Log in

Colorado Politics' Journal

Recent Entries

You are viewing the most recent 11 entries.

5th November 2006

countrygirl493:44pm: Posted for a friend. Edited for content.
I have tried to edit this so that it will not offend anyone or break the rules of this community. Please let me know if I have done either and what I can do to fix this.

The election is on November 7, 2006

A friends sister was kidnapped and brutally raped a couple years ago(will be 3 years in Feb).

Judge Robert L. Lowrey is up on a retain/ do not retain on this year's election ballot. He has granted the defense continuance after continuance and left the family hanging in limbo for over two years. The continuances have been granted at least three times on the defense "not having sufficient time to prepare for trial". Our District Attorney's office has tried time after time to block these continuances based on sound legal argument, and Judge Robert L. Lowrey has overruled precedence, to come down on the side of the defense.

To continue to allow a man like the offender avoid justice is a travesty. To let the man who continues to allow the offender avoid justice keep his seat on the bench is a larger travesty. If Judge Robert L. Lowrey is doing this to this family, how many other cases out there are needlessly being held in limbo at this man's whim? How many other victims and families of victims are lacking closure after ridiculous amounts of time?

Please vote not to retain Judge Robert L. Lowrey. It will possibly mean another continuance while a new judge is selected. That's a reason for continuance that can be lived with.

8th October 2006

lds4:26pm: "Omnipotent Moral Busybodies"

It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

-C. S. Lewis, God in the Dock

I got pamphleted today by a local Republican volunteer.

On the ballot in November is Amendment 43, which according to the pamphlet "defines marriage as only the union between one man and one woman." Referendum I is the counterpart, that establishes domestic partnerships and requires legislation that gives domestic partners equal rights to married couples.

The pamphlets I was given included descriptions of the Republican candidates in glowing terms, and one entitled, Protect Marriage in Colorado. This latter was actually the first I opened, because I wondered what the Republican take on Amendment 43 and Referendum I would be.

This is a direct scan off my flatbed scanner. It has not been digitally edited in any way, except to crop it out as an excerpt.

"Did you know," I asked the Republican volunteer, a man with gray hair and neatly-trimmed beard, perhaps in his early fifties, "that this brochure is patently wrong? I actually read the text of Amendment 43, and it doesn't say anything about breeding out of wedlock or making divorce more difficult. These are, after all, the things that produce families without mothers and fathers in Colorado, aren't they?"

He declined to answer.

"Studies have shown," he changed the subject, "that kids do best in families with a mother and a father."

"That's true," I replied. "And what have the studies shown about whether kids do better in single-parent families or in two-parent families with same-sex parents?"

"I don't believe any such study has been performed."

"They have, actually, and as you can probably guess, kids do better—they get better grades in school, and the whole family stays above the poverty line more consistently—when there are two parents instead of just one, even if the two are gay. So this line in your brochure, 'never intentionally create motherless or fatherless families,' is actually hiding the fact that it dooms single parents to remain single if they're gay, and that a child in that family will have to suffer with only one parent.

"This line is wrong too," I continued. "The amendment does not protect kids' rights to have a mom and a dad. All it does is take away legal rights for things like sharing insurance policies and having medical visitation and estate settlement rights. Now look at this one:"

"Have you ever," I asked loudly, "in the history of the United States, heard of any tyrannical judge who has forced any kind of marriage onto anyone? Ever?"

The volunteer stammered a bit. "No, this isn't about forcing people to get married against their will."

"Then why should it bother me that a 'tyrannical' judge would allow it?"

"It would force other people to recognize that people are married."

Then I messed up. I lost track of where I was going, and told him that I don't like to recognize marriages in which spouses beat up on each other either, but that it isn't the "definition of marriage" that makes it illegal; it's legislation against the physical violence. I still have to recognize the marriage even though I didn't approve of it.

That argument was a mistake. What I should have said was:

"Well, I really don't like black people, and I really don't think black people should be marrying white people. Yet, somehow, the government requires me to recognize their marriage, and I hate that! Do any of your candidates support defining marriage as only the union of one man and one woman of the same race?"

Man, I wish I'd said that. I wish I'd said that! As it was, he was already a bit pink by this time, and stammered that he could see we were going to have to agree to disagree. I reminded him that "agreeing to disagree" means that he could count on my cancelling out his vote on November 7, and that, thank you, he had indeed motivated me to do just that. I stuck out a hand, thanked him for his influence, and let him go.

Please, will some Coloradoan take the opportunity (if it arises) to use that line? I want so badly to give them the cognitive dissonance of hating my (utterly fictional) bigotry while attempting to justify their own. If you see a Republican with this brochure, will you ask them that?

Here's the rest of the brochure, just for fairness' sake.

Note that all the happy couples may be of different races, but they're never mixed. Point this out to your Republican, and note that you apparently are of similar feelings on it. If they feign offense, tell them that your bigotry isn't any worse than theirs. Marriage is marriage, and there's a long historical precedent for not interbreeding between races, even in the US. Common sense would dictate that you just want to codify what's already a widely-held belief.

Who would you suppose is behind this campaign of outright lies and bigotry? It probably wouldn't take you three guesses to get it:

Coloradoans, Focus on the Family wants you to vote for Amendment 43 and against Referendum I. I'm not going to insult your intelligence by telling you what to do with that information, just beg you please to remember it when you go to the polls on November 7.

(Cross-posted everywhere. Please link and redistribute heavily.)

8th September 2006

geopoliticus4:20pm: Marijuana decriminalization ballot -- what do you think?

11th July 2006

dtbarajas8:04pm: Colorado Immigraion
I'm curious what you think about the immigration bills that Colorado Gov. Bill Owens is now waiting to sign. What I gather from todays' news article attention now turns to businesses that will have to check employees' identification, people who apply for state benefits and agencies who will have to find a way to make it all work by Aug. 1.

Where do you stand on the issue?
Current Mood: confused

29th March 2005

bella_peligrosa11:24am: Penalties for Forest Fires

Pocket change

The U.S. Forest Service again
exercised its brand-new authority to send a bill to a person who started a major

Jason Hoskey, 26, was asked in February to please cover the firefighting cost
of $18.2 million for the 2003 fire in California's Mendocino National Forest.

Anyone have any information on what happened to the woman who started the Hayman fire 3 years ago?
Current Mood: apathetic

1st November 2004

bella_peligrosa3:30pm: Predicted outcomes? Imporant races?
Although there aren't many of us here, I was wondering...

1) What state and local races are important to you?  Everyone's talking about the presidential race, but I'd like to hear what hometown races are you watching? 

2)  Who do you think will win the U.S. Senate here in Colorado?  Which presidential candidate will claim Colorado? 

Roughly 24 hours...Any thoughts or concerns?
Current Mood: enthralled

26th October 2004

bella_peligrosa8:37am: New Salazar Ad
Anyone seen the new Ken Salazar ad?  Looks like Ken took some time to address the Coors attack...not by attacking Coors, but by saying, "I want to cut taxes, I want to reduce the deficit", etc. I was very impressed.  Your thoughts?

And the award for worst campaign ads...the Walcher/Salazar (John) race.  I mean really??? This is getting very, very stupid!!

Current Mood: surprised

23rd October 2004

tresofbass5:32pm: Why is 'douche' such a popular word in dissing candidates anyway?
scarybaldguy4:13pm: Attack ads
I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm fucking well tired of them: "Vote for me because my opponent sucks." Coors and Salazar are prime examples of this type of campaigning.

Candidates, here's an idea: how about you tell us what the hell *you* stand for, and how you intend to keep your promises. Can't do it? Then STFU and go home, and let real people do the job.
Current Mood: annoyed
enter_san_man3:32pm: OK, here it is, the first post

any ideas on what else to add to the "interests" section?
Powered by LiveJournal.com