The Whole Story On Norton's Jobs-Bill Comments

As much as it humors me to be quoted by Colorado Pols and the Colorado Independent, those leftist publications are failing to tell the whole story behind Jane Norton's comments on the jobs bill. They are trying to score political points rather than get to the truth. While I seek to hold politicians from all parties accountable for their statements and votes, Colorado Pols and the Independent are beating up Republicans while giving Democrats a free ride.

On February 24, in the course of a Fox interview discussing her television ad attacking President Obama over the budget, U.S. Senate candidate Jane Norton said the Congressional jobs bill "was too small."

I wasn't sure what she meant by this, because the jobs bill contains two major elements. The Associated Press explains:

First, it would exempt businesses hiring the unemployed from the 6.2 percent Social Security payroll tax through December and give them an additional $1,000 credit if new workers stay on the job a full year.

Second, it would extend highway and mass transit programs through the end of the year and pump $20 billion into them in time for the spring construction season. The money would make up for lower-than-expected gasoline tax revenues.

The "jobs" bill, then, is part tax break and part "stimulus" spending. Which part of it did Norton think was too small? To find out, I called up her office and asked to speak to Cinamon Watson, Norton's Deputy Campaign Manager. The reason I asked for her is that my dad and I have communicated with her previously about Norton's campaign and the Armstrong Survey at http://tinyurl.com/cosurvey10. Watson said I should instead talk to Nate Strauch, Norton's Press Secretary, who called me back later in the day. (This all took place on February 25.) I didn't ask to speak to Norton directly, because I figured I'd never get through to her, and I figured I could get the relevant information out of her staff.

Here's what I wrote about my conversation with Strauch:

Nate Strauch, Norton's Press Secretary, said that what Norton meant was that "the impact was too small, not the price-tag was too small."

But that implies that she did favor some sort of jobs bill, just one with a larger impact, does it not?

Strauch said "she supported a number of different measures," such as "suspending the payroll tax for small businesses." So Norton wants to cut taxes without touching spending levels? That's not much of a policy.

Norton's comments about the jobs bill were brief and off hand. Strauch's clarification of her remarks fits perfectly with the nature of the bill. I'm satisfied that I now know Norton's basic position on the bill. (I don't think it's a very good position, as I indicated, because tax breaks without corresponding spending cuts don't help.)

Enter the Independent. In his article today, John Tomasic said, "Colorado GOP frontrunner for the U.S. Senate, Jane Norton doesn't talk to the press–not even to the conservative bloggers at People's Press Collective."

Tomasic's characterization is wrong for several reasons.

First, I'm not a "conservative blogger." I advocate individual rights. I advocate gay rights, legal abortion, free speech, and an end to the drug war. How is that "conservative?" I do not seek to "conserve" the status quo, I seek the significant social and political changes necessary to fully protect individual rights.

Second, I am not "at People's Press Collective" (PPC) in the sense that Tomasic seems to intend. By mutual consent, PPC republishes some of my articles. I recognize that PPC tends to lean more conservative and Republican friendly, but I am neither a conservative nor a Republican. (I am registered unaffiliated, and I voted for Democrats Bill Ritter and Mark Udall, among others. I have not yet decided how I will vote this year for governor and U.S. Senate.) I am not a writer for PPC in the same sense that Tomasic is a writer for the Independent; it's just not that sort of relationship.

Third, Tomasic wrongly implies that I asked to speak directly with Norton; I did not. I was fine speaking with Strauch.

Tomasic adds that I supposedly "joined the chorus of writers mocking Norton's commitment to communication with the people she aims to represent." Yes, there was some definite mocking going on when I pointed out that Norton has yet to reply to the Armstrong survey. However, I will note, as Tomasic should also note, that neither Michael Bennet nor Andrew Romanoff has replied to that survey. Indeed, getting through to Bennet's office was like pulling teeth, and one receptionist I spoke with was exceedingly rude and dismissive, though another representative was helpful. By comparison, Norton's office has been a joy to contact.

If Tomasic wishes to act like a real journalist, rather than a partisan hack, he will join me in asking Bennet, Romanoff, AND Norton to respond to the Armstrong Survey and other tough questions, and he will report the views of all candidates fairly. Until he does so, he should be dismissed as nothing more than a Democratic lap dog.

Tomasic's claim that Strauch's clarification of Norton's brief comment on the jobs bill somehow differs from Norton's intended meaning is unwarranted. (That said, I would very much like to hear more of Norton's views about "stimulus" spending and tax breaks absent spending cuts.) Colorado Pols's similar criticisms are likewise misplaced.

Look, there is not a single person in the state of Colorado, who, in the rough and tumble of an extemporaneous interview, will always state every point with perfect clarity and precision. I certainly could not always meet that standard. If we are to remain intellectually honest, we must put a speaker's comments in context and allow room for reasonable clarifications.

Is our goal to figure out what Norton's true views are or to play partisan "gotcha" games? It is the left that most vociferously complains about big money in politics, yet the only alternative is honest debate. I ask Colorado Pols, I ask John Tomasic, I ask the writers for the Colorado Independent and the People's Press Collective to join me in pursuing intellectually honest evaluation of the candidates, regardless of their party affiliation.

I'm sure there will be plenty of substantives points on which to criticize Jane Norton (for me, including her support for Referendum C) without Making Stuff Up about the meaning of the phrase "too small." We're bigger than that.

Liberty In the Books Web Page

I've finished the Liberty In the Books web page (for now). See http://tinyurl.com/libertybooks

The readings cover basic economics, health policy, the Great Depression, the housing bust, and antitrust. I'll continue to add new review questions as the Denver group progresses.

I hope that the web page encourages others around the country to start similar reading groups. I also hope the review questions are useful for independent study. So tell your friends!

Review Questions for D. T. Armentano's Antitrust: The Case for Repeal

This set of review questions is part of the Liberty In the Books program, a monthly discussion group. These questions cover Dominick T. Armentano's Antitrust: The Case for Repeal (Revised Second Edition).

Reading I: Through Page 50

1. What have been the basic results of antitrust enforcement, in Armentano's view? (Page xi)

2. What does "rent-seeking" mean, and how does it apply to antitrust? (Page xi)

3. What is the correct understanding of "competition," what is "pure competition," and how does this apply to antirust? (Page xii)

4. What is the meaning of "economies of scale," and what is the relevance to antitrust? (Page xiii)

5. What are the basic aims of antitrust? (Page xiii)

6. What were the general trends in antitrust enforcement in the 1950s and '60s, the 1970s and '80s, and the 1990s? (Pages xiii-xvi)

7. What were the antitrust-related complaints against Microsoft? (Pages 1-2)

8. What does the term "creative destruction" mean? (Page 4)

9. What are "network effects," and do they justify antitrust action? (Pages 4-5)

10. What is "path dependence," does it "lock in... inferior technology," and does it justify antitrust action? (Pages 5-6)

11. Did Microsoft unfairly bundle its web browser with its operating system? How does this complaint look in 2010? (Pages 6-8)

12. What role do exclusive contracts play on an open market, and do they ever justify antitrust action? (Pages 8-9)

13. What was the Lorain Journal case, did it justify antitrust action, and was the Microsoft case comparable to it? (Pages 9-10)

14. What does the Microsoft case illustrate about the nature of antitrust enforcement? (Pages 10-12)

15. What is the "barriers-to-entry doctrine," and what has been the actual behavior of firms punished under antitrust? (Pages 13-14)

16. What antitrust enforcement actions did IBM face? (Pages 14-15)

17. What was the trend of the data-processing industry in the mid-20th Century? (Page 15)

18. Are profits higher in concentrated industries in the short and long term? Why? (Page 16)

19. What is the actual cause of "monopoly power?" (Page 18)

20. What has antitrust done to business consolidations, and what has been the economic effect? (Page 18)

21. What is the problem with regulators and courts attempting to discover social benefits? (Page 19)

22. Are antitrust laws consistent with rights of property, association, and due process? (Page 19)

23. What lesson does Armentano find in the case of airline deregulation? (Pages 20-21)

24. Contrast the "public interest" with the "special-interest" theories of antitrust policy. (Pages 21-25)

25. What is the theory of "concentrated benefits, dispersed costs," and how does this apply to antitrust? (Page 24)

26. How does antitrust constitute an attempt to centrally plan the economy? (Pages 25-26)

27. What does the AT&T case reveal about antitrust policy? (Pages 26-29)

28. What is "allocative inefficiency" and "technical inefficiency" in standard antitrust doctrine? (Pages 31-33)

29. What real-world economic activity does the theory of "pure and perfect competition" exclude? (Pages 33-35)

30. Are "free-market monopolies" able to restrict production and raise prices? (Pages 35-39)

31. Contrast the popular account of Standard Oil with the factual history of the company's performance. (Pages 40-43)

32. Can studies of profitability justify antitrust enforcement? (Pages 43-44)

33. In Armentano's view, should antitrust be used even against legally enforced monopolies? (Pages 45-46)

34. Why does Armentano push for the complete repeal of antitrust, rather than only administrative reforms?

35. What is Murray Rothbard's critique of standard monopoly theory? (Pages 47-50)

Reading II: Page 51 to 106

1. What is the meaning of a "non-legal barrier to entry?" (Page 51)

2. What is "product differentiation," and what are some examples of it? (Page 51-52)

3. What are the "revealed preferences of consumers," and what do they have to do with antitrust? (Page 52, 54)

4. What is the difference between "pure competition" and the "actual competitive process," according to Armentano? (Page 53)

5. What is wrong with the assumption of "perfect information?" (Page 55)

6. Was there a monopoly in ready-to-eat cereals in the 1970s? (Page 55, 57)

7. Does risk of failure by potential new competitors, economies of scale for existing competitors, or efficiency of existing competitors justify antitrust action? (Page 56)

8. Can advertising constitute an unfair barrier to entry? (Pages 57-60)

9. Is it true that "more competitors are always better than less?" (Page 60)

10. Did the Aluminum Company of America constitute an unfair or inefficient monopoly? (Pages 60-63)

11. Is the ability of an established, successful firm to raise capital, offer innovative products, or lower prices unfair or harmful to consumers? (Pages 63-67)

12. What is "price discrimination," what are some examples from every-day life, and does it justify antitrust action? (Pages 69-73)

13. What are "tying agreements," and do they justify antitrust action? (Pages 73-76)

14. What are "resale price-maintenance agreements," are they fair, and do they justify antitrust action? How did the U.S. government once forcibly limit price competition? (Pages 76-77) (Note: The Supreme Court seems to have subsequently limited restrictions on pricing agreements; see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Leegin_Creative_Leather_Products,_Inc._v._PSKS,_Inc.)

15. What are "vertical mergers," and should they ever be legally restricted? What the government justified in intervening in Brown Shoe's acquisition of Kinney retailers? (Pages 77-79)

16. What are the different sorts of "horizontal agreements," and how are they treated under antitrust? (Page 81)

17. Is the "rule of reason" approach in antitrust in fact reasonable? (Page 82)

18. Are government regulators able to accurately define the "relevant market" for alleged monopolistic practices? (Pages 83-85)

19. Is there any clear relationship between market concentration and "economic power to reduce market output and raise market prices?" (Pages 85-86)

20. What is the problem with attempting to tie alleged monopolistic practices to output restriction? (Pages 86-87)

21. Can government regulators accurately determine "social benefits" of mergers? How does the Staples case illustrate the problems with intervention? (Pages 87-90)

22. Can "horizontal price coordination" create market efficiencies? Should it be outlawed? (Pages 90-94)

23. How did the federal government forcibly restrict competition in the trucking industry through the Interstate Commerce Commission? (Page 93)

24. Are attempts by firms to reduce output and raise prices generally effective? What is the appropriate remedy for such attempts, according to Armentano? (Pages 94-95)

25. Did the Addyston Pipe Case of the 1890s demonstrate the need for antitrust laws? (Pages 95-97)

26. How do "antitrust laws stand in direct violation of civil liberties, individual rights, and due process of law?" (Pages 99-106)

Review Questions for Henry Hazlitt's Economics In One Lesson

This set of review questions is part of the Liberty In the Books program, a monthly discussion group. The questions cover Henry Hazlitt's classic Economics In One Lesson, 1979 edition.

Reading I: Through Page 70, Chapter IX: Disbanding Troops
and Bureaucrats

** Preface **

1. What is Hazlitt's purpose in writing this book?

2. What is Hazlitt's view of novelty in economic theory?

3. Hazlitt addresses fallacies in their popular form, not their academic form. Can Hazlitt do this and be fair to the theories in
their more sophisticated forms? What does Hazlitt's view say about the relationship between academics and popular culture?

4. In his preface, Hazlitt discusses his use of statistics. Likewise, in Chapter VII, he writes [page 54], "Statistics and history are
useless in economics unless accompanied by a basic deductive understanding of the facts." What is Hazlitt's basic view of the use and status of statistics?

** Chapter I: The Lesson **

5. Why is economics especially beset by fallacies?

6. What does Hazlitt mean by the "special pleading of selfish interests," and what is the result of such pleading?

7. Is it true that "certain public policies would in the long run benefit everybody?"

8. What is Hazlitt's "One Lesson?"

9. Is Hazlitt's "One Lesson" really adequate for understanding the essence of economics?

10. What are modern examples of "brilliant economists, who deprecate saving and recommend squandering on an national scale as the way of economic salvation?"

11. Hazlitt warns against the error "of looking at the consequences only for a particular group to the neglect of other groups." Is it possible to justly "balance" the interests of groups? Does Hazlitt's view depend on a utilitarian framework?

12. Hazlitt also warns against "a certain callousness toward the fate of groups that were immediately hurt by policies." What does this suggest in terms of transitioning from political controls to free markets?

13. While demagogues get by with snappy "half-truths," good economics "often requires a long, complicated, and dull chain of reasoning." Does this ultimately imply a pessimistic view? Is there a solution to the problem?

** Chapter II: The Broken Window **

14. What are some modern examples of the "broken window" fallacy at work?

15. What is the problem of the seen and the unseen? (See also Chapter V.)

** Chapter III: The Blessings of Destruction **

16. Is there such a thing as "accumulated" or "pent-up" demand?

17. What is the difference, in economic terms, between need and demand?

18. What is the "money illusion" or the "monetary veil," and how does this relate to wage levels?

19. What does Hazlitt mean when he says that supply equals demand?

20. What is the "optimal rate of replacement" of capital goods mean?

** Chapter IV: Public Works Mean Taxes **

21. Where does political spending come from?

22. What public works projects does Hazlitt consider "essential?" (See also Chapter IX.) Without entering a long debate over the matter, what are the other basic schools of thought on this issue?

** Chapter V: Taxes Discourage Production **

23. What is the effect of taxes on incentives?

** Credit Diverts Production **

24. What is credit?

25. What is the result of politically favoring one party with credit?

26. Hazlitt criticizes the view that some credit risks are "too great for private industry." Is his criticism always warranted?

27. Hazlitt uses the example of "government-guaranteed home mortgages." How do his comments line up with recent events?

28. Hazlitt leaves open the possibility of government loans "under certain emergency circumstances." Is he right about this, and, if so, what are those circumstances?

** Chapter VII: The Curse of Machinery **

29. What are some of the major examples Hazlitt uses of machinery displacing certain workers?

30. Is "industrial overproduction" a real problem?

31. Is there an upper limit to the number of jobs available?

32. What is the long-term impact of technological advances on employment? On standard of living?

** Chapter VIII: Spread-The-Work Schemes **

33. What are some examples of make-work schemes from Hazlitt and modern policy?

34. Is there any context in which make-work is appropriate?

** Chapter IX: Disbanding Troops and Bureaucrats **

35. What is the cost of providing employment to soldiers and bureaucrats?

Reading II: Page 71 (Chapter X: The Fetish of Full Employment) to Page 139 (Chapter XIX: Minimum Wage Laws)

** Chapter X: The Fetish of Full Employment **

1. Hazlitt writes (page 71), "The whole economic progress of mankind has consisted of getting more production with the same labor." Name some more recent examples.

2. What is the proper relationship between employment and production (page 71)?

3. Hazlitt discusses the erroneous "assumption that there is only a fixed amount of work to be done" (page 72). What are some modern examples of this fallacy?

4. In what context is reducing employment a good thing (page 73)?

** Chapter XI: Who's "Protected" By Tariffs? **

5. What are some modern examples of tariffs? Hint:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_United_States_steel_tariff
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32808731/

6. What is comparative advantage?

7. What are the effects of eliminating a protective tariff (pages 76-82)?

** Chapter XII: The Drive for Exports **

8. What does Hazlitt mean when he writes, "In the long run imports and exports must equal each other" (page 85)?

9. Advanced bonus question: How would Hazlitt's analysis apply in the context of an international gold standard rather than national fiat currencies?

10. Should politicians "stimulate" foreign exports via subsidies?

** Chapter XIII: "Parity" Prices **

11. What are "parity prices?"

12. Why is it economically nonsensical and harmful to forcibly set prices at "parity?"

** Chapter XIV: Saving the X Industry **

13. What are the ways that politicians attempt to save Industry X (pages 98-100)?

** Chapter XV: How the Price System Works **

14. What does "production for use" mean (page 103)?

15. Describe "the problem of alternative applications of labor and capital" (pages 104-105)?

16. What is supply?

17. What id demand?

18. How does the price system address the problem of alternative uses of time and labor (pages 105-107)?

19. What is the relationship between price and the cost of production (page 106)?

20. What is the consequence of forcibly reducing the scarcity of some good (pages 107-109)?

** Chapter XVI: "Stabilizing" Commodities **

21. Aside from direct price controls, how have politicians tried to "stabilize" prices (pages 111-113)?

22. Are speculators economically damaging or productive (pages 111-112)?

23. What are the effects of forcibly "stabilizing" prices on speculators? On short and long term prices? On production? (Pages
112-115.)

** Chapter XVII: Government Price-Fixing **

24. What are the economic consequences of forcing prices below market levels (pages 119-120)?

25. What are the social consequences of price controls and rationing (pages 123-124)?

26. What are the real causes of price increases? What are the appropriate responses? (Pages 124-126.)

** Chapter XVIII: What Rent Control Does **

27. What are the effects of rent control?

** Chapter XIX: Minimum Wage Laws **

Background reading: Surprise! Youth employment rate hits record low

28. What determines the maximum wage an employer will pay to an employee (page 135)?

29. What are the consequences of subsidizing unemployment (page 137)?

30. What are the real causes of rising real wages (page 139)?

Reading III: Page 140 to the end

** Chapter XX: Do Unions Really Raise Wages? **

1. What is the source of the delusion that "labor unions can substantially raise real wages over the long run for the whole working population?" (Page 140)

2. Why do employers choose to pay workers more? (Pages 140-141)

3. What legitimate function does Hazlitt see unions serving? (Pages 140-141, 149)

4. What is the mark of a legitimate versus an illegitimate strike? (Pages 142-143)

5. How does forcibly increasing union wages hurt other workers and consumers? (Page 143-146)

6. What is the impact of unemployment welfare? (Pages 145-146)

7. What are the long-range impacts on investment of forced wage hikes? (Pages 147-148)

8. Besides forcing up wages, what other harmful controls have unions advocated? (Page 150)

** Chapter XXI: "Enough to Buy Back the Product" **

9. What is the "buy back the product" doctrine? (Page 153)

10. What is wrong with that doctrine? (Pages 154-155, 158)

11. What are equilibrium wages and prices? What are the consequences of forcing wages or prices up or down? (Page 158)

** Chapter XXII: The Function of Profits **

12. A business can make profits or losses. What is the consequence of forcibly limiting profits? (Pages 160-161)

13. What are the long-term effects of high profits in a particular industry? How do profit and loss function in a free economy? (Page 161)

14. How are profits typically achieved? (Pages 162-163)

** Chapter XXIII: The Mirage of Inflation **

15. What is the difference between wealth and money? (Pages 164-165)

16. What are the various justifications people give for inflationary policy? (Page 165-166, 171)

17. What is the basic process by which the money supply is inflated? (Pages 167-169)

18. What does inflation do to the "structure of production?" (Page 170)

19. In what sense can inflation counteract problems of above-market wage rates? (Page 172)

20. Why is inflation so popular among many government officials? (Pages 172-174)

21. What is the worst-case outcome of inflation? (Page 176)

** Chapter XXIV: The Assault on Saving **

22. What is the difference between consumer goods and capital goods, and how is savings related? (Pages 177-179)

23. What is the difference between saving and withholding spending? What causes each? (Pages 180-181)

24. What harmonizes savings and investment on a free market? (Pages 184-185)

25. What is the result of keeping interest rates artificially low? (Pages 185-187)

** Chapter XXV: The Lesson Restated **

26. Who is the Forgotten Man? (Pages 194-195)

27. How is the division of labor related to "the insane doctrine of wealth through scarcity?" (Pages 195-199)

** Chapter XXVI: The Lesson After Thirty Years? **

28. Has the lesson been learned? Will it be learned? (See especially pages 204, 208-209.)

Conservative Deceit About Christian Liberty

Some of my fellow Coloradans wish to outlaw the birth control pill and subject my wife to the death penalty if she takes it, yet today David Limbaugh dismisses as "paranoia" concerns about "the intersection of Christianity and the public square." Limbaugh is amazed by "how much [critics] fear something that represents such a little threat to them."

Let us review, shall we? Many Christians in the United States advocate the following political goals:

* Outlaw all abortion, even in cases of rape, incest, fetal deformity, and risk to the woman's health, from the moment of fertilization, with criminal penalties extending to execution.

* Outlaw all fertility treatments, birth control (including the pill), medical research, and medical treatment that may involve the destruction of a fertilized egg.

* Impose mandatory waiting periods and ultrasounds before a woman may obtain an abortion. (This is a marginal step toward the goal of complete prohibition.)

* Outlaw all expression involving consenting adults that is arbitrarily deemed "obscene." (Various Christians want to outlaw all material deemed pornographic.)

* Force Americans to subsidize religious institutions for "faith based" welfare.

* Expand welfare (the forced redistribution of wealth) because of Biblical principles of helping the less-well off.

* Imprison American adults for consuming various drugs, including marijuana taken for medical purposes, regardless of the level of police powers necessary to achieve this goal. (Some Christians even want to return to alcohol prohibition.)

* Require religious prayer and religious instruction at tax-funded schools.

* Deny equal protection under the laws to homosexuals, including the right to form romantic contracts and adopt children.

A few Christians want to execute homosexuals and adulterers and explicitly call for theocracy (see Christian Reconstruction or the comments of a Christian radio host.)

No, nothing to worry about!

Limbaugh makes a couple of basic mistakes in his article. First, he pretends that the only relevant issue is freedom of expression. Second, he pretends that the only debate is between "the left" and Christian conservatives. Obviously the left with its campaign censorship laws and media controls at least matches conservative Christianity in its hostility toward free expression. Unfortunately, as seen with President Obama's expansion of President Bush's "faith based" welfare, the left increasingly mingles politics with religion as well.

True, many Christians fight for liberty in at least some areas. Whether that effort flows from Christian doctrine, or is ultimately incompatible with it, is a debate for another day. But for Limbaugh to dismiss as "paranoia" concerns about the efforts of many Christians to base politics on religion is ludicrous.

Schools Deal with the Devil

WTVD out of North Carolina posted an interesting story illustrating how tax-funded schools deal with the devil.

Tieanna Trough, a student at Gray's Creek High School, "refused to write an essay on making a deal with the Devil... Trough says when the teacher told students to write an essay on how they would sell their souls -- or what trade they would make with the Devil -- she refused, saying that compromised her Christian values and her parents agreed."

The girl's mother complained, "We can't allow God into the classrooms, but yet they are going to allow the Devil in the classroom."

The mother "says an alternate assignment was also unacceptable, so they complained to school officials." Unfortunately, the report does not specify the nature of the "alternate assignment." Finally the school, the student, and her family agreed on an appropriate topic: "how and why money is important." (How that is any more Christian remains a mystery to me, given the New Testament's antipathy toward material wealth.)

Clearly both sides were being a little silly here. The student could have used the assignment to write a work of fiction illustrating the harm that comes with making a deal with the devil (which she obviously takes as something more than frightful myth). The teacher, on the other hand, could have promptly made alternative arrangements with the student.

Nevertheless, the story does illustrate a deeper problem with tax-funded schools. The student's mother has a legitimate complaint: why is it okay for tax funds to promote devil-dealing but not Christianity? To extend the argument, why is it okay to force people to fund the teaching of evolution but not creationism? The "separation of church and state" rules out the latter, but why is the former permitted?

If schools were voluntarily funded, policy would be set by the owners of the school in association with the funders and the students. If the student's parents didn't like the policy, they would be free to withdraw their daughter -- and their funds -- and send them elsewhere. Notably, this would give schools a strong incentive to make reasonable accommodations. (Some schools would cater to different world views; I'd personally favor a school that focused on secular education but that accommodated religious students.)

In the case of Gray's Creek, however, the girl's parents are forced the finance the school whether their daughter attends the school or not. Talk about a deal with the devil.

Strauch Clarifies Norton's Remarks on 'Too Small' Jobs Bill

Both the Huffington Post and Colorado Pols have been having fun with Jane Norton's comment that the Congressional jobs bill "was too small."

Norton, the Republican frontrunner for the U.S. Senate seat, made the remark in an interview with Fox News yesterday.

I called up Norton's office while conducting research for an upcoming column I'm writing with my dad for Grand Junction's Free Press. Nate Strauch, Norton's Press Secretary, said that what Norton meant was that "the impact was too small, not the price-tag was too small."

But that implies that she did favor some sort of jobs bill, just one with a larger impact, does it not?

Strauch said "she supported a number of different measures," such as "suspending the payroll tax for small businesses." So Norton wants to cut taxes without touching spending levels? That's not much of a policy.

Does Norton plan to answer the Armstrong Survey at http://tinyurl.com/cosurvey10? Strauch said there are "a number of surveys in the queue right now and we are working through those."

Would I be horribly misunderstood if I called Norton's commitment to a timely response "too small?"

Review Questions for Thomas Sowell's Housing Boom and Bust

Liberty In the Books reviewed Thomas Sowell's The Housing Boom and Bust. These are the review questions (for the original edition; there has since been a revised edition).

Reading Section I: Through Chapter 3

1. What were the general real-estate trends from 2000 to 2005?

2. How does the Federal Reserve influence mortgage trends?

3. What were the land use restrictions of the 1970s, and what were their effects?

4. In Sowell's view, what was the actual nature of the "affordable housing crisis," and what was the political response?

5. What were the "creative" ways to finance mortgages, and how were they influenced by federal policy?

6. What is the history and impact of the Community Reinvestment Act?

7. What were the impacts on the housing market of Freddie and Fannie, HUD, and the FHA?

8. Who issued warnings about a housing bubble? Who ignored those warnings?

9. What was the political response to the housing bust? "How's that working for you?"

Reading Section II: Chapters 4-5

1. What does Sowell mean by a "vision?" (Page 90)

2. What are the various aspects of the housing "vision" that created the housing boom and bust? (Pages 90, 95)

3. How does the "vision" of some relate to the narrow interest of others? (Page 91)

4. What was the Millennial Housing Commission and what where its findings and errors? (Page 92)

5. What was the brief history of political interference in housing in the 19th and 20th Centuries? (Pages 92-94)

6. What were the various motivations behind the crusade against alleged lending discrimination? (Pages 95-97)

7. Besides income, what are the other relevant factors related to mortgage lending? (Pages 98-100, 104)

8. How did government agencies and media outlets sensationalize lending statistics? (Pages 103)

9. In what ways did the federal government "encourage" banks to make risky loans? (Pages 105-107)

10. What impact did political interference in housing have on minorities? (Page 108)

11. In a political context, what is the meaning of terms like "community," the market," and "social?" (Pages 110, 113-114)

12. How are costs weighed in the market and in the political sphere? (Pages 114-116, 119-121)

13. Describe the background and implementation of Section 8 Housing. (Pages 123)

14. Compare the comments of George W. Bush and Hillary Clinton before and after the housing bust. (Pages 95, 123)

15. What problem did the FDIC seek to address, and how was that problem caused? (Pages 124-125)

16. Compare the administrations of Hoover, FDR, and Obama. (Pages 131-132, 141-145)

17. What is the effect on the economy and on politics of politically-funded jobs? (Pages 133-134)

18. What were the major interventions of the Great Depression that Sowell reviews? (Pages 135-136)

19. In Sowell's view, why did the Great Depression come to an end? (Pages 137-139)

20. What is the significance of the comment, "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste"? (Page 143)

21. BONUS QUESTION involving optional reading: Compare and contrast the views of Sowell and Robert Higgs (http://bit.ly/oQe23 ) regarding the relationship of WWII and economic recovery.

Review Questions for Amity Shlaes's The Forgotten Man

Amity Shlaes's book The Forgotten Man is an excellent book for a reading club. This was the first book we covered in Liberty In the Books (back when my questions weren't very detailed). We split the reading into four monthly meetings, skipping some of the material. See also my detailed review of the book.

Shlaes Reading I: Introduction, Chapter 1, Chapter 3

1. Who is the "forgotten man?"

2. Why is Hoover upheld by some as a an alleged champion of "laissez faire?"

3. What are some of the differences between Hoover versus Coolidge and Mellon?

4. What were the major federal policies of 1929, and what were their effects?

Shlaes Reading II: Chapters 4-6

1. What were the general Federal Reserve policies of the early 1930s, and what were their effects?

2. What was the intellectual climate during the Hoover/FDR era?

3. What was tax policy -- and unemployment -- by the end of Hoover's term?

4. What were the themes of FDR's campaign rhetoric?

5. What were the powers and consequences of the NRA and AAA?

6. What were the general trends in FDR's monetary policy?

7. What was the basic nature of the struggle between Willkie and the TVA?

Shlaes Reading III: Chapters 7-9

[Sorry; no questions available.]

Shlaes Reading IV: Chapters 11, 13, 15, and Afterword

1. In what ways did the Federal government go after businesses and wealthy citizens?

2. What the were labor controls of the later 1930s, and what were their effects?

3. What was FDR's response to the Supreme Court's antipathy to some of his programs, and what was the result?

4. How did the fight between the TVA and private utilities play out?

5. What were the major themes of the 1940 election?

6. What is Shlaes's take on the "recovery" of FDR and the results of his federal spending programs?

Cleve Tidwell: Colorado 2010 Candidate Survey

Cleve Tidwell is a candidate for U.S. Senate. Questions are shown in bold. See the other replies to the survey at http://tinyurl.com/cosurvey10.

SUMMARY

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

[No answer.]

ECONOMIC ISSUES

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

The government cannot, in any way, spend its way out. Only business creates jobs. Period.

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

No. Tax credits or reductions for generating jobs and business for this should be done

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

Dramatically lower; spending frozen (except for emergencies) and deficit *elimination* targeted

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

Reduced in order to allow businesses to hire more people and get them back to work

* Should college education be subsidized by tax dollars?

Agree with the principal that in exchange for military service education subsidized, otherwise no.

* Should antitrust law or its enforcement be changed?

Yes

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

Yes

SOCIAL AND CHURCH/STATE ISSUES

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

This was a Jefferson statement not the first amendment statement it gives us the freedom of religion and gov out
of our person live.

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

No

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

Federal government has no business in the affairs of peoples beliefs

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

Federal government has no business in the affairs of peoples beliefs

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

Federal government has no business in the affairs of peoples beliefs

* Do you support gay marriage?

'Marriage' is not a domain of federal government.

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

This is a local issue and not one to be decided by the federal government - personally I do not support it.

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

This is a local issue and not one to be decided by the federal government

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

This is a local issue and not one to be decided by the federal government- is not defined under the constitution

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

This is a local issue and not one to be decided by the federal government- is not defined under the constitution

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

May be on the ballot - this is a local issue and not one to be decided by the federal government- is not defined
under the constitution

* Should abortion be legal in cases of fetal deformity?

This is not one to be decided by the federal government- is not defined under the constitution

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

This is a local issue and not one to be decided by the federal government- is not defined under the constitution

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

This is a local issue and not one to be decided by the federal government- is not defined under the constitution

* Should elective abortion be legal?

This is a local issue and not one to be decided by the federal government- is not defined under the constitution

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

This is a local issue and not one to be decided by the federal government- is not defined under the constitution

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

This is a local issue and not one to be decided by the federal government- is not defined under the constitution

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

This is a local issue and not one to be decided by the federal government- is not defined under the constitution

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

This is a local issue and not one to be decided by the federal government- is not defined under the constitution

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

This is a local issue and not one to be decided by the federal government- is not defined under the constitution

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

This is a local issue and not one to be decided by the federal government- is not defined under the constitution

IMMIGRATION

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

Us should protect its borders as well as the workers we already have. Cancellation of h1b visas until citizens are back to work first

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

Dept of education should be abolished; this is a local issue (education)

PROPERTY RIGHTS

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

Government should not have the right to remove property without proper redress to the owners.

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

This is a local issue and not one of the federal government; personal property rights are paramount. I support
private property rights.

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

[No answer.]

BILL OF RIGHTS

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

Repealed

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

Not at all

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

Absolutely

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

2D amendment rights extend to anyone over 18 regardless (with the exception being k-12 schools)

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

Enforce the laws we already have. Period

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

I believe they should have a federal law banning the burning as a political statement or incitement of crowds

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

No

OTHER

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

Its illegal; enforce the laws

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

Help Brad Beck Shave His Head for Cancer Research

Brad Beck, founder of Denver's Liberty Toastmasters, will be shaving his head to raise money for the St. Baldrick's Foundation for childhood cancer research.

The Better Business Bureau lists St. Baldrick's as meeting "the 20 Standards for Charity Accountability."

Pitch in!

McPheters: FBI Agent, Mormon Bishop

Yesterday I dropped by the local Costco and was surprised to run across an author at a book signing. The author was Mike McPheters; the book is Agent Bishop, the account of his life as an FBI agent and Mormon bishop. I asked him if I could come back with my video camera, and he agreed.

In the following video McPheters discusses his past and his book.



[February 21 Update:] Then we discussed several political issues: welfare, the draft, drug policy, and immigration. My goal was to discuss some tough questions with a light touch; I wasn't trying to provoke debate. I should note, though, that I regard the draft as a violation of individual rights, I oppose the drug war and believe it causes enormous harm, and I favor open immigration (with the caveats that I mention in the interview). I broke up our conversation by topic.

McPheters on Church and Welfare



McPheters on the Draft



McPheters on Drug Policy



McPheters on Immigration

New Interview on Values of Harry Potter

This past Thursday I went to the Independence Institute to join Penn Pfiffner for a interview about my book, Values of Harry Potter. (Be sure to read my FTC disclosures regarding the Institute, lest you be unduly influenced!)

We discussed the theme of the heroic valuer found in J. K. Rowling's novels, the virtue of independence as practiced by the heroes, and the significance of the Unforgivable Curses. (Penn also offered a delightful FTC disclosure, as I had sent a review copy to the Institute. That government outfit is "more meddlesome than the Ministry," I mocked.)

The iVoices podcast is around eight minutes in length; listen in!

NYT Smears Tea Partiers

I was initially baffled by a New York Times article on the Tea Parties, until I realized that the left, with its worship of command-and-control, literally cannot conceive of true grass-roots activism.

Do nuts and conspiracy theorists ever show up at leftist rallies? Obviously. All the time. But, because such rallies are officially organized by some recognized leftist group, the nuts can be ignored, and the leftist media need only report the official views of the organizing group.

But there is nobody organizing the Tea Parties. There are many amorphous, loosely organized groups, and in some cases some of these groups have developed more or less formal leadership. But there is no official spokesperson for a Tea Party. Somebody announces their intention to rally, and other people join in for their own reasons. In some cases some major group, such as the Independence Institute, has sponsored a rally in Colorado, but even then the individual participants came for their own reasons.

Obviously the Tea Parties have been spurred by annoyance with the way things are going in the District of Charlatans. But beyond that, there is no official doctrine of the Tea Parties. The only thing that can be said of the Tea Partiers is that they are upset about current trends, and beyond that they have their own ideas. Tea Parties are a collection of individuals, and that is something the leftist media simply cannot understand.

The approach of David Barstow of the New York Times, then, is to point out that some Tea Partiers are nutty, and smear all other Tea Partiers by implication and guilt by association.

I have attended a number of rallies loosely fitting into the Tea Party movement. I have spoken at a couple of them. I have interviewed many participants. Sure, I've seen some nuts. I've seen the anti-abortion zealots, the anti-immigrant bigots, a few with tasteless Nazi signs, and the conspiracy theorists. But they are certainly not representative of Tea Partiers.

Instead, based on my interviews with numerous participants at these rallies, I have found basically thoughtful voters who generally favor Constitutionally limited government and freer markets. Quite a number of people I've interviewed have expressed an integrated and sensible ideology of liberty, while others have given me confused doctrines offering a mish-mash of freedom and political controls.

Here are links to some of my coverage of these events:
Pork Roast Rally in Photos
Meet the 'Mob:' Longmont Protests Obamacare
Denver 9/12 Rally: Freedom Forever
Pro-Liberty Health Rally Draws Hundreds
Denver Tea Party Ralliers In Their Own Words
Coloradans Speak Out Against Obama Care
July 4 Tea Party Arvada Colorado

Barstow claims that "Tea Party members joined a coalition, Friends for Liberty, that includes representatives from Glenn Beck’s 9/12 Project, the John Birch Society, and Oath Keepers, a new player in a resurgent militia movement. ... These people are part of a significant undercurrent within the Tea Party movement that has less in common with the Republican Party than with the Patriot movement, a brand of politics historically associated with libertarians, militia groups, anti-immigration advocates and those who argue for the abolition of the Federal Reserve."

At least Barstow does not claim to be describing all participants of the Tea Parties. He merely taints the rest by associative guilt.

It is true that there are some people who would claim all the labels that Barstow vomits onto the page. It is also true that many Tea Partiers would reject all those labels. Many libertarians who want to abolish the Federal Reserve also advocate open immigration.

As for me, I reject libertarianism (though I used to be a Libertarian), I am part of no "milita group" save the one defined by Colorado's Constitution, I think Glenn Beck is often a clown but that he sometimes gets something right, I think the Birchers are flat-out nuts, I have no idea who the "Oath Keepers" are, I favor open immigration, and, yes, I think the Federal Reserve should be abolished in favor of a free market in currency.

And I refuse to let some idiot newspaper reporter guilt me out of civic participation because a few nuts or (gasp!) people who disagree with me happen to attend the same rally. I will speak for myself. "I will not be labeled, cataloged, filed, or coded."

I will advocate liberty and individual rights by whatever just means I can, regardless of what the New York Times thinks of it.

Sens. Udall, Bennet Screw Responsible Credit Users

Nearly a year ago I warned that the credit card controls championed by Senator Mark Udall (and subsequently by Senator Michael Bennet) would "punish the responsible" and "make it harder for responsible cardholders to negotiate good terms."

Well, today my wife and I got a letter from Citibank regarding our credit card with the company:

Effective April 1, 2010, an annual fee of $60 is being added.

The reason we are making this change is to maintain the quality of our service amid the rising cost of doing business [emphasis added]. ... Each year, we'll credit the $60 fee back to your account once you have made $2,400 in purchases...

What great timing! It was just yesterday that Bennet promised people "notices in the mail from their credit card companies notifying them of upcoming changes in their accounts." That is most definitely a "change," apparently part of that grander package of "change" we have all been promised.

We're not going to commit to charging that amount with Citibank every year, and we're certainly not going to pay a $60 annual fee. Therefore, we're going to cancel the card, reducing our total credit availability.

While obviously Citibank is not going to finger Senators Udall and Bennet, particularly in today's vicious political climate for businesses, the most obvious contributer to this "rising cost of doing business" is the Congressional legislation.

Rarely a day goes by when I do not regret voting for that economic illiterate Mark Udall.

What Are the Implications of 'Personhood?'

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

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

"It Will Ban Abortion"

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

Embryonic Stem-Cell Research Will Be Banned

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

Abortion Will Be Deemed Murder

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

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

Abortion Could Trigger the Death Penalty

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

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

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

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

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

Birth Control That Can Prevent Implantation Will be Outlawed

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

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

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

For example, my wife takes TriNessa. According to WebMD, this birth control pill acts to "prevent pregnancy in 3 ways. One way is by preventing the release of an egg (ovulation). A second way is by changing the cervical mucus, making it more difficult for an egg to meet sperm (fertilization). A third way is by changing the womb lining, making it difficult for a fertilized egg to attach to the lining of the womb (implantation)."

Watson Pharmaceuticals, the producer of TriNessa, agrees that this pill can act to "reduce the likelihood of implantation."

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

Most Fertility Treatments Would Be Outlawed

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

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

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

Doctors Would Be Subject to Prosecutorial Oversight

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

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

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

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

Suspicious Miscarriages Could Invite Prosecution

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

The Abortion Industry?

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

By implying that all criticisms of the "personhood" measure are "scare tactics," PersonhoodCO wrongly suggests that substantive criticisms of the measure have been exaggerated. Notably, not a single advocate of the "personhood" measure has attempted to directly refute anything from the 2008 paper.

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

'Christian Soldiers' Seek Abortion Ban

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

As I noted earlier today, the "personhood" measure seems to be in trouble, as the number of certified signatures will likely fall below the required minimum. As the News also points out, the number of signatures collected this year is nearly forty percent lower than the number collected in 2008. Wendy Norris notes that this year's news conference attracted only around twenty-five participants, a third of the 2008 showing. (Meanwhile, Norris reports, infighting has overtaken a national group supportive of the "personhood" drive.) While such internal struggles are good news to those favoring legal sanity and reproductive rights, the movement remains a potent threat, and one that must be fought on ideological grounds.

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

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

As Westword reports, Keith Mason, spokesman for Personhood USA, has no intention of giving up: "we're going to keep fighting until we win."

Ironically, Personhood USA's own media release makes no mention of the group's faith-based roots. That did not cause Christian News Wire, "the nation's leading distributor of religious press releases," from suffering any confusion on the point.

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

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

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

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

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

Why the change? Mason explains to Westword:

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

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

In other words, the language was changed to make the measure even broader. Its advocates want the measure to do everything the 2008 language would have done, plus protect non-fertilized zygotes potentially created through cloning.

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

This definitional problem points to a fundamental error made by those advocating the "personhood" measure. As Diana Hsieh and I wrote in 2008:

[T]he advocates of Amendment 48 depend on an equivocation on "human being" to make their case. A fertilized egg is human, in the sense that it contains human DNA. It is also a "being," in the sense that it is an entity. That's also true of a gallbladder: it is human and it is an entity. Yet that doesn't make your gallbladder a human person with the right to life. Similarly, the fact that an embryo is biologically a human entity is not grounds for claiming that it's a human person with a right to life. Calling a fertilized egg a "human being" is word-play intended to obscure the vast biological differences between a fertilized egg traveling down a woman's fallopian tube and a born infant sleeping in a crib. It is intended to obscure the fact that anti-abortion crusaders base their views on scripture and authority, not science.

No doubt the advocates of the proposal will seek to argue that "the beginning of the biological development of that human being" (normally) refers to the moment of fertilization. Those advocates have made it abundantly clear that their long-term goal is to elect sectarian politicians who will appoint sectarian judges who will interpret the "personhood" measure to grant full legal rights to fertilized eggs. In the meantime, however, if the "personhood" measure were passed, it would generate years of expensive and unresolved legal wars.

At least the advocates of the measure are clear that they do in fact want to ban abortion from the moment of conception. Garcia-Jones said, "The point of what we're trying to do, just for everyone who thinks we're trying to be sneaky, we're trying to end abortion." The group's web page states: "The goal is very simple, END ABORTION NOW by protecting all innocent human life from the beginning of biological development." The same page clearly counts fertilized eggs as "human beings."

Unfortunately, one consequence of the measure's language change will be to further confuse many voters about the intent and implications of the measure. While the advocates of the measure want to equate the moment of fertilization with the beginning of a human being, in the full sense of personhood with all the legal rights of a born infant, many voters will understandably think the measure means something else. If the measure were to pass and land in court, perhaps lawyers would drag in voters from 2010 to testify about the various interpretations given the measure.

Another variant of the group's equivocation is its use of the phrase, "preborn baby," invoked by Garcia-Jones in the group's recent media release. Ordinarily a "baby" means a born infant. However, often a pregnant woman will refer to her fetus as a "baby" as well. But merely using the same word to refer to a fertilized egg, a fetus, and a born infant does not make them equivalent. Again the advocates of the "personhood" measure rely on word games, rather than arguments, to "prove" that a fertilized egg should be granted the full legal rights of a born infant.

I'll have more to say about the claims of the "personhood" crusaders in a subsequent post. The critical point here is that the advocates of the "personhood" measure are motivated by sectarian faith, and they wish to impose their sectarian beliefs on the rest of us by political force. The non-sectarian arguments they offer are extremely weak, amounting to little more than word games intended to disguise the fundamentally sectarian nature of their cause. That cause should be rejected accordingly.

'Personhood' Measure May Lack Signatures

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

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

I knew the effort was in trouble when, the day before the deadline, the Personhood CO web page announced the group still needed "hundreds of signatures" to make the ballot.

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

Wendy Norris offers a more realistic assessment at RH [Reproductive Health] Reality Check:

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

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

Norris also explains what happens next:

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

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

Aside from her wishy-washy comment that the measure "just goes too far," Amanda Mountjoy of the Republican Majority for Choice released an admirably strong condemnation of the proposal:

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

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

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

For background, see the paper on the 2008 measure:
Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life: Why It Matters That a Fertilized Egg Is Not a Person

Seeking Substance in the Energy Debate

The following article originally was published February 15 by Grand Junction's Free Press.

Seeking substance in the energy debate

by Linn and Ari Armstrong

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

Hickenlooper, McInnis said, "sat on his hands" as the state's Democrats imposed "rules and regulations" that took "Colorado from number one to rock bottom on states that are friendly to do natural gas and energy business in" (as reported by the Denver Daily News).

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

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

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

Energy is important. As the AP reported earlier this month, Grand Junction "led the nation with job losses last year," suffering particularly from "job losses in the energy field. Its unemployment rate nearly doubled in the same period last year, from 4.7 percent to 9 percent."

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

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

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

Walk over to your computer and search the internet for "Piceance Basin." You will find a Geological Survey map showing a large region of Western Colorado encompassing Grand Junction. What's important about this area is that it is a major reserve of natural gas (as Gary Harmon described in a great article over at the Sentinel last December).

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

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

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

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

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

In a media release, McInnis claims that Colorado is losing energy jobs to Pennsylvania because of the relatively better political rules there. But, as Harmon wrote, extracting the natural gas from our region can be difficult. Harmon wrote that "the Marcellus Shale formation in the eastern United States has become more attractive" due to drilling advances. (It's also close to eastern customers.) That formation happens to run through Pennsylvania.

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

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

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

The Real Bones

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Energy Debate: Rigs Lost and Unfavorable Energy Climate

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

As the Denver Daily News reports, McInnis claimed,"What those [Democratic] rules and regulations did, frankly, was take Colorado from No. 1 to rock bottom on states that are friendly to do natural gas and energy business in."

Amy Oliver Cooke points to (what I take as) the origin of McInnis's claim.

Here's what the Denver Business Journal has to say on the matter (June 25, 2009):

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

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

The survey ranks states as well as other countries.

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

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

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

Next up is McInnis's claim: "Statewide, the number of rigs in Colorado is down 71 percent, a testament to his [Governor Ritter's] anti-jobs policies."

I'm not entirely sure where McInnis is getting this figure. I did find the same figure in an AP story from March 26, 2009:

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

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

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

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

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

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

I did get a tip from the Rocky Mountain Oil Journal, which claims that rigs in Colorado have declined from 78 a year ago to 47 now (though I'm not sure of the original date of the information). The reference is Baker Hughes, which I also found.

Baker Hughes explains:

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

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

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

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

January, 2000: 18
January 2001: 26
January, 2002:25
January, 2003:31
January, 2004: 45
January, 2005: 65
January, 2006: 84
January 2007: 96
January 2008: 100
January 2009: 87
January 2010: 45 (The February 5 figure is 48.)

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

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

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

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

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

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