn fetus, to say nothing of the embryo or zygote, has not met that requirement.
The pregnant woman, on the other hand, clearly has -- and has every moral right to act accordingly.
Thank you for writing such an excellent letter, Gideon!
Conservative Media By Diana Hsieh @ 11:28 AM
I suspect that many conservatives would regard this video interview of Joe Biden as an example of what journalism ought to be:
In fact, it's nothing of the sort. It's blatant partisanship, not objectivity.
I've never thought much about the proper standards of journalism -- until I began fighting Colorado's Amendment 48. So here are my preliminary thoughts: Journalists should ask difficult questions, particularly of politicians. However, those questions should be fair -- not loaded with presumption and innuendo. So a journalist should allow a person to state his basic views, then dig deeper by asking some tough questions. The goal should be to expose the person's views for what they are -- good, bad, or ugly.
A short op-ed I wrote for Fox News' Fox Forum on the threat either a McCain or Obama presidency poses to freedom is the featured commentary for the weekend. I argued that both Obama and McCain are "equally dangerous for economic freedom in America" and that "on every question, both men share the same corrupt moral premise, differing only in degree and their particular focus."
I encourage you to leave a comment there adding your own thoughts. The URL is:
To add to Nick's point, the biggest problem in modern American politics is the failure to recognize what individual rights are.
Rights are freedoms of actions (such as the right to free speech), not automatic claims on goods and services that must be produced by others. Individuals are legitimately entitled to services such as health care that they purchase with their own money, are promised by prior contractual agreements, or are given to them via voluntary charity.
Otherwise, government programs to guarantee health care as a "right" must necessarily violate someone's actual rights - either the rights of those compelled to provide medical care or the rights of those compelled to pay for it. Such programs then become just another form of state-sanctioned slavery or theft.
Both McCain and Obama suffer from this faulty understanding of individual rights. Both would use the power of government to trample on legitimate rights (such as the right to free speech) as well as to attempt to guarantee false entitlement "rights".
Unless Americans reaffirm the proper conception of rights as freedoms of actions (and concomitant limitations on government powers), then we'll continue our current downhill slide. A civilization will collapse if citizens decide that they can vote each other goodies from the government trough, at the expense of those who produce such goods.
The Romans learned this lesson the hard way. The big question is whether Americans will also learn this lesson before it's too late.
My reply is of general interest, as I think the legitimacy of "right-to-work" laws can be confusing. I wrote:
The idea that people have some kind of natural right to work for another person -- without regard for their employer's terms -- is completely ridiculous.
If my employer says that he's only willing to hire me if I cut my hair short, put in 10 hour days, donate money to ARI, or join a union, that's his right. And it's my right -- precisely because I'm a free person, not a slave -- to refuse employment under those terms.
To say that he is obliged to hire me, even though I don't meet his terms, would make him my slave.
That's why "right-to-work" laws are wrong. They are yet another violation of the right to contract -- in a misguided, typically conservative attempt to make existing pro-union laws more "fair." But in fact, freedom requires the repeal of those unjust pro-union laws -- not passing even more unjust regulations to "level the playing field" or "protect choice."
My view here is the definitive Objectivist position. In the June 1963 issue of The Objectivist Newsletter, Barbara Branden addressed the issue of "right-to-work" laws:
What is the Objectivist stand on "right-to-work" laws?
As advocates of laissez-faire capitalism, Objectivists are opposed to any legislation that abridges the freedom of production and trade. We are, therefore, opposed to the "right-to-work" laws.
The "right-to-work" laws prohibit employers and unions from contractually agreeing to and stipulating a closed and/or union shop. As such, these laws clearly represent an infringement of the rights of the parties involved; these laws rest on the principle that the government has the right to prescribe the terms of contractual agreements-which is a Statist concept. In a free society, an employer who voluntarily negotiates with a voluntary union, may sign any agreement with the union that he wishes. Although it is doubtful whether a closed and/or union shop agreement would ever be economically wise, that choice is the employer's to make. No one's rights are infringed by such an agreement; a worker does not have a "right" to a job with a given employer; if he does not or cannot meet the employer's terms, he is free to seek employment elsewhere.
Many "conservatives" champion "right-to-work" laws on the ground that today unions are so powerful they can virtually compel an employer's agreement to a closed and/or union shop. It is true that unions have such power. But they acquired it only by virtue of legislation, which had the effect of forcing men into unions whether they wished to join or not and of forcing employers to deal with these unions. Unions did not and could not achieve, in a free society, the monopolistic, destructive power they possess in today's "mixed economy." The guilty party is not unionism as such, but government controls.
The solution lies, not in passing new laws, but in repealing the laws that caused the disaster in the first place.
The defenders of freedom do not serve their own cause by trying to fight their battle on the enemy's terms, that is, by deciding that the solution to the evil of government intervention in the economy is more government intervention.
Faith-based politics costs Colorado Republicans by Ari Armstrong
Colorado is known for its Western values of independence and economic liberty. So why do Republicans, the supposed champions of those values, keep getting trounced?
Republicans can blame wealthy Democratic donors, but in large part Republicans have beaten themselves by pushing a faith-based agenda of banning abortion and stem-cell research, discriminating against homosexuals, and directing welfare dollars to religious groups. They have subverted the law to religious doctrine and weakened the wall between church and state.
Republicans also have alienated freedom-minded independents and Republicans. Polls released by Pew show most Americans, and half of conservatives, now oppose church involvement in politics. As Ryan Sager shows in his review of 2005 Pew data, the Interior West holds a "live and let live" philosophy, with 53 percent of residents saying homosexuality "should be accepted by society" and 59 percent saying "the government is getting too involved in the issue of morality." [See the appendix of Sager's The Elephant In the Room.]
Yet the GOP panders to its evangelical base at the expense of political victory.
This year, Republicans passed a resolution at their state convention calling for the overturn of Roe v. Wade. Eighteen Republican candidates signed the Colorado Right to Life survey, saying they want to ban abortion as the will of God and outlaw stem-cell medical research.
The same candidates also endorsed Amendment 48, which would define a fertilized egg as a person in Colorado's constitution. This would lay the ground to ban all abortion except perhaps to save the mother's life, ban the birth control pill and other forms of contraception that may prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus, and ban most fertility treatments. Women would be forced to bring a pregnancy to term, even in cases of rape, incest, fetal deformity, and health risks.
True, some of these candidates, such as Congressman Doug Lamborn and congressional candidate Mike Coffman, live in safe districts for Republicans. But Libby Szabo, a candidate for state senate in District 19, does not. Her opponents have hammered her over her answers to the survey, making sure to link her views to the GOP.
Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave, the incumbent in a Republican district, has managed to fall behind challenger Betsy Markey in some polls [one and two]. Musgrave wants to outlaw abortion, and she is most well known for sponsoring a constitutional gay marriage ban.
Republican Bob Schaffer is trailing Mark Udall in the polls in the U.S. Senate race in part because of Schaffer's faith-based politics. Udall has written, "I fully support the continued separation of church and state in this country." He opposes bans on abortion and stem-cell research. Schaffer, evoking God's will, said abortion is "always wrong."
Republicans should have learned their lesson when they lost the governership to the Democrats in 2006, when Bob Beauprez touted his faith-based politics and selected a running mate of the same cloth, Janet Rowland. Like Beauprez, Rowland wanted to outlaw abortion and maintain faith-based welfare.
Yet the GOP continues to actively push its anti-abortion agenda. A recent flyer "Paid for by Colorado Republican Committee" urged recipients to vote for a presidential candidate who opposes abortion and who will appoint Supreme Court justices to outlaw it.
But some who are pro-choice across the board are fighting back. Diana Hsieh founded the Coalition for Secular Government, which issued a paper that she and I wrote titled, "Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life." Diana's husband Paul wrote to Dick Wadhams, head of the state GOP, "Although I'm pro-free market, pro-strong national defense, and pro- gun, the position that the CO GOP has taken against abortion is a clear breach of the principle of separation of church and state." Doug Krening wrote to Republican officials, "I have been a Republican for my entire voting life, but cannot endorse the GOP currently because of it's explicit endorsement of religion in government."
On September 11, Amanda Mountjoy, chair of the Colorado Republican Majority for Choice, hosted a banquet with 240 participants to oppose Amendment 48. Former Senator Hank Brown told the crowd, "At the point that we give up supporting and defending individual freedom and choice, we give up the very core of this great party."
Colorado Republicans have two options. They can respect the separation of church and state and defend individual freedom and choice, or they can continue to lose and deserve to do so.
Ari Armstrong is a writer for the Coalition for Secular Government and the editor of FreeColorado.com.
Fairness Doctrine for Blogs? By Diana Hsieh @ 12:03 AM
A few hours ago, Stephen Green of VodkaPundit sent out a mass e-mail to over 100 notable bloggers (and others) with this post on the threat of Obama attempting to apply the Fairness Doctrine to blogs, if elected. What the hell, I thought. So I replied to all with the following:
Stephen (and others) --
Like you, I'm seriously worried about free speech under Obama. But damned if I'd feel any more secure with McCain. The man has absolutely no respect whatsoever for the First Amendment -- and he showed that by sponsoring and passing the most severe restrictions on political speech in recent decades.
When asked whether McCain-Feingold violates freedom of speech, McCain said, "I would rather have a clean government than one where quote 'First Amendment rights' are being respected that has become corrupt. If I had my choice, I'd rather have the clean government."
Campaign finance laws are strangling political debate in America. In recent months, I've been forced to spend hours of my time filling out campaign finance forms -- just to spend a whopping $200 of my own money fighting Amendment 48. (That's the Colorado ballot measure that would grant full legal rights to fertilized eggs.) The money was used to print and mail copies of an issue paper I co-authored, i.e. simply to advocate my views. After that, I realized that spending money to defeat the measure just wasn't worth my cost in time. Galt help me if I was actually taking donations -- or spending serious money. I would have had to hire an army of accountants!
The next four years will be very bad for freedom of speech, regardless of the name of the man in the Oval Office. Blogs will likely be on the chopping block, and we'll have to fight for our most basic right to speak our mind.
(1) I'm familiar with the basics of the Fairness Doctrine, but it's not clear to me how it might be applied to online media (in general) and blogs (in particular). Does anyone know?
(2) I'm not sure that I agree with my last sentence: "Blogs will likely be on the chopping block." The fact is that blogs are substantially dependent on mainstream media. If the government effectively controls those sources of information, then it might not need to enact any controls particular to blogs to effectively silence them.
With respect to the presidential election, I'll likely abstain for the reasons similar to those given in Craig Biddle's essay McBama vs. America. Given the Republican Party's dangerous entanglement with fundamentalist Christianity, I will not vote for Republican candidates. (For my detailed reasons, see my 2006 essay Why I'm Voting for the Democrats.) However, McCain is particularly revolting. So if I vote for anyone, I'll vote for Obama. He's beyond awful, but I have some reason to hope that he'll be ineffectual. Plus, the Republicans might grow some cajones as the opposition party.
Colorado's Senate Race
With respect to Colorado's Senate race between Republican Bob Schaffer and Democrat Mark Udall, I plan to vote for Udall. Again, part of my reason is my unwillingness to vote for any Republican. To do so is to hasten the transformation of America into a "Christian nation," and I do not wish to live in such a place. In particular, Republican Bob Schaffer is an ardent opponent of all abortion because it's contrary to God's will. In contrast, Udall has offered a wonderfully strong statement in support of the separation of church and state.
Of course, many of Udall's views are downright awful. Although he voted against the bailout twice, he's no advocate of free markets or limited government. However, Republicans are no better on that score: federal spending rose a whopping 68% under President Bush. Also, Bob Schaffer advocates a "refereed private sector" -- i.e. an economy controlled and managed by politicians and bureaucrats. He even supports antitrust lawsuits against health insurance companies. Despite the vocal claims of his advocates, he is no friend of capitalism.
Colorado's Ballot Measures
Colorado has an insane number of measures on the ballot this year. In my view, the two most important are Amendment 48 -- which would grant full legal rights to fertilized eggs -- and Amendment 59 -- which would permanently raise taxes. Please, vote NO on both measures.
Here are my recommendations on all the measures:
Amendment 46: Colorado Civil Rights Initiative: A46 would prohibit the government from discrimination on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in public employment, education, or contracting.
Diana says: Yes. Governments ought not discriminate on the basis of irrelevant factors like race and sex.
Amendment 47: Right to Work initiative: A47 would prohibit requiring an employee to join and pay any dues or fees to a labor union as a condition of employment.
Diana says: No. It is a violation of contract and property rights to prohibit businesses from voluntarily agreeing with unions to only hire only union employees.
Amendment 48: Definition of Personhood: A48 would define the term "person" to "include any human being from the moment of fertilization," thereby granting all the rights of persons to embryos and fetuses.
Diana says: NO NO NO NO! A person is not created at conception but rather born. This measure would outlaw nearly all abortion, ban the birth control pill, morning-after pill, and IUD, and impose police controls on pregnant women. For more, see the Coalition for Secular Government's information on Amendment 48.
Amendment 49: Limitation on Public Payroll Deductions Initiative: A49 would prohibit union dues from being automatically deducted from the paychecks of public employees by limiting the allowed deductions.
Diana says: Yes. Although this measure should not be a constitutional amendment, taxpayers are within their rights to manage the terms of government employment. Currently, union withholdings often go strait to pro-union political campaigns seeking to violate our rights. Government employees will retain their right and ability to fund any group through their own bank account. For more, see John Caldera's damn funny video.
Amendment 50: Limited Gaming Initiative: A50 would allow residents of gaming towns to vote to extend casino hours, add games, and increase the bet limit to $100--with most of the resulting tax revenue going to community colleges.
Diana says: Yes. Limitations on gambling are a paternalistic violation of rights, and this measure would loosen some of them. While gaming regulations shouldn't be part of our constitution, A50 only amends existing constitutional provisions. Also, the additional tax revenue will be used for government education, but that seems inevitable in our current political climate.
Amendment 51: Sales Tax for Developmentally Disabled Initiative: A51 would increase the state sales and use tax from 2.9% to 3.0% in 2009 then to 3.1% in 2010 to fund services for disabled people. It would prohibit any reduction in funding for such programs.
Diana says: NO! This tax hike is not just welfare-statist but downright altruistic. Moreover, the constitution should not limit the legislature in its budget allocations.
Amendment 52: Severance Tax & Transportation Initiative: A52 would require the legislature to spend a portion of state severance taxes on highway projects.
Diana says: No. The use of tax revenue should be determined by the legislature, not by the constitution.
Amendment 54: Clean Government Initiative: A54 would limit the campaign contributions of certain government contractors and labor groups.
Diana says: No. Campaign finance laws are unjust restrictions on freedom of speech. They ought to be repealed, not extended.
Amendment 58: Severance Tax Initiative: A58 would increase the amount of state severance taxes paid by oil and natural gas companies, primarily by eliminating an existing tax credit. The additional revenue would fund college scholarships, wildlife habitat, renewable energy projects, etc.
Diana says: NO! This measure is populism at its worst. It is a tax hike against an unpopular but vital industry for the sake of illegitimate government funding of schooling.
Amendment 59: Savings Account for Education Initiative: A59 would eliminate TABOR rebates, spending the that tax revenue on P-12 education, eliminating the required inflationary increase for P-12 education spending, and setting aside money in a new savings account for P-12 education.
Diana says: NO NO NO! This measure would be a permanent tax hike to enable more irresponsible spending by politicians. See the web site of Vote No on 59.
Referendum L: Candidate requirements: Ref L would lower the age of a candidate for the Colorado House and Senate from 25 to 21.
Diana says: Yes. Adults should be able to serve in the legislature.
Referendum M: Obsolete constitutional provisions: Ref M would eliminate obsolete provisions in the constitution about land value increases.
Diana says: Yes. Obsolete provisions should be repealed.
Referendum N: Obsolete constitutional provisions: Ref N would eliminate obsolete provisions in the constitution about intoxicating liquor.
Diana says: Yes. Obsolete provisions should be repealed.
Referendum O: Initiative Process: Ref O would increase the requirements for placing a constitutional amendment on the ballot by requiring more total signatures, with 8% to be gathered from each congressional district. The requirements for statutory initiatives would be lessened.
Diana says: Yes. Amending the Colorado constitution should not be the state sport. Those attempting to do so should have to show that their measure has substantial and broad support from across the state.
Abortion and Abolition by Diana Hsieh and Ari Armstrong
Colorado is ground zero in a national battle over the morality of abortion, and the defenders of abortion rights are ceding ground.
The opponents of abortion declare that every human life is endowed by God with an inalienable right to life. To terminate a pregnancy, whatever the circumstances, is murder.
Republican presidential candidate John McCain seeks to overturn Roe v. Wade, then "end abortion at the state level." His running mate Sarah Palin says she's as "pro-life as any candidate can be." She thinks "abortion [should] only be allowed if the life of the mother is endangered."
Colorado's Amendment 48 inaugurates a new strategy for ending abortion. Instead of restricting abortion via piecemeal government controls, the measure would usher in a near-total ban on abortion by defining a fertilized egg as a person with full legal rights in the state constitution.
The opponents of abortion claim the sanction of divine morality, based on the premise that "life begins at conception." Many anti-abortionists now openly seek to ban not only abortion and most fertility treatments, but also the birth control pill, morning after pill, and IUD because they may prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus. Amendment 48 would help them do that.
Given this all-out assault on reproductive rights, traditional defenders of abortion might be expected to launch a vigorous counter-attack. Instead, they've dodged tough questions and conceded basic principles, leaving reproductive rights with a flimsy defense.
When Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama was asked when a baby gets "human rights," he famously declared the question to be "above [his] pay grade." Yet he will be called on to judge such matters if elected. His running mate Joe Biden accepts the teachings of his Catholic Church: the fertilized egg is a human person. Yet he regards abortion as "a personal and private issue" -- as if the state should allow every person to decide for himself whether or not to recognize the rights of others, so long as any killings happen behind closed doors. That's clearly wrong: if an embryo or fetus is a person, then abortion is murder. If not, then it's a woman's right.
In response to the threat posed by Amendment 48, the traditional defenders of abortion rights -- such as Planned Parenthood and NARAL -- organized a broad coalition to fight the measure. They persuasively argue that Amendment 48 would have disastrous legal consequences for abortion, birth control and in-vitro fertilization.
Yet their oft-repeated slogan of "it simply goes too far" is a whopping concession to their opponents. It implies that abortion, birth control and in-vitro fertilization could be and perhaps ought to be restricted -- just not as severely as Amendment 48 would do. Instead of upholding reproductive rights, the slogan implicitly welcomes further incremental controls on abortion.
Just imagine if the abolitionists of the 19th century had attempted to defend the inalienable rights of slaves based on the slogan, "slavery: it simply goes too far." Imagine Lincoln declaring the morality of slavery to be "above [his] pay grade." The monstrous evil of slavery would still exist today. The recognition and protection of the rights of slaves required an uncompromising defense of those rights based on the facts of human nature.
Similarly, the recognition and protection of abortion rights requires an uncompromising defense of those rights based on the all-important differences between a fetus and a baby.
Neither an embryo nor a fetus is a human person with a right to life. While still in the womb, it exists as part of the woman, wholly contained within and dependent on her. It goes where she goes, eats what she eats, and breathes what she breathes. It lives as she lives, as an extension of her body. A fetus is only a potential person without a right to life.
That situation changes radically at birth. A baby lives his own life, outside his mother. Although very needy, he maintains his own biological functions. He breathes his own air, digests his own food and moves on his own. He can leave his mother to be cared for by someone else. He has a life of his own that must be protected as a matter of right, just the same as every other person.
During a pregnancy, the only person with rights is the pregnant woman. She has a right to liberty, including a right to use her body as she pleases. So she has every right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy -- for any reason. If an abortion will further her own life and happiness, then she ought to pursue that option with a clear conscience.
The growing faith-based opposition to abortion cannot be countered by vague appeals to choice and privacy. Roe v. Wade will be overturned and Amendment 48 (or its like) will be passed without a clear, consistent and positive defense of abortion rights. We must be as principled in our defense of a woman's right to her own body as were the abolitionists in defending the rights of slaves. Liberty cannot be won by any other means.
Diana Hsieh is the founder of the Coalition for Secular Government. Ari Armstrong is the editor of FreeColorado.com. They co-authored "Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life," available through SecularGovernment.us.
Palin Debate Disaster By Diana Hsieh @ 5:36 PM
I'm really looking forward to the vice presidential debate tomorrow. Why? Because Sarah Palin promises to make a total ass of herself. Just consider her inability to answer the questions of that intellectual powerhouse Katie Couric:
Here's the transcript. She's often completely incoherent, almost as bad as Miss Teen South Carolina. In fact, Tina Fey did a hysterical parody of that interview on Saturday Night Live without changing a word. Just see this comparison from CNN:
So if Joe Biden isn't totally asleep at the wheel -- and sadly, he might be -- she'll be crushed in the debate. Then, if we're lucky, the leadership of the Republican Party might engage in some hasty generalization: they might conclude that evangelical candidates are toxic.
Of course, I wouldn't be happy about an eventual Obama/Biden win, if that happens. McCain would be a horrific disaster, and Obama is -- at best -- only slightly less evil. Still, I'd like to see the darling of the evangelicals get a good slap.
The vote against the measure was 228 to 205, with 133 Republicans joining 95 Democrats in opposition. The bill was backed by 140 Democrats and 65 Republicans.
HOORAY! As a result, the plan is stalled, at least for the moment:
Supporters vowed to try to bring the rescue package up for consideration again as soon as possible, perhaps late Wednesday or Thursday, but there were no definite plans to do so.
That's great news. But I'm not terribly surprised, I must say. (I can't claim credit for the following insight, however. A friend suggested it to me last night.) Why not?
People are inundating their representatives with strong opposition to the bailout. Mark Udall, a representative from Colorado running for Senate reported: "People are mad. My calls are mixed, between people who say 'No' and people who say 'Hell no.'"
Members of the House of Representatives are vulnerable to political discontent. Unlike in the Senate, the whole bunch (except those retiring) is up for re-election in just over a month. So as this vote indicates, many do not wish to risk their seat by voting in favor of wildly unpopular legislation -- despite all the pressure from party leadership.
So what does that mean for us? It means: keep up the pressure. If you representative voted "no," call or e-mail him to give your moral support. If he voted "yes" (as mine did; he's retiring), then call or e-mail to tell him that you're upset with him. You can find out how your representative voted here.
Update: Reading that NY Times article in full, I'm impressed by the seemingly principled opposition to the bailout. See these descriptions and quotes:
Jeb Hensarling, Republican of Texas, said he intended to vote against the package, which he said would put the nation on "the slippery slope to socialism." He said that he was afraid that it ultimately would not work, leaving the taxpayers responsible for "the mother of all debt."
Another Texas Republican, John Culberson, spoke scathingly about the unbridled power he said the bill would hand over to the Treasury secretary, Henry M. Paulson Jr., whom he called "King Henry."
A third Texan, Lloyd Doggett, a Democrat, said the negotiators had "never seriously considered any alternative" to the administration's plan, and had only barely modified what they were given. He criticized the plan for handing over sweeping new powers to an administration that he said was to blame for allowing the crisis to develop in the first place.
In contrast, consider what the supporters of the bailout are saying:
When it comes to America's economy, [Representative Steny Hoyer of Maryland, Democratic Majority Leader] said, "none of us is an island."
Representative Maxine Waters, a Democrat, said the measure was vital to help financial institutions survive and keep people in their homes. "There's plenty of blame to go around," she said, and attaching blame should come later.
Palin's Pastor = Hunter of Witches By Diana Hsieh @ 1:01 AM
Oy, if you thought Barack Obama's pastor was a nutjob, just consider Sarah Palin's: "The pastor whose prayer Sarah Palin says helped her to become governor of Alaska founded his ministry with a witchhunt against a Kenyan woman who he accused of causing car accidents through demonic spells."
Ari Armstrong has the details. Just remember Exodus 22:18: "You shall not permit a female sorcerer to live."
I was very impressed with the 200-strong turnout, as well as the commitment to individual rights so clearly expressed by master of ceremonies Hank Brown. The event was a bright spot in our fight against Colorado's Amendment 48, which would grant full legal rights to fertilized eggs in Colorado's constitution. I do hope to see more pro-choice Republicans speaking up for reproductive rights within their party.
Ari Armstrong's op-ed -- "With Palin, McCain ignores Colorado warning" -- was published by the Boulder Weekly. That op-ed was distributed by the Coalition for Secular Government.
The Worship of Retardation By Diana Hsieh @ 12:05 AM
I wish Sarah Palin's youngest son Trig -- afflicted with Down's Syndrome -- the best life possible to him. Yet based on my experience working with a man with Down's Syndrome in a high school job at a movie theater, I regard his life as inherently tragic and likely quite miserable. I also wholeheartedly support the vast majority of women who choose to abort a Down's Syndrome fetus rather than saddle themselves with a perpetually dependent child.
Most of all, however, I'm disgusted by the the worship of retardation exhibited by Christians in response to Trig's rise to national prominence, as in this National Review article by Michael Franc:
"Children with special needs," Gov. Sarah Palin said during her acceptance speech at the Republican convention, "inspire a special love." As someone who grew up alongside a brother with Down Syndrome, I can attest to that observation.
But these special children, and the special adults they grow up to be, inspire something else of equal importance. When these little, unexpected ambassadors of God enter our lives, they offer us the opportunity to rise to that greatest of all challenges — to treat others as we would want to be treated. Their presence, in short, elevates all of us.
That's a good expression of the mind-set of so many of today's devout Christians. They are not content to limit reason to make room for faith. They go further: they laud retardation as a virtue. In the process, they must -- and do -- disparage normal human intelligence as a vice.
Such people are not motivated by a soft heart. If they were, they would adamantly defend abortion as a moral means of freeing parents from the prospect of endless sacrifice to a retarded child. They would regard abortion as a moral way to prevent the infliction of a miserable, degraded life on the person that will emerge from the womb. Instead, they want to create more mentally defective and perpetually dependent children by outlawing abortion.
The people who worship retardation reject human reason as a value. They're as anti-man as the deep ecologists who regard mankind as a cancer on the earth.
Frankly, one wonders why such people don't lobotomize themselves, if retardation is such a boon to their fellow man.
Contact: Diana Hsieh, founder of the Coalition for Secular Government and co-author of "Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life," Diana@SecularGovernment.us
The wholehearted embrace of faith-based politics by Democrats is the big news of the Democratic National Convention. "It's a losing strategy, particularly in more freedom-minded states like Colorado," said Diana Hsieh, founder of the Coalition for Secular Government.
A recent Pew survey showed that Americans are growing more wary of the persistent attempts of politicians to inject their private faith into public policy. A majority of Americans of all political stripes oppose the mixing of politics and religion.
In Colorado, the Republican Party's determination to enact laws and policies based on sectarian Christian values has resulted in stunning defeats in recent elections. Colorado was once a solidly red state, but now it's purple, and turning blue.
"Despite these losses, the religious right is still on the warpath in Colorado," Hsieh said. "This election, they're attempting to force God's law on the state via Amendment 48, the ballot measure which would grant fertilized eggs all the legal rights of persons in the Colorado constitution. If passed and implemented, the amendment would criminalize abortion as murder and ban the the birth control pill. It would be a disaster for the men and women of Colorado." See "Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life," a Coalition issue paper by Ari Armstrong and Diana Hsieh, available at http://www.SecularGovernment.us/docs/a48.pdf.
Now the Democrats are imitating this losing strategy by infusing liberal politics with religious fervor. They're holding interfaith prayers, opening their platform to religious opponents of abortion, and supporting faith-based initiatives. Ironically, they're doing so in Colorado, the very state that was handed to them as a result of voter disgust with the religious right.
"It's political suicide. The Democrats will only alienate the majority of Americans committed to the principle of secular government," Hsieh said. "Who can those voters support, when both Republicans and Democrats seek to govern by their personal faith rather than rational principles?"
"To protect freedom of religion and conscience, Republican and Democratic leaders must embrace the separation of church and state on principle. Politicians should govern according to the secular principles of individual rights enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, not religious scripture," Hsieh said.
The Coalition for Secular Government (www.SecularGovernment.us) advocates government solely based on secular principles of individual rights. The protection of a person's basic rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness -- including freedom of religion and conscience -- requires a strict separation of church and state.
