|
Sizing up the Underwhelming Republican Presidential Candidates
Fort Collins Now
5 December 2007
Eric Fried
Watching the CNN-You Tube Republican Presidential debate last week, I had to chuckle at what passes for diversity in the GOP: eight rich, old, white guys, ranging from conservative to ultra-conservative. Since I've taken potshots at the Democrats before, here's a quick rundown of your Republican presidential wannabes.
Mitt Romney - hair-dyed, blow-dried and perfect-tied - is the candidate from central casting who looks most presidential and has the most money. But Mitt has three big problems: he's a phony who was pro-choice and pro-gay rights when he ran for Governor of Massachusetts; some folks just don't trust Mormons; and we've never elected a president named for a baseball glove before.
John McCain's window of opportunity closed in South Carolina in 2000, when the Bush campaign spread rumors that he fathered an illegitimate black baby. (Memo to Hillary: THAT'S mudslinging, not criticizing your record.) McCain used to be a straight-talking independent, for which the Republican base will not forgive him, but he has since cozied up to Christian Right leaders and called for expanding the war in Iraq. He's yesterday's news.
Former Senator Fred Thompson was the frontrunner - BEFORE he started running. Now he looks like a sleepy old man trying to pass a kidney stone. He's also trying to pass himself off as an outsider, though he lives literally inside the Washington DC Beltway and has worked as a corporate lobbyist for years. Why are Republicans so enamored of actors who pretend to be tough guys?
Colorado Congressman Tom Damn-crazy is trying to ride his anti-immigration horse all the way to the White House, but most Republicans aren't buying it. When he fails to finish in the top three in Iowa and New Hampshire, his one-trick act is over.
Duncan Hunter used to be buddies with fellow LA Congressman Randy 'Duke' Cunningham, now doing time in the federal pen for corruption. Hunter has more chance of winding up there than in the Oval Office.
Former Arkansas Governor (what, again?) Mike Huckabee is surging in Iowa, and conservatives like the fact that he didn't become conservative just in time for the primaries.
Also rising in the polls is the real straight talker, Texas Congressman Ron Paul. I agree with him on some issues, like getting out of Iraq and legalizing victimless crimes, and vehemently disagree with him on others, but I respect the guy for his consistency and courage. He's your side's Dennis Kucinich.
And then there's front-runner Rudy Giuliani, fresh off his recent fly-in photo-op serving coffee in Loveland. Sure, "The Mayor of 9-11" looked heroic walking the streets of Manhattan with a dust mask, giving orders, and appearing at funerals and Yankees games. But dig a little deeper, folks. If Rudy had not ignored his aides by locating his Emergency Operations Center in the World Trade Center (which had already been attacked by terrorists in 1993), he might have had a more useful place to go. If he had used his seven years in office to give firefighters proper radios, many would have gotten out before the towers collapsed. Rudy told rescue workers the air was safe to work in without using breathing apparatus, and many are now sick and dying.
Allegations of cronyism and sweetheart deals swirl around Giuliani, and recent news is even worse. His protégé, former Police Chief and nominee for Secretary of Homeland Security Bernard Kerik was recently indicted on multiple felony charges. Kerik's former lover Judith Regan is suing him, and has revealed they used a city apartment designated for exhausted rescue workers near Ground Zero. City taxpayers also paid for security when Rudy visited his then-girlfriend (now his third wife) on Long Island, and they carried on the affair in the Mayor's official mansion while the wife and kids were asleep. Nice.
In short, Rudy is Dishonest, Uncaring, Bullying, Yet Arrogant. Say, maybe he IS the perfect candidate to succeed Dubya!
Happy (Original) Illegal Immigrant Day!
Fort Collins Now
28 November 2007
Eric Fried
It may be the tryptophan-induced stupor left in the wake of the Thanksgiving feast, but I find myself unable to resist touching the electrified third rail of American politics, the topic that promises to be the most contentious issue of 2008, just like 2007: immigration. Indeed, the question of providing drivers' licenses to illegal immigrants has at least temporarily sidelined the Hillary for President juggernaut.
Thanksgiving celebrates America's original Illegal Immigrants, the pilgrims. They had no permission to come here, no visas, no documents at all. Seeking a better life, they simply settled here. Lucky for them, the locals fed and helped them, rather than arresting and deporting them. Given how things turned out for the Native Americans, maybe they should have had better border patrol agents.
Immigration is a complex, emotional issue that divides both major parties. There are rational arguments on all sides, as well as a nasty undercurrent of racism and xenophobia. Admit it: there wouldn't be half this much collective angst if the majority of current immigrants were fair-skinned and spoke English flawlessly. Even suggesting comprehensive, rational immigration reform - rather than building a Berlin Wall along the border and rounding up 12 million current residents - can get you run out of a town on a rail.
Obviously, every nation needs to control its borders, at least for national security. Remember, however, that our two worst terrorist incidents had nothing to do with people sneaking across the Rio Grande. Most of the September 11 hijackers came here with expedited visas from Saudi Arabia, while Timothy McVeigh and his deluded militia buddies were homegrown sociopaths. Building 2,000 miles of fence along our southern order - while completely ignoring the threat from those oh-so-polite Canadians and their socialized medicine - would not have prevented either attack.
What draws people here are jobs, jobs at the bottom of our economic ladder that still pay way more than they can make at home. We already have unenforced laws against employing undocumented immigrants, so what's the point of passing new ones? Forget about rounding up poor laborers in the Home Depot parking lot - just throw a few CEO's in the slammer and the entire problem would dry up overnight. Our economy has always relied on immigrant labor, and without it, our agriculture, construction and tourism industries would collapse. Americans would do those jobs for better pay and benefits, but would we pay more for those products? You say YOU would? Then why do you shop at union-busting Wal-Mart, the chief importer of slave-labor Chinese goods? When I hear some of the same people opposing immigration allegedly to protect the American worker who also virulently oppose labor unions, methinks they doth protest too much. We just need to restore the National Labor Relations Board to being a pro-labor body, and vigorously enforce labor laws for all workers, immigrant or not, and the incentive to hire people hiding in the shadows would disappear.
There is a liberal, quasi-environmental argument against immigration, that goes like this: population growth drives pollution, resource depletion, and global warming. Most of America's population growth is caused by immigration, not birth rates. When people come here and participate in our wasteful lifestyle, they do use more energy and generate more garbage. Therefore, we protect our natural heritage by pulling up the drawbridge. True, GLOBAL overpopulation is the root cause of much of the world's trouble, but people are people, no matter what side of an imaginary line they live on. Besides, if you think immigration is a problem now, wait until climate change swamps Bangladesh and drought ravages Mexico, sending unprecedented waves of desperate people our way.
The answer is to make our economy more sustainable, reform the current global trade policies that benefit multinational corporations at the expense of both American and foreign workers, and grapple with global warming, not throw people off the lifeboat and back into the stormy sea.
The Sky Won't Fall if More State Employees Join Unions
Fort Collins Now
21 November 2007
Eric Fried
Listening to the hysterical over-reaction of Colorado conservatives to Governor Ritter's recent executive order on state employees and unions, you would think he had unlocked the gates of the Tsar's Winter Palace to allow rampaging Bolshevik mobs to seize power. Businessmen cried foul, Republican politicos began synchronized foaming at the mouth, and the anti-labor publisher of the Denver Post ran a screaming front page editorial calling our Governor a "toady to labor bosses."
So what exactly did the Guv do? Did he require state employees to join unions? Mandate collective bargaining? Break the bank through secret agreements with public sector unions? No, no and no. State workers already have the right to join unions, and tens of thousands are currently members. All Ritter did, as his spokesperson Evan Dreyer put it, was to "create a framework for the state to enter into partnerships to discuss a variety of workplace issues."
Unions are the most basic form of democracy for the majority of us who work for a living. Unions allow us to talk to each other, to organize a small counterbalance to the overwhelming power of management, and to improve wages, benefits and working conditions. If you prefer democracy to authoritarianism, what could possibly be wrong with that?
Will a more unionized state work force cost taxpayers more money? Maybe yes, maybe no. Budgets have to be approved by the legislature and the governor, and tax hikes have to be approved by the voters, so unions cannot unilaterally raid the piggy bank. Besides, they are prohibited from striking, so their power is quite limited. On the other hand, employees know best where to cut fat and increase efficiency. Empowered employees are productive employees. If management had listened to employees, they might have avoided the boneheaded information technology decisions that will wind up costing us hundreds of thousands of dollars to replace failed software in welfare, elections and other sectors of government. Most of us are workers as well as taxpayers, and when wages start rising in the public or private sector, we benefit from the overall rising economic effect. Unlike "trickle-down" economics, this actually works. It's why you water a tree from the roots, not the crown.
Ritter's critics claim he must be anti-business because he is pro-union. Why? Can't you be both pro-union and pro-business? Are the interests of working people and businesspeople fundamentally irreconcilable? Who's playing the class war card now?
Moderate businesspeople were part of the coalition that gave Ritter his electoral landslide, but union workers were more important when it came time to make phone calls, knock on doors, and get voters to the polls. Ritter has given business plenty of goodies, and he owes something to his labor supporters as well.
Are unions obsolete, as some ideologues claim? Have employers stopped shutting factories and shipping jobs overseas? Have they stopped shifting health care costs to employees, lowering wages, and reneging on pension obligations? Are the regulatory agencies steadfastly protecting consumers and the environment from unsafe products and industrial pollution? When we can answer yes to all those questions, THEN unions will be obsolete. Of course, pigs will fly before then. Indeed, the declining power of unions corresponds to the decline of the American middle class, and the increasing concentration of wealth and power in the hands of the top one percent. Not only are unions not obsolete, they are essential to restoring the American dream.
If Ritter really were in the pocket of government unions, "we would have seen legislation granting full collective bargaining rights," as Jo Romero, president of the Colorado Federation of Public Employee, told the Colorado Statesman newspaper.
Governor Ritter, kudos for your executive order. Only next time, announce pro-labor policies proudly at a Monday-morning press conference, rather than sneaking them in late on a Friday afternoon. Unions are nothing to be ashamed of. They are something to be thankful for.
City's Holiday Task Force Gets It Right - Government Must be Neutral on Religion
Fort Collins Now
14 November 2007
Eric Fried
Here's something you don't hear much right now: the Fort Collins Holiday Display Task Force got it basically right. A diverse group of thoughtful volunteers labored countless hours to come up with an inclusive solution to the city's dilemma of what to display on government property around the winter holidays, and they delivered a reasonable answer. What they also delivered, of course, was more ammunition to those who hype their phony "War on Christmas" for partisan political purposes.
For years, Fort Collins displayed only Christian symbols, until a local Jewish group asked to have a menorah included. Had city leaders simply said "Sure, why not?" the controversy would have been stillborn. For reasons unknown, our city fathers balked at including the Chanukkah candelabra, and instead did what smart politicians the world over do: they tossed it to a task force to take the heat. Mission accomplished!
The basic problem for the city - for all government - is the US Constitution, especially the First Amendment, which guarantees us both freedom of religion and freedom from religion. I know some of you are deeply committed to the fairy tale that America was established as a Christian nation, but it just ain't so. To believe that, you have to believe the Founding Fathers amazingly forgot to write that theological preference into our bedrock law; indeed they neglected to mention God, Jesus, the Bible or Christianity at all. They did specify that no religious test would ever be required for public office, and that Congress could pass no law regarding an establishment of religion. (Later amendments extended this guarantee to all the states as well.) Maybe you have made up your mind and don't want to be confused by facts, but if you read history at all you discover most of the Founders were Deists, not Christians, and some were actively hostile to the Dobsons, Robertsons and Falwells of their day. This nation has ALWAYS been multi-cultural and multi-religious, with the early population split among European settlers, African slaves, and Native Americans. America has always been officially secular, not Christian. It's part of what makes us great.
Besides, American Christmas has virtually nothing to do with Jesus. For one thing, we don't know for sure when he was born, but the gospels indicate spring, not winter. Being brilliant marketers, the early churchmen moved Jesus' official birthday bash to correspond to an existing Roman Winter Solstice holiday, when the days begin to get longer and light returns to our world. When you hear that "Christmas is the reason for the season," that's another myth. Drinking and dancing to cheer us up on the darkest, coldest days of the year - THAT'S the original reason for the season! Also, Jesus was not big on maxxing out credit cards at the mall. As I recall, he threw the moneychangers out of the temple, lived communally and told people to give away all their stuff, not acquire more. Finally, most of our revered Christmas symbols - decorated evergreen trees, wreaths, and yule logs - are adapted from pre-Christian northern European traditions.
If folks in Fort Collins want to celebrate the (non)birthday of Jesus through an orgy of materialism that directly contradicts his message, and to sanctify their commercialism through the use of pagan symbols, it doesn't offend me, personally. What does offend me are members of the 90 percent majority playing the victim card, claiming discrimination if the government does not officially endorse their chosen faith. Separation of church and state is NOT hostility to religion, it's neutrality, and it's what has allowed both church and state to thrive in America. Every home, store and church in Fort Collins is free to decorate their property with all the trees and lights and crosses they can handle.
Let's hope our city council listens to its own task force, and doesn't cave in to pressure. That's all I'm asking Santa for this Christmas.
City's Water Conservation Goals Are Too Diluted
Fort Collins Now
7 November 2007
Eric Fried
The cheapest place to drill for water is right in our own homes. Most of us waste so much water, we are flushing money down the drain. Fort Collins Utilities is currently updating the city's water conservation plan, and is taking suggestions through December 8. Unfortunately, they're being way too timid in setting conservation goals, ensuring we will continue to waste water like it wasn't an endangered resource.
The draft report (www.fcgov.com/water/conserv-plan.php) suggests reducing household use to 140 gallons per person by 2026. I checked my latest utility bill, and even in the hottest summer months, our family used less than 100 gallons per person per day. Averaged over a year, we used less than 50 gallons per person per day. We are hardly conservation fanatics, and we had no trouble using way less per capita than the amount the city proposes to reach 20 years from now! And yes, we do take showers and wash our hands regularly.
Some folks hate the whole idea of conserving resources, as if being resource-hogs is our god-given right as Americans. They don't like "bureaucrats" telling them what to do, and think any money spent on "water cops" would be better spent on real cops. They seem to think that if we don't continue our wasteful American Way of Life, the terrorists win. But the truth is, in the warming global climate we have unleashed, clean, useable water is likely to be scarcer and more expensive. Get used to being a lot more efficient, if you want to survive. And realize that every dime spent on "water cops" saves us a dollar on locating, pumping, storing and delivering water to your home.
The utilities department is proposing to increase education and incentives to save water. Most of their suggestions are no-brainers: only run full loads in the dishwasher, turn off the tap while brushing your teeth, install low-flow showerheads, check for and repair leaks. But this is small potatoes. If you really want to save water, we need to engage in some potty talk.
About a fourth of your indoor water is consumed in the bathroom, and flushing your toilet 20 times a day is a big reason why. Most of the time you flush pee. Why bother? Urine is sanitary, and the smell won't kill you. In our poorly engineered plumbing systems, we use clean, drinkable water to flush down pee, when we could easily reuse the water we wash our hands with. So live by the old saying: "If it's yellow, let it mellow!"
Even though pee is a small part of the waste stream that enters our sewer system, it contains most of the nitrates and phosphates, which then have to be filtered out at great cost. The Europeans (naturally) are working on a toilet that separates the pee stream, which can then be used for fertilizer. The pee goes from a waste product to a resource. Brilliant! The only problem is that you have to sit down (or aim really well) to use the toilet. For half of you reading this, that's not a problem, it's just the way things work. For guys, this brings up the whole emasculating "should the seat be left up or down?" debate. So I have another suggestion: go out back and water your yard.
If you always go in the same spot and kill some grass, so much the better. Water-thirsty non-native turf is another huge household waste of water. If replacing bluegrass with xeriscaping, or better yet with a garden that can actually feed you, is too much work, just let it die. Then you can save all those hours of tedious yard work. If your partner or the city nuisance police give you guff for lying in the hammock while your lawn dies, or for peeing in the bushes, just tell them you're being a water conservation hero. I'll vouch for you.
God May Not Be a Rockies' Fan After All
Fort Collins Now
3 November 2007
Eric Fried
Apparently God is not a Rockies' fan after all.
As we celebrated the Rockies' magic carpet ride - winning an unbelievable 21 of 22 games to make the playoffs, sweep the National League championship and get to the World Series - it was all too easy to believe The Big Guy was wearing purple and black and pulling for our team. Baseball players are a notoriously superstitious lot, and far too many people fall prey to the conceit that their team, party or nation enjoys special celestial favor. But this Rockies' organization went way beyond the usual religious rah-rah, with team management actively fanning the flames of controversy with some of their statements on Christ in the taxpayer-funded clubhouse.
Earlier this year in USA Today, General Manager Dan O'Dowd was quoted as saying "You look at things that have happened to us this year. You look at some of the moves we made and didn't make. You look at some of the games we're winning. Those aren't just a coincidence. God has definitely had a hand in this."
Club president Keli McGregor chimed in, "[God's] using us in a powerful way."
Then there was owner/CEO Charlie Monfort: " I believe God sends signs, and we're seeing those."
So how come the Red Sox swept us like yesterday's dust bunnies? Did they pray better? Are we suffering tribulation for doubting the Almighty? Has God joined Red Sox Nation?
Character's important in sports, and good team chemistry is a priceless intangible that can make the difference between winning and losing. Talent counts, but so does having an unselfish group of players who look out for each other and never give up, rather than a bunch of high-paid fragile egos looking for their next endorsement deal or free agency jackpot. (Wassup, A-Rod!)
The problem is that in the minds of Rockies' ownership and management, having good character means being a Christian. When they announced at the end of last season that they were looking for some good Christian men to fill the roster, I assume they spoke out of ignorance and not bigotry. Brad Hawpe is Jewish - nothing wrong with him. Kaz Matsui from Japan is not Christian, but he can still turn a nifty double play. Babe Ruth was a notorious heathen and sinner, but was a helluva pitcher and the greatest home run hitter of all time. Would the Rockies pass on Ruth? I hope not.
Here's my explanation for the Rockies' meteoric rise and fall, and it has nothing to do with Parables or Revelations. They built a good young nucleus of players, finally developed some pitchers who could play at a mile high, played the best defense in the league, and got timely hits. Plus they had an MVP in left field and a Rookie of the Year at shortstop. From mid-September on, they had to win every game, and they played like it. In fact, the Rox played so well they earned a weeklong layoff, while the Red Sox got hot playing must-win games in the American League championship round. As a diehard Yankees fan, it kills me to say this, but the Red Sox have the best team in baseball, with the most playoff experience.
It's always burned me that players give credit to Jesus when they succeed, but don't offer blame when they fail. Just once I'd love to hear during the post-game interview, "You know, the eight days off really hurt Jesus' timing. He was rusty in Game One, and He really blew it getting picked off first base. I was very disappointed in Him. He definitely choked in this series."
If the All-Knowing Master of the Entire Universe is paying any attention to planet Earth, I sincerely hope she's working on the genocide in Darfur, not taking sides in a sports contest. Because in the end, baseball's just a game.
Autos Uber Alles vs. Bikes at Budget Time
Fort Collins Now
5 October 2007
Eric Fried
What is about the humble bicycle that makes some people so angry? Every year at budget time, the "Autos Only" crowd bemoans the tremendous amount of tax dollars wasted - wasted! - on bike trails, master plans, paid staff, etc. To these staunch defenders of the In-Car-Nation, spending money on any form of transportation beyond the almighty automobile is heresy, which must be purged from our municipal soul.
And yet, the actual amount spent on bicycles is a drop in our city's bucket. For instance, in 2008, funds proposed for bicycling, including fully implementing the bicycle plan, running Fort Collins Bikes and the bicycle library, total about $325,000 out of a transportation budget of over $110 million, or about one-third of one percent. Taking out the one-time $62 million expense for the Mason Street corridor - most of which is state and federal money with a small city contribution - the total transportation budget is about $48 million, with the bike portion adding up to about two-thirds of one percent. Come on, automobilistas, isn't 99 and one-third percent of the budget good enough for you?
Fort Collins is a bicycle-friendly city. At least, that's what the sign on the East Prospect gateway to the city says. After all, the weather is good most of the year, most of our local terrain is fairly flat, and we have a large network of bike trails and lanes. An estimated 4-5% of city residents bike (or walk) to work regularly, and the number spikes during the annual Bike to Work Week. We just witnessed a hugely successful Tour de Fat with a record-setting bike parade, so this town is on a roll, so to speak, when it comes to bicycling.
And yet we have the inevitable backlash, with complaints about bikers who don't follow the rules, bicycles hogging the roads, and cyclists not paying their fair share for transportation upkeep.
True, some cyclists are thoughtless idiots, just like some drivers. They don't signal, obey traffic signs, or even ride on the right side of the road. They may be talking on a cell phone, sipping a decaf mocha frappiato and not wearing a helmet. These are minor annoyances at best. When's the last time someone was killed by a drunk cyclist, or an SUV was totalled in a collision with a Schwinn?
As for hogging the road, that's just silly. Even when Critical Mass takes over the roads once a month, they only make a small impact, except for the clownish over-reaction of local law enforcement. Cyclists try to ride on the right side of the road, but there's often glass and debris there that forces them to move in from the curb. And yes, sometimes they ride two abreast so they can talk to each other. But every cyclist who leaves her car home and gets on her bike leaves more space on the road for your Chevy Subdivision and Ford Excavator. So even if you never ride, thank the growing legion of local cyclists for lessening congestion and clearing our air.
Cyclists certainly pay their share of transportation expenses. They don't tear up the roads much in the first place, or use gasoline imported from Middle Eastern dictators, or contribute to global warming, so they have much less to pay back. Most cyclists also own cars, for which they pay all the usual taxes. I generally drive because my work demands it, but we like to bicycle with our children on weekends. Some people commute by bike, but keep a car for getaways and hauling stuff. We are one and the same.
So why do some people hate bikes? Guilty conscience, perhaps? Or is it a subsconscious pyschodrama, with cyclists representing the godless, Euro-commie, sprout-eating, freeze-in-the-dark hippie crowd threatening all that is good and patriotic and fossil-fuel-burning in America. Yeah, that must be it.
Fort Collins is a bicycle town. Deal with it.
Censor CSU's McSwane? Taser That!
Fort Collins Now
28 September 2007
Eric Fried
What do CSU Collegian Editor-in-Chief J. David McSwane and Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad have in common? Without even knowing each other, they teamed up to make the end of September "Free Speech Appreciation Week" and taught us all valuable lessons about our First Amendment.
McSwane is an up-and-coming young journalist who had already won national notoriety as an Arvada high school senior with his undercover expose of Army recruiters willing to lie and cheat to meet their quotas. At least, he was up and coming until his recent decision to print a terse editorial that read, in its entirety, "Taser this? F--- Bush." As I write this, the meeting of CSU's Board of Student Communications, which may decide McSwane's editorial fate, has been pushed back to Wednesday, presumably to accommodate larger crowds of torch-bearing villagers. Advertisers pulled about $30,000 in ads, leading to budget cutbacks in the newsroom, while the profanity drew national attention to CSU. It may be a moot point already, but I'm hoping McSwane hangs in there.
Granted, the editorial is hardly a persuasive indictment of one of the worst Presidential administrations in US history. The taser reference has little to do with President Bush, and everything to do with the recent incident in which University of Florida police abused a student journalist for asking inconvenient questions about 2004 election fraud while Senator John Kerry patronizingly droned on. But it was McSwane's gratuitous dropping of the F-bomb that riled most people. Personally, I don't see what the big deal is about the word, or any word for that matter. I would much rather my kids be exposed to dirty words than the violence and death that permeate our culture. Is an F-bomb that offends worse than a cluster bomb that rips apart bodies? Of course not. At worst, reprimand McSwane for poor judgment, or praise him for igniting a national debate, but don't sack him for having more courage and respect for the First Amendment than most American adults.
McSwane's local campaign played out against the backdrop of the same story on a bigger stage, as Columbia University invited Ahmadinejad to give a speech before he appeared at the United Nations. Conservatives, especially those whipping up war fever with Iran, howled in outrage over giving such an "evil dictator" a platform. Unlike many of America's allies, Ahmadinejad was actually elected to lead his country, which gives him the right to appear at the United Nations for its annual meetings, whether we approve his politics or not. Translations from Farsi (and the objectivity of the translators) are suspect, but Ahmadinejad has apparently questioned the reality of the Holocaust, challenged Israel's right to exist, and pretends there's no homosexuality in Iran.
I disagree with almost everything Ahmadinejad says, but I defend his right to say it. Even if you consider him "the enemy," don't you want to know the mind of your enemy? Don't you want him unveiling his thoughts before the world so everyone can see him clearly? When has ignoring problems ever made them disappear? Besides, the First Amendment is needed precisely to protect the political speech we hate most, whether it is white supremacists stirring up racism, Ward Churchill discussing the "little Eichmanns" he says perished on September 11, or Rush Limbaugh claiming war opponents help al-Qaeda. We have to defend everyone's free speech, or soon none of us will have any.
Universities have for centuries functioned as intellectual oases safe from the wrath of the king. Columbia did exactly what Columbia should do. In contrast, CU is shaming itself by trying to fire Churchill for uttering taboo thoughts. As for CSU, the jury is still out. For years, university officials designated a small area near the plaza as the campus "free speech zone." And here I foolishly thought that the entire campus - every campus - was supposed to be a free speech zone.
City Council Cops an Attitude on 2008 Budget
Fort Collins Now
21 September 2007
Eric Fried
The City Council recently killed a proposed sales tax increase for public safety amid complaints that part of the tax was pure pork for tree-huggers. (Do tree-huggers even eat pork? Aren't we vegetarians?) Some folks questioned how protecting environmental quality could be considered public safety. I agree with Mayor Pro Tem Kelly Ohlson: how can protecting the very air we breathe and the water we drink NOT be considered public safety? While they debated whether police services should be a core mission or require a tax increase, everyone agreed we need more cops.
Do we really?
A recent independent study showed Fort Collins lagging in police personnel per capita, and recommended hiring dozens of new officers. If hiring more police will keep us safer, it stands to reason that with our short-handed police force, we must be suffering through a crime wave. So how come the facts show otherwise?
FBI figures show Fort Collins has less crime per person than the national average - less property crime, and a lot less violent crime. Fort Collins was rated 154th out of 185 cities with populations between 100,000 and 250,000, according to the 2005 FBI Uniform Crime Report. Even as our population grows, every category of crime (murder, rape, robbery, assault, etc) was lower in 2006 than it was in 2005, according to the Fort Collins Police Department's on-line statistics. We are doing just fine with the number of police officers we already have, thank you very much.
Here's one idea to reduce crime: stop making so many things illegal. Calling off the War on Drugs (or declaring victory and going home) would save money at every level, and provide a more effective answer to what is really a public health, not criminal, issue. And forget about the ridiculous exterior property maintenance codes, which will require an additional code inspector. Are paint, yard and fence enforcers really more important than additional firefighters? If anyone thinks so, I have some oceanfront lots in Phoenix you might be interested in.
Yes, there are areas of fluff in the budget I think we could all agree are not high priority items in tight budget times. Do we really need median maintenance to the tune of $400,000? How about $220,000 to fight West Nile Virus, with its insufferable death toll of exactly one since 2003? Or $60,000 to study train noise when federal law mandates train whistles at street crossings in urban areas? Give me half that sum and I'll have your study answer tomorrow!
For all the noble words about making the city budget process transparent, we regular folks can only scratch the surface. Try to drill down on-line (http://fcgov.com/citymanager/budget.php) and you won't get very far. You can choose between items, but your possible choices have already been framed for you by city staff. Many of the budget items (like open space) have dedicated funding sources that cannot be legally transferred without a vote of the people. Other items are state or federal pass-through funds.
A budget is more than a spreadsheet. It is a moral document, a statement of priorities. To conservatives, government should protect and punish, period. Therefore, police, prosecutors, and prison guards are about all we should spend money on. The Preamble to the US Constitution, however, also lists more nurturing and positive functions of government: form a more perfect Union, insure domestic tranquility, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty. There's your justification for Climatewise, Transfort and Mason Street right there. As a society, we decide what we want to do cooperatively, and how much taxes we'll pay to do it.
Here's one more thing to consider: Fort Collins taxpayers are now paying about $1 million per week for the Iraq Occupation. One month of the war would pay for an entire year's worth of the proposed public safety sales tax. How come I don't feel more secure then?
The Dam Truth About Glade Reservoir
Fort Collins Now
14 September 2007
Eric Fried
If it weren't for the Poudre River, none of us would be here. Some towns start because they're on a bay, others because they're at a railhead, and still others because they are at the crossroads of two trade routes. We're here because the US Army wanted a fort by the river, near the stage route. The Poudre is our raison d'etre, our icon, our very lifeblood. We hope to build a kayak park near downtown, maybe a San Antonio-style River Walk, and to connect Old Town to the river. So why do some people want to kill what's left of the spirit of the Poudre, and leave us a tame, glorified irrigation ditch instead of a wild and scenic river?
I'm talking about the proposed Glade Reservoir, which would be 20% bigger than Horsetooth, and would divert peak flows from the river in wet years via humongous pumps located near the mouth of Poudre Canyon. The project is estimated to cost over $350 billion, and would siphon off a third to a half of the river's water during peak flows.
In the topsy-turvy world of Colorado water law, almost any diversion of water, from irrigation to household use to fountains shooting water straight up in the air, is considered "beneficial," but leaving the water in the river for fish, birds, animals, and the whole natural ecosystem is considered "waste." Even though most of the Poudre is already dammed and diverted, and the river sometimes dries up entirely, a small amount of the river's water runs freely and naturally peaks every three or four years in spring, depending on snow melt. To most of us, this June Rise is a triumph of nature, like grass growing through sidewalks, and is essential to the overall health of the river we love. But to the "water buffaloes" who profit from developing, diverting and dealing water, this peak flow is a wasted opportunity.
Glade would be one of two new reservoirs built by the Northern Integrated Supply Project to serve fast-growing towns along the Front Range. Proponents say it is necessary to supply the water needs of the hundreds of thousands of people who plan to move here in coming decades, and to keep irrigated agriculture alive. The truth is, we could get much more water at a much lower price through greater conservation and efficiency, aggressive public education programs, and innovative water sharing agreements. We can line ditches, use more efficient crop irrigation techniques, and stop watering our sidewalks, curbs and driveways. According to Western Resource Advocates, in its report entitled "Facing Our Future: A Balanced Water Solution for Colorado," average per capita US water use is about 69 gallons per day. Aurora uses about 60 gallons a day. Boulder is down to 57 gallons per day. The report estimates we could get household use down to 45 gallons per person per day in coming years. Yet none of the towns conspiring to kill the Poudre have even bothered with serious water conservation efforts yet.
To finance Glade, the small towns and water districts would issue bonds and take on tremendous debt load. Paying off the debt would mandate high levels of municipal growth, making growth a self-fulfilling prophecy. Facing an uncertain economy and rising government and consumer debt, one town (Berthoud) has already pulled out of the project. Others may follow, putting the whole scheme in jeopardy. Because of continuing high levels of interest by northern Coloradoans, further environmental impact studies are being done, and are due soon.
To continue the dialogue, the Poudre Valley Green Party is sponsoring "The Dam Truth About Glade Reservoir," a free multi-media presentation on Thursday, September 18 at 7 pm at River Rock Commons, 520 N. Sherwood, Fort Collins. The speaker will be Mark Easter, conservation chair of the local Sierra Club. Come fine out how to restore, not finish off, our river.
Was 9/11 an "Inside Job?"
Fort Collins Now
7 September 2007
Eric Fried
It's been almost six years since America suffered its worst terrorist attack ever on September 11, 2001, and we still don't know what really happened. We have the official whitewash from the 9/11 Commission, but that's about as credible as the Warren Commission's magic bullet that killed President Kennedy.
Before you dismiss me as a crackpot conspiracy theorist, consider this: A July 2006 Scripps-Howards poll shows 36 percent of Americans (over 100 million people!) think it's "somewhat likely" or "very likely" that US government officials either allowed the attacks to occur or were directly involved in them. Younger people, Democrats, and ethnic minorities were even more likely to believe 9/11 was "an inside job." Conservative pundits had a field day with the poll results, asking whether it meant (a) liberals actually believe this, and are therefore loons, or (2) liberals don't really believe it, and are therefore liars. They ignored option three: what if we're right? Consider:
Many foreign intelligence services gave the US urgent, repeated, specific warnings in the months leading up to 9/11. On August 6, 2001, our National Security Council gave President Bush a Presidential Daily Briefing entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US." The President - vacationing in Crawford, Texas - swung into action, calling no meetings, making no phone calls to advisors, doing absolutely nothing to respond to this critical warning, if he even read it. At best, that's dereliction of duty.
Many of the 19 alleged highjackers were under CIA surveillance, and two lived in San Diego with an FBI "asset." FBI field officers checking on suspicious activity were systematically thwarted.
On that terrible morning, four commercials airliners were hijacked, veered off course, and cancelled radio contact. Standard operating procedure required Air Force jets to make visual contact with the planes - but no fighters were scrambled for over an hour, even after the first tower was hit. Why? Was there a stand-down order? Who gave it?
Long-planned military wargames being held on the morning of September 11 included the following scenario: hijacked planes slamming into commercial buildings and a large-scale emergency in New York City. Quite a mind-boggling coincidence, wouldn't you say?
Remember, the 9/11 families had to force the Bush Administration to convene an investigation, and even then most of the families' questions went unanswered.
I don't raise this issue lightly. I know that allowing a terrorist attack on our nation is an act of high treason, a crime so terrible most people refuse to even contemplate it. Who could be so heartless to do such a thing, and why?
One clue comes from a September 2000 report called "Rebuilding America's Defenses" by the Project for a New American Century, authored by heavyweight neo-conservatives who went on to form the core of the Bush Administration's foreign policy team. After calling for huge increases in US military spending, fighting multiple, simultaneous major wars and embracing what they euphemistically call "constabulary" duties abroad (invasions, occupations, regime change, etc), the authors chillingly predict: "... the process of transformation ...is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor."
Whether by accident or design, they soon had their new Pearl Harbor, and a cowed nation went along with an open-ended "War on Terror," a vast expansion of Presidential power and a wholesale attack on our Constitution.
Worse, those same red lights that were flashing in 2001 are flashing now, with lots of "chatter" about a major upcoming terrorist attack. Some conservative pundits seem almost eager for another 9/11. Since fear is about the only thing they have to sell these days, a new terrorist attack might be just the trick to tip the 2008 election their way and launch their next big war with Iran, even if Iran has nothing to do with it.
Wake up America, before it's too late. And don't ever let it happen again.
Let's Hope Citywide HOA is DOA
Fort Collins Now
24 August 2007
Eric Fried
Apparently some members of our City Council just can't stand peeling paint. They gaze disapprovingly at the fading glory of aging houses, and the less than luxurious landscaping in the yards of some of our poorer citizens, and tut tut to themselves "Why, there ought to be a law against that!" If they can muster four votes, pretty soon there will be.
Laws are established on the premise that government restrictions on our personal freedom are necessary to protect public health and safety. We have zoning rules so you can't build a fireworks factory on your property and accidentally blow up your neighbors. We have traffic laws so your freedom to drive wherever you want won't kill or maim your fellow drivers. We have public health rules so you can be as big a slob as you want so long as you don't endanger the community's health.
So tell me: how is public health and safety threatened by ugly houses and unsightly lawns? Since there clearly is no such threat, on what basis does the City Council propose to adopt intrusive and unneeded new regulations? Aesthetics? Maintaining property values? Sprucing up our town so we can regain our #1 ranking in Money Magazine's 2008 poll?
In my neighborhood, as in many others, there is a homeowners' association (HOA). I knew it was here when I bought the house, but I considered it a nuisance I could hopefully ignore. The HOA claims the right to approve or disapprove the color people choose to repaint their homes, which explains why a few years ago almost all the homes were gray or beige. Thankfully, the HOA has fallen into a coma in recent years, and the neighborhood has blossomed into beautiful blues, green, yellows and pinks. Now a new HOA president is warning us all to get official approval before we dare repaint our homes, or risk the wrath of their lawyers and liens. It makes me want to paint my house pink with purple polka dots just to scream to the world "It's my house, and I'll paint it however I darn well please!" Here in America, our home is our castle, we can decorate it however we like, and no one else's opinion really matters.
Where does this meddling stop? I support rules against junked cars parked on city streets and garbage piling up on lawns, because rusting metal, toxic runoff, and rats really are a public health nuisance. But what if someone parks an ugly-yet-serviceable vehicle in front of their home, because they like it or that's all they can afford? Is that really anybody else's business? No, it's not.
Besides, beauty is in the eye of the beer holder, as they say. Apparently, people in this town love their Kentucky bluegrass lawns, which work great in Kentucky with their 45 inches of rain a year, but not so great here in the arid high plains with our annual 12 inches of rain. Personally, I think bluegrass lawns are monotonous and ugly. We tore ours out and replaced the whole alien mess with native grass and flowering xeric plants. It takes a while for everything to get established, but now we have one of the nicest yards in the neighborhood. So who gets to decide which is the beauty and which is the beast in the realm of lawn order?
Critics aptly claim our council is proposing to turn the whole city into a giant HOA. My advice to our misguided municipal busybodies is "If you can't stand looking at an ugly house, don't look at it." Avert your over-sensitive eyes. Offer to help the homeowner fix things up, if they welcome and need help. Pass a law giving renters at least some rights and requiring landlords to maintain basic habitability standards on their properties. But leave the peeling paint alone.
Bridge Collapse Shows Why We Need Government
Fort Collins Now
17 August 2007
Eric Fried
When Minnesota's busiest bridge collapsed during rush hour and plunged into the
river, you could hear it all the way in Alaska. Not literally, of course, but when
we turned on the TV news during our vacation to check on "the real world," the echoes
of the tragedy were already reverberating across the country.
Earthquakes and mudslides sweep away poorly built shacks from Mexico to Manila,
but here in America, our bridges and levees don't just fall apart. Now, with infrastructure
collapsing at both ends of the Mississippi, and aging steam pipes exploding beneath
the streets of Manhattan, our national confidence is shaken yet again. Experts assure
us terrorism is not suspected in the bridge collapse, like that's supposed to make
us feel better. Who needs al-Qaeda when our cities fall down all on their own?
It's not like we weren't warned about our aging infrastructure. We just didn't listen.
In 2005 the American Society for Civil Engineers issued a failing report card for
our nation's roads, bridges, dams, tunnels, sewers, and other boring but essential
underpinnings of modern life. They estimated it would cost $190 billion to bring
all our bridges up to good, safe, working order. In the post-Reagan era of "government
is the problem, not the solution," and politician-bots intoning "No New Taxes" like
it was a magic re-election spell, who's going to champion spending billions on bolts
and rivets?
After a West Virginia bridge collapse 40 years ago, the feds mandated regular bridge
inspections. Those inspections show one in four of the nation's 600,000 bridges are
"structurally deficient" or "functionally obsolete." The 40-year-old I-35W highway
bridge in Minneapolis was rated a 50 out of 100, but that "didn't mean the bridge
was unsafe," in the words of US Transportation Secretary Mary Peters. Apparently,
it meant just that. By comparison, the Mulberry Street bridge over the Poudre River
is rated at 37.3, and carries almost 25,000 vehicles a day. The only bridge rated
lower in the county is the Highway 34 bridge over the Big Thompson at Estes Park.
Many of our major bridges are 50 years old, built as part of the Interstate Highway
System under the notorious left-wing big-government advocate General Dwight Eisenhower.
Back then, the top marginal tax rate was 90% and a generous chunk of the nation's
tax revenues came from corporate America. The rich were doing fine, but there was
nothing like the emerging billionaire class of today, and we had a large and healthy
middle class. I don't idolize the conformist 1950's - before racial minorities,
women and others achieved anything like equal rights - but at least our nation had
the funds to invest in our infrastructure. Now we charge everything on credit,
outsource our factories, let our public assets decay so we can sell them off to
private interests and watch "patriotic" corporations set up shop in the Cayman Islands
to avoid paying any US taxes at all.
The gas tax - a fixed amount rather than a percentage of the price of gas - has
not been raised since 1993 and is not indexed to inflation. Even as gas prices have
soared and oil companies have made record profits, gas tax revenues have stayed flat.
Our federal highway trust fund is almost broke. Minnesota Governor Pawlenty vetoed
raising the state gas tax last year, but is now reconsidering. Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska),
the powerful former chair of the House Transportation Committee, was recently quoted
as saying "We have to... grasp this problem. And yes, I would even suggest, fund this
problem with a tax." President Bush, naturally, resolutely opposes raising the gas
tax, and says he is considering more tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. I kid
you not.
The bridge collapse shows why we need government that is competent, caring, and
adequately funded. Forget that bridge to the 21st century: let's repair all those
20th century bridges first.
West Nile Virus Hysteria Flares Up
Fort Collins Now
11 August 2007
Eric Fried
Summer's winding down, school starts in little over a week (sorry, kids!) and so
it's time for our annual outbreak of West Nile Virus hysteria. Much more prevalent
than the disease itself, the virus hysteria turns the brains of many reasonable
adults to mush, reducing them to plaintively wailing "Do something!" In response,
the Fort Collins City Council has again agreed to aerially spray toxic pesticides,
a solution far worse than the problem it is supposed to fix.
How bad is West Nile? Most people who get infected don't even know it, because they
have no symptoms. Once bitten, you're now immune. Of those who do get sick, over
80% get a fever like a case of the flu. About 15-20% come down with serious symptoms,
like meningitis or encephalitis, and a tiny number of unlucky people - usually those
with compromised or weak immune systems - die from it. In 2003, the first and worst
year West Nile hit Colorado, a total of 67 people died statewide, including nine
in Larimer County. If you lost a loved one to West Nile, I really am sorry for your
loss. But compare 67 to the tens of thousands of people who died in Colorado that year
from heart disease, cancer, respiratory infections, accidents, suicides, even gunshots
and workplace injuries, and West Nile at its absolute worst was a pimple on a hippopotamus.
West Nile first appeared in the US in 1999 in New York City, and has since spread
across the nation. When the virus hits a new area, people lack any history of exposure
to the disease, so the infection and death rates peak. Then we naturally build up
antibodies, and disease rates taper off sharply. Since 2003, exactly one Larimer
County resident has died from West Nile, the same number who have perished in tragic
"car surfing" accidents.
So why is Larimer County Public Health freaking out over a few mosquito bites? Why
not let adults take reasonable precautions and leave the nanny state out of the
picture? Apparently over-reacting is part of the job description. Not doing something,
even when that is the wisest course, cuts against their professional training to
attack problems, with spraying, vaccinations, quarantines, dire warnings, etc. We
seem to react to every problem with a war mentality, whether it is the War on Terror,
War on Drugs, War on Poverty, War on West Nile. War, of course, is good for the
generals, their budgets, and their suppliers. But war rarely solves problems, and
creates new problems for those on the receiving end of the aerial bombardment.
Like the fog of war, the fog of "adulticide" is indiscriminate, killing not just
the target species but anything flying, from birds to bees to bats, and many creatures
on the land and in the water the spray falls on. By spraying, we are also killing
the mosquito's predators, and helping speed natural selection to develop insecticide-resistant
mosquitoes. The permethrin we spray is a suspected carcinogen (some would say known carcinogen)
but any increased cancer rates will take years to show up and it will be impossible
to prove where exactly they came from anyway. By then our council will be long gone
from office.
When the City started the program in 2004, they received hundreds of calls to their
mosquito hotline from people wanting not to be sprayed. In truth, opting out was a
charade. The fogger truck might stop spraying at your property line and start again
60 feet down the street, but the pesticide fog did not obey property lines. In classic
bureaucratic fashion, the city changed the program so only people with documented
respiratory and other health issues could choose to avoid being sprayed. For the
rest of us, for now, all we can do is pull a Bill Clinton: don't inhale. Let's hope
cooler heads prevail, so the hysteria, like the disease itself, soon subsides.
America's Health Care System is Sicko
Fort Collins Now
3 August 2007
Eric Fried
Score one for bullying.
Ask Americans what concerns them most, and the soaring cost of health care are at
the top of the list, right up with terrorism and immigration. While health care
always makes the worry list, the issue's profile has been raised even higher recently
by Michael Moore's latest smash hit documentary, "Sicko."
Just as they did with Moore's previous film "Fahrenheit 911," conservative critics
are savagely attacking the messenger and repeating talking points disputing the
accuracy of his statements. Moore will have the last laugh again, because he does
meticulous research and fact checking. Too bad we didn't listen to Michael then,
because he was right about the phony war in Iraq. Maybe we'll listen this time.
You often hear apologists for our current mess say "America has the best health
care system in the world." That may be true, if you are very wealthy and can afford
to pay for the finest medical technology in the world. But looking at the big picture,
America pays far more per person for health care than any other nation in the world -
and we still leave almost 50 million Americans with no insurance coverage at all.
Using objective rankings by the World Health Organization, America ranks 37th in
overall health, trailing Canada, Japan and most European countries, as well as global
superpowers like Oman, Colombia and Morocco, and only two slots ahead of impoverished
Cuba. However, we do kick Uzbekistan's butt! We're number 37! We're number 37!
The defenders of for-profit medicine say a government-run system will lead to health
care rationing, high costs and maddening bureaucracy. Helloooo! We already have all
that under our current system.
You also hear a lot that Canadians hate their government-run health systems, so
they come hear for surgeries. True, some do come here if they don't want to wait
for non-emergency elective procedures. As they head south, they probably pass the
busloads of Americans heading north for cheaper prescription drugs. Overall, most
Canadians are quite satisfied with their national health care system, and would never
consider trading their system for ours.
So how is our system "the best in the world"? It can only be one thing: how much
money private insurers, pharmaceutical makers and other giant corporations rake
in from our ill health. That's the real problem with our system: the more they make
us pay in premiums, co-pays, exclusions and deductibles, and the less health care
they provide, the higher their profits.
Under the weight of a growing, aging, and increasingly sedentary population, our
system is breaking down entirely. Emergency rooms are overcrowded, indigent patients
are dumped in the street, and 18,000 Americans die unnecessarily each year due to
lack of health insurance. Most of us are one bad break away from losing everything.
Half of all personal bankruptcies are due to medical emergencies, and of those,
the majority had health insurance!
We need a complete overhaul, not minor tweaking. We need single-payer health insurance.
Single-payer is not "socialized medicine" (although we have no problem with "socialized"
police, firefighters or schools) but government health insurance that covers everyone.
You choose your doctor, the government pays. Since overhead in Medicare and the Veterans
Administration (the socialized medicine already used by tens of millions of Americans) is
a fraction of what it is under private insurance, the costs come way down under single-payer
even as coverage goes up. The only reason we don't have it already is that the special
interests that profit from our current system employ legions of lobbyists and toss out
campaign contributions like beads at a Mardi Gras parade. That's why even the leading
Democratic Presidential contenders shy away from true universal health care proposals.
The Colorado Blue Ribbon Commission for Health Care Reform is now studying four comprehensive
proposals, including a state single-payer system. Go to their website at www.colorado.gov/208commission,
attend their upcoming meetings and demand universal, non-profit health insurance.
Score One for Courthouse Bullies
Fort Collins Now
13 July 2007
Eric Fried
Score one for bullying.
Last week Chairwoman of the Board of County Commissioners Karen Wagner abruptly
resigned over what she called fellow Commissioner Glenn Gibson’s "abuse," "harassment"
and "menacing."
I’ve never personally witnessed Gibson’s imitation of Nikita Khrushchev banging
on a table, turning blue in the face and ranting incoherently, but plenty of other
people have. Gibson’s explanation that he wasn’t singling out Wagner- "I treat
everybody this way!" - is much more disturbing than comforting. Just as disturbing
was the enabling statement by local Republican Party chair Ed Haynes that Gibson’s
actions were "heroic" because he drove a Democrat out of office. (Memo to Mr. Ed:
Always put brain in gear before starting mouth.) There’s nothing heroic about being
a jerk, even if you get your way. By that twisted logic, wouldn’t it be even more
heroic if a Republican posse were to drive all elected Democrats out of office at
gunpoint? It sure would, if the ends justify the means.
I can’t fault Karen for protecting herself against possible serious stress-related
health damage. But surely there was a better way for her to handle the situation
than by quitting. If any county employee is subjected to a hostile work environment,
we have to complain to our supervisor, then to their supervisor, and eventually to
the county manager. At the commissioner level at the top of the county food chain,
there is no higher authority to appeal to. As one of three equal elected officials,
Karen had to work it out herself, without naively expecting help from Gibson’s fellow
Republican commissioner Kathay Rennels. Personally, I would have barked right back at
Gibson until he backed off. Nor was resigning really the only way to publicize Gibson’s
indefensible behavior. Why not hold a press conference, confront him during a public meeting,
file a civil suit or seek a restraining order?
I consider Karen a friend, and volunteered on her campaign, but I am sorely disappointed
she walked away from her elected office. Karen was the only Democrat among ten elected
officials, which was apparently one too many for some diehard Republicans who feel
entitled to run county government like their personal club. One-party rule is not
good in Beijing, Washington DC or Larimer County, because party affiliation trumps
everything, from honest debate to fiscal oversight to loyalty to principle. Under
Karen’s leadership, the county has started a Green Business Practices Committee to
save energy, resources and taxpayer money, has joined Fort Collins’ Climatewise,
and was looking more broadly at transportation options beyond "Pave the Planet."
Wagner was the only commissioner to oppose giving herself a raise and extending
her term limits.
The one bright spot in Wagner’s shocking resignation is that it makes it more likely
a progressive will hold the seat in 2008. When state Senator Steve Johnson announced
he was considering running for commissioner, Wagner declined to say whether she
planned to seek re-election. Now we know why. Any Democrat appointed to finish her
term will have a better shot at winning as an incumbent than they would have as a
newbie next November. Johnson is popular precisely because he is a reasonable and
modest guy, not one of the uber-ideological Republican Kool-aid drinkers who consider
people with different ideas as enemy combatants to be banished to Guantanamo.
In a just world, Gibson would be resigning in shame, not driving Wagner from office.
The best thing we can do now is help Gibson into early retirement next year, so he
can devote full time to anger management classes. But to really break up that old
county club, we need district elections for county commissioners.
Karen: get well soon. We miss you already. Randy Eubanks: welcome and good luck.
If you find Glenn Gibson in your face ranting like Mel Gibson after a night out
drinking, don’t take it personally. In fact, don’t take it at all.
Billy Blastocyst Needs Your Help! Sign Up Today!
Fort Collins Weekly
29 June 2007
Eric Fried
If Ronald Reagan were still alive, he’d wake up from a nap, drop his
jellybeans and tell the current President “There you go again!” Once
again, our fearless leader has broken out his rusty veto pen to fight
the evildoers who want to pursue scientific research on stem cells. In
the process, Dubya is painting a false picture of the stem cell
question, pandering to his party’s base, and paining millions of
Americans desperate for a cure for Parkinson’s, diabetes and other
life-threatening diseases, including Reagan’s own widow, Nancy.
I
know a little about this topic, since we used to belong to a triplet
parent’s group. Most of the triplets, quads and more born these days
can thank fertility drugs, in-vitro fertilization and other amazing
medical advances. Indeed, modern medicine is flying ahead of our moral
compass. Fertility docs used to implant multiple fertilized eggs,
knowing most or all wouldn’t make it. But now, most of them do survive,
leading to multiple births or the moral quandary of “partial
reduction.” The specialists also created many, many fertilized eggs in
the lab, in case they were needed after initial failure. The estimated
400,000 fertilized eggs living in suspended animation in liquid
nitrogen freezers around the US, then, are a victim of the fertility
industry’s own success, unneeded by their prospective parents, headed
for the bio-waste bin.
That’s right: destined for
the
dumpster. When President Bush vetoed the bill the first time, he posed
with about 70 darling “snowflake babies,” former fertilized eggs
fortunate to have been implanted in a friendly uterus, born into this
world and prepped for their photo op. That leaves another 399, 930
fertilized eggs with nowhere to go. The choice is not between stem cell
research and a happy life in suburbia. It’s between using them for a
positive purpose and throwing them away. You tell me which is the real
pro-life position.
We’re not honestly contemplating
crossing a
moral Rubicon in which the federal government “for the first time” pays
for the destruction of human life. (Between war, the death penalty, and
other federal activities we pay for that every day!) The bill that
passed Congress only lifts the ban on federal funds being used for stem
cell research. Currently, any lab already receiving federal funds (most
of them) is prohibited from doing stem cell research. The bill would
lift that ban, allowing the “parents” to donate the fertilized eggs for
research, which a new poll reveals most of them want to, anyway.
I’ve
tried to avoid the term “embryonic” stem cells. These cell clusters
aren’t embryos, and they’re far from babies. They’ve never been inside
a female body, and the only “parents” they’ve known are lab techs.
Scientifically speaking, they are blastocysts, clumps of less than 100
undifferentiated cells, smaller than this period. They feel no pain
since they have no nerve cells, no organs, no brain. If they did have
nerve cells, they’d be scientifically useless. The whole point is they
haven’t yet developed, so they can become any type of cell we need.
That’s also why they hold so much more promise than other types of stem
cells. Personally, I prefer scientific research decisions based on
science, rather than religious dogma or political ideology.
Logically,
then, we have only two choices. We either need to elect a veto-proof
Congress and/or a sane President, or we need to find homes for the
remaining 400,000 frozen fetuses. Just as pro-war patriots should
volunteer for duty in Iraq to be consistent, “pro-life” ladies need to
volunteer their wombs to give little Billy Blastocyst and Emma Embryo a
fighting chance. Operation Uterine Rescue, anyone?
RTA Proposal on the
Fast Track to Nowhere
Fort Collins Weekly
15
June 2007
Eric Fried I hate
to say I told you so, but…who am I kidding? I love saying so. As
predicted here, developer over-reach has killed the current prospects
for a Rural Transportation Authority (RTA). Meanwhile, the Fort Collins
City Council majority is being villified for doing its job: standing up
for us regular folks against the moneyed special interests.
Predictably,
news coverage in our comatose daily paper got it wrong. Our council did
not reject the general idea of an RTA, but opposed this specific raw
deal for Fort Collins taxpayers. A little history should prove
enlightening.
Even before a 35-member RTA Steering
Committee was chosen, a set of guiding principles was agreed upon,
which included:
- Enhancing the
environment by promoting energy conservation and improving air quality;
- Making
development pay its fair share for the cost of the regional
transportation infrastructure;
- Using RTA funds
for local needs rather than relieving the federal and state governments
of their obligations.
Once these principles were
agreed upon, they were totally ignored by the realtor/development
interests who dominated the process. The final vote was only 14-4,
meaning less than half the original steering committee supported it.
That’s not even a quorum. When consensus proved impossible in the rush
to put a proposal on this November’s ballot, the committee agreed to
let the pro-taxpayer/pro-transit group write a minority report (“New
Directions for Regional Transportation”), which it then tried to bury.
Our RTA was designed to reduce vehicle
miles traveled, avoid our impending violation of federal ozone
pollution laws (which could trigger draconian, mandatory measures) and
provide for the mobility needs of an aging population. Public opinion
varied on how much money should go to transit, but about half was the
general idea.
Instead, the list of proposed projects
includes about $250 million for new regional roads and intersections,
and $1 million a year for rail transit. That’s less than crumbs! This
proposal would increase vehicle miles traveled, reduce air quality, and
force us to subsidize federal/state responsibilities. Worse, the bill
includes about $44 million for I-25 and Highway 34 interchanges that
McWhinney Enterprises, developers of Centerra, already agreed to pay
for, but now hope to weasel out of. In a crazy coincidence, Rich
Shannon, McWhinney’s vice president for infrastructure, was on the
steering and project selection subcommittees. As proposed,
about $300 from every local resident would go straight into Rich’s deep
pockets. Like they say, some folks will rob you with a gun, and some
with a pen. The pen works better. No bloodstains.
Fort
Collins would be the big loser in this proposal. Funding would be
shared based on population, but we still generate more tax money per
capita, which would flow out by the tens of millions to
growth-subsidizing neighboring towns. We would have the same one vote
on the RTA board as Timnath, and like the Sopranos, once you’re in,
there’s no getting out. Greeley, Loveland and Larimer County also have
serious reservations and may opt out as well. But only our council –
especially our lone female councilor, Lisa Poppaw – is being bullied
and browbeaten by big-money boys bearing bogus polls.
The
fact is, our local electorate is divided in three parts. One third
votes against all tax increases, another third will consider new taxes
if they pay for “conservative” measures like roads and jails, and the
last third generally supports taxes for “liberal” measures like open
space and multi-modal transit. No tax increase can pass without support
from the last two thirds, making real compromise mandatory. In this
case, some folks got greedy, resulting in a proposal in the fast lane
to nowhere.
2008 will bring the report from Governor
Ritter’s transportation task force, the northern I-25 Environmental
Impact Statement, and the Front Range Rail Corridor study. Let’s go
back to the drawing board to get it right and come up with a 21st
century solution for next November’s ballot.
Too
Many Elk? Wolf ‘em Down!
Fort Collins Weekly
1 June
2007
Eric Fried One
of Estes Park’s main tourist attractions – its majestic elk herds – is
too successful for its own good. Elk have overrun Rocky Mountain
National Park, seriously degrading the ecosystem, especially the
streamside stands of willow and aspen. They spill into the town,
trampling gardens, snarling traffic, terrorizing golfers. Some elk even
mosey down into west Loveland to graze on the irrigated fields there.
We must act soon, because once they discover Loveland’s lush golf
courses, they’ll never leave.
This summer, the National Park
Service
will decide how to thin the herds, now estimated at about 3,000 elk. In
true bureaucratic fashion, the solution is likely to please nobody.
Hunters want to shoot many of the elk. Some suggest elk birth control.
Park officials prefer letting professional sharpshooters kill elk, at
night, away from prying tourist eyes and ears. But state wildlife
managers admit the best solution from an ecological standpoint –
reintroducing wolves, the natural predators of the elk – is not
politically correct among the state’s politically powerful ranching,
farming and hunting communities.
Elk were hunted to
extinction
by settlers in the Estes Valley, and were reintroduced in 1913, just
before the National Park was created. Wildlife managers thinned the
herds until public outcry (“Mommy, why is the ranger shooting Bambi?”)
forced an end to the practice in 1968. The elk population exploded, as
did the number of population control studies.
There
are many
problems with letting hunters cull the herd. First, hunting is
prohibited in National Parks, and for good reason. Hunters already have
millions of square miles of Forest Service, BLM and private land to
play on, and National Park visitors have the right to recreate free of
fear of some orange-clad drunk mistaking them for a wayward quail and
blasting them in the face. Hunters will naturally want to shoot the
biggest trophy animals, mostly the bulls, while natural selection would
pick out the weak, the old, the sick, and the small. I admit my
anti-hunting bias: I don’t consider killing things fun, and I don’t get
why some people can’t enjoy Nature without shooting it full of holes.
The
obvious answer is to reintroduce wolves. Wolves have gotten a bad rap
for centuries, from Little Red Riding Hood to the Three Little Pigs.
But in the last century, there has been exactly one documented case of
Big, Bad Wolves killing a human in North America, while we peace-loving
humans have virtually wiped out these highly intelligent, social
animals (at least the ones we didn’t turn into poodles and retrievers).
Wolves would keep the herds on the move and on their toes, making the
park more natural and less like a giant elk feedlot.
Besides
restoring some wild to our local wilderness, reintroducing wolves would
be a huge tourist draw. Tourists flock to Yellowstone National Park to
see the wolves, and since our park is much closer to population
centers, we can expect an even bigger economic benefit. Wolves are
smart enough to know that interactions with humans are generally fatal,
and tend to keep away from us.
It’s true that
wolves will not
necessarily respect park boundaries, and as their numbers increase they
will spread into adjoining mountains and forests. Good! Colorado has
millions of acres of prime wolf habitat and can support a substantial
population, which would complete the link between existing wolf
populations in Wyoming and New Mexico. Wolves may eat livestock if they
can’t get their preferred meal (deer and elk), but the environmental
group Defenders of Wildlife has already volunteered to compensate
ranchers for any losses. Besides, without wolves, coyotes proliferate,
and they are much more likely to prey on livestock and pets than wolves
are.
Polls show 60 to 70% of Coloradoans favor wolf
reintroduction. Let’s produce a “Restore the Wolf” specialty license
plate with proceeds paying for the program. I bet they would be a
howling success.
The
War Comes Home to City Council
Fort
Collins Weekly
May 2007
Eric Fried Clearly,
the War in Iraq is an issue our City Council
would rather avoid. But if the fledgling Fort Collins Iraq Withdrawal
Coalition (www.fciw.org)
has its way, it’s an issue the council will have to confront, sooner or
later. On, Tuesday, May 15, council chambers were
packed with
supporters of the proposed Fort Collins Iraq Withdrawal Resolution.
During public comment, between 20 and 30 people spoke eloquently,
thoughtfully, passionately in favor of the resolution, with one speaker
opposed. Other speakers bemoaned the continuing cuts to Dial-a-Ride
services to the point where seriously disabled local residents can’t
get around town. Money being poured down a rathole in Iraq... while
cuts are made to paratransit and other critical services... does anyone
see a connection? I was one of the speakers urging
the council to take
action. Here’s why. Most Americans now get that the
occupation of Iraq is
both a foreign policy disaster for the US and a humanitarian
catastrophe for Iraq. We were stampeded into supporting this war by a
fog of patriotic lies and manipulated fears. Not only were all the
justifications for the war false, but the men who sold us the war knew
they were false. Iraq had no nuclear or other scary weapons (as the UN
weapons inspectors were reporting before we hustled them out), no
connection to al-Qaeda, and posed no threat to us. We know Vice
President Darth Cheney (among others) has been calling for occupying
Iraq’s oil fields since the 1990’s, and that his secret Energy Task
Force drew up maps for dividing up Iraqi oil BEFORE September 11. In
short, the Iraq War was not a noble crusade tragically flawed by faulty
intelligence, but a premeditated, unprovoked and criminal act of
aggression. But why should our council care, given
pressing issues
of pothole repair, drainage easements and mall blight clamoring for
attention? I mean, our council always studiously avoids national and
international issues, doesn’t it? Our council does
focus on local issues within its
control, and generally (and appropriately) avoids wider issues. But as
the representative bodies closest to the people themselves, city
councils from the beginning of our republic have weighed in on
transcendent issues. In recent years, our own council has debated such
topics as a nuclear weapons freeze, the persecution of the Bahai
minority in Iran, nuclear test ban treaties, global warming, MX missile
deployment and apartheid in South Africa. Only four
years ago, council conservatives tried to
sneak through a resolution in support of this very war during debate
over opposing the Patriot Act. They were stymied partly by the courage
of councilman David Roy – the only member from 2003 still on council –
who questioned the spurious link between Iraq and terrorism and
predicted the war could undermine, rather than enhance, our national
security. He was completely correct, but was pilloried in the press
for, naturally, “not supporting the troops.” When
we finished, Mayor Hutchinson and four of the six
council reps responded. Council newbies Wade Troxell and Lisa Poppaw
kept quiet. Councilman Roy supported the resolution. Mayor Hutchinson
disagreed, calling it “a diversion.” Ben Manvel said he personally
opposed the war, but felt a withdrawal resolution was not
“appropriate.” Mayor Pro Tem Kelly Ohlson admitted this was harder for
him than he expected, that he was not ready to bring a resolution
forward “tonight, anyway,” but promised to keep listening. Councilman
Brown made it clear it will be a cold day in Hell before he supports
any such resolution. In times of great moral
crisis, silence is not
neutrality, it is acquiescence to evil. Our council must join the
swelling chorus of cities across America demanding an end to this
bloody mess. If you agree, call your council rep. Even if you disagree,
call your council rep. Make your voice heard. We are allegedly fighting
for democracy in Iraq. Why not try a little here at home?
Is It Just Me, Or Is It Getting Hot In Here?
Fort
Collins Weekly
6 April 2007
Eric Fried Two
significant votes in March and April - one local, one national -
have given new momentum to the fight against global warming.
On
March 6, the City Council unanimously voted to convene a task force of
citizens and staff to update our Climate Protection Plan and figure out
why we are falling short of our original goals (hint: federal inaction
on gas-guzzling cars and trucks, regional sprawl, and our auto
addiction in general). Congratulations to the Fort Collins
Sustainability Group, which conceived the idea and patiently cultivated
council consensus. The City Manager is putting together the task force
right now, and an agenda for action is due back late this year or early
2008.
Then on April 2, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the
federal government ALREADY has the authority to regulate carbon dioxide
and other greenhouse gas emissions causing global warming. In other
words, the Environmental Protection Agency has the right to protect the
environment and clean the air under the Clean Air Act. This was one of
those “Well, duh” decisions that make you wonder what planet the four
naysayers hail from.
Fort Collins should be proud of its
leadership on this issue. Our Climate Wise program offers technical
assistance and community recognition to dozens of local companies and
institutions that voluntarily reduce greenhouse gas emissions and save
themselves piles of money in the process. Fort Collins Utilities is a
national leader in wind power, city facilities are increasingly being
“built green,” and city fleet managers are purchasing hybrid cars
whenever possible. Poudre School District is building the greenest
schools in the country, Larimer County has recently started its own
“Green Team” to look at energy efficiency, resource conservation and
saving taxpayer dollars, and the State of Colorado is galloping
headlong towards clean energy and the vast economic opportunities it
presents. Northern Colorado entrepreneurs have realized green is not
only the color of a healthy planet, but also the color of money to be
made in renewable energy. Much of the local business community has now
swung around to support the Mason Street Corridor and transit-oriented
infill development, thanks in large part to the unflagging efforts of
councilman David Roy. Thanks, David, and enjoy your 70% re-election
vote.
We now have action on the city, county, state, and
business levels, and the only thing missing is action from Washington
DC, where it really counts.
Sorry dittoheads, but the actual
scientific debate is over. Even President Bush admits it. Global
warming deniers can trash Al Gore all they want, but it won’t change
the facts any more than calling Paul Revere a Frenchie would prove the
British weren’t coming. If Al Gore disappeared tomorrow, Antarctica
would continue to calve icebergs bigger than Larimer County, glaciers
would continue to disappear in Glacier National Park, and Colorado ski
operators would continue to worry they will suffer the same fate as the
European Alps, which saw almost no snow this winter.
Back to
the Supreme Court: the good news is the EPA can take action. The bad
news is, it won’t. Unless, of course, we the people make them. Here’s
where you come in.
Step It Up 2007 is a national campaign to
make global warming THE civil rights issue of our time. Without a
stable and accommodating climate, life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness is a moot point. On Saturday, April 14, there will be over
1000 rallies in all 50 states, calling on Congress to take bold and
immediate action on global climate change. The Fort Collins rally will
take place in Old Town Square from 1-3 pm, and will feature speeches by
CSU Professor of Mechanical Engineering Bryan Willson and State Rep.
John Kefalas, followed by live music. Please come stand and be counted
on the most important challenge we humans have ever faced as a
species…unless of course you have something more important to do.
The Momma and the Poppas
Fort
Collins Weekly
March 2007
Eric Fried It’s
the surest sign of spring - empty lots around town sprouting
pro-developer city council candidate signs. Want to know who local
special interests support? Just check the signs along the roadways and
in the little pockets of nature that some banker hopes will soon be a
meal ticket. In 2007, the moneyed interests are pushing Doug
Hutchinson, Wade Troxell and Matt Fries.
Unlike the Presidential
election, the City Council race is a two-month sprint. Ballots are
mailed in mid-March and due back by Election Day, April 3. So let’s
look a quick peek at each of the council races, starting with the
mayor’s contest.
Actually, there is no contest. Doug Hutchinson
faces only token opposition from Scott Van Tatenhove, who this time
around apparently WILL take stands on issues but still won’t spend more
than pocket change on the race. Good luck with that.
In District
6 (the most liberal section of the city), incumbent David Roy has deep
roots in the community, has served his constituents well, and should
easily win re-election. The Chamber of Commerce and its allies have
basically conceded this seat. Like Roy, the two challengers are working
stiffs, which we need more of on council. I applaud them for stepping
forward to run, but not this time. Roy deserves re-election,
hands-down.
In District 4, Glen Colton came within 200 votes
of winning in 2003, and SHOULD win this time around against Troxell.
Having served on city boards and in numerous campaigns, Colton should
benefit from the same resurgent progressive movement that in recent
years has elected Karen Wagner to the County Board of Commissioners,
Kelly Ohlson to City Council and Randy Fischer to the State House.
Complicating the matter, however, is the issue of immigration, which
Colton now says should not be an issue. But Colton himself raised the
issue before, and can’t have it both ways. Community activist LeRoy
Gomez has jumped into the race, and while he won’t win, he may siphon
enough votes from Colton for Troxell to sneak by (proving once again
why we need Instant Runoff Voting in city elections!). Ironically, the
more Ohlson waves the “immigrant-bashing” banner on council, the less
likely he is to gain Colton as an ally there.
The most
entertaining race is in east-central District 2, where stay-at-home mom
and community volunteer Lisa Poppaw is challenging professional
document-shredder Matt Fries. If Fries wins, it will be the first time
in decades there are NO women on council. Do we really want to revert
to the 1950’s? Like all good moms, Lisa understands the need for
balance, between protecting our environment, parks and open spaces that
make us the great city we are, and promoting a healthy economy.
Fries,
who says he is “standing solid” for innovation (whatever that means!),
comes down heavily on the pro-development side, calling for eliminating
“all unnecessary barriers,” “providing a business friendly community,”
“a sensible approach to…improving the Poudre River” and “practical use
of open space dollars.” That’s greenwashed code for removing air and
water quality restrictions and opening the floodgates for rampant
development.
One innovation we’ve already seen was campaign
manager Scott Yeldell pretending in a letter to the editor that he
first met the candidate when Fries knocked on his door. Fries
classified the obvious lie as a “mistake,” but Yeldell is the same
operative caught red-handed last year stealing Randy Fischer campaign
signs to benefit his mom’s campaign.
In another blow for
Republican dirty tricksters, Colorado Citizens for Ethics in Government
lodged a formal complaint against Andrew Boucher and his Northern
Colorado Victory Fund for not filing required finance reports for his
role in the failed smear campaign against now-Rep. John Kefalas last
Fall. (Full disclosure: I helped get Kefalas elected.) When Boucher
moved to our little burg, he brought his brand of big money gutter
politics with him, immediately launching two political committees to
influence city elections. Both of those committees are delinquent in
reporting as well. Boucher has defended his sleazy tactics (which he
euphemistically calls “political advertising”) in his column in the
Fort Collins Weekly, urging voters to “Check sources. Follow the money.
Demand accountability.” Now he can tell it to the judge.
No
Annexation Without Representation
Fort
Collins Forum
February 2007
Eric Fried
If
the 3,000 residents of the proposed “Southwest Annexation” feel like
yo-yos, can you blame them? In the last year, they have been out, in,
out and soon finally in (our out!) of the City of Fort Collins.
Since
their lots were first developed, the people living in the area
generally south of Harmony and west of College were in the county. As
the City of Fort Collins grew right up to them, and annexed open space
surrounding them, they became what is ominously called “an enclave.” By
state law, once an enclave is completely surrounded, it can be annexed
without consent of the property owners.
As the
residents made clear they wanted no part of Fort Collins, city staff
spent a lot of time meeting with them, listening to their concerns, and
then doing what they planned to do all along. After an October 2006
City Council vote to annex them against their will, the southwestistas
were in the city. So they gathered signatures and filed petitions for a
special election to force a vote of the people on the annexation, which
would have put them back in the county pending the vote. The City Clerk
invalidated some signatures, so the election was off and they were
still in the city. Except…they gathered just enough new signatures to
get back on the ballot, so they’re in the county again pending the
April election. Ironically, only city voters get to vote on the
annexation, so the people being annexed (or not!) don’t get to vote on
their fate. Is that clear as mud?
At least this much
seems clear: the overwhelming majority of the residents don’t want to
be annexed. Why should we force them? If anyone has made a convincing
argument, I have yet to hear it.
Why annex? First,
the City and County have an Intergovernmental Agreement that county
enclaves MUST BE annexed by the City. This is just a bureaucratic
excuse. There are plenty of county enclaves surrounded by Loveland –
real sections of Loveland, not Loveland-owned open space – and they are
not being annexed. Intergovernmental agreements can be altered by
simple consent of both governments. If this one is not followed, will
the County actually sue the City to force them to take the unwilling
residents? Don’t bet on it.
Second, the City can
provide better services to urban enclaves. Exactly what services will
the residents get for their higher taxes? They already have gas,
electric, water, trash and recycling pickup, police and fire, road
maintenance, sewer and storm runoff, and land use planning. In case
you’ve been living under a rock, the City is broke and has admitted it
can’t afford more police to properly serve the annexation area. Poudre
Fire already serves the area, and all utilities are in place.
Generally, the City installs sidewalks, curbs and gutters, but some of
the areas involved already have them, and others may not get them for
years. North College has been in the City for years, and last I checked
much of that area still lacks sidewalks. Besides, I have not heard one
resident say their life is hardly worth living because they lack
sidewalks. They like the more rural lifestyle, the looser zoning and
animal regulations, and the lower taxes. If the tradeoff is walking on
the shoulder of the road, it’s worth it.
Finally,
annexation is needed for proper city planning and municipal growth. Now
we’re getting to the real issue. The open secret is the City does not
trust the County to properly manage land use, and considers the
rebellious residents in the Southwest merely an impediment to their
master plan. But “shut up and submit” is hardly a compelling argument
in a democracy.
Fort Collins’ state Senator Steve
Johnson is pushing a bill through the state legislature forbidding such
annexations without a vote of the residents. We city residents should
vote down the proposed annexation, support Sen. Johnson’s bill, and let
the people directly affected vote. If the City can’t convince the
residents to join, then just leave them alone and try to sweet-talk
them again later. The last thing we need is an unhappy separatist
movement on our southwest border, right?
Business
Counts, but the Community Rules
Fort
Collins Weekly
21 January 2007
Eric Fried
It’s
a biennial rite of spring: the proliferating signs in empty lots, the
deceptive mailers clogging your mailbox, the candidates knocking on
your door. Yup, it’s time for Fort Collins city elections. By now you
should have your Fort Collins municipal ballot in your hot little
hands. If you’ve already mailed yours back, thanks! If you’re still
pondering who to vote for, then we need to talk.
A
lot has changed in two years since our last election. I’m pleased to
see the world coming around to my way of thinking, both nationally and
locally. Way back then, a (slim) majority supported President Bush and
The War, those of us warning against global warming were voices crying
in the wilderness, and solar and wind energy were pipe dreams of aging
hippies. Now two-thirds of Americans, including the troops, see the
Iraq debacle as a mistake, even the president admits global warming is
real (he just won’t do anything about it) and everyone from Governor
Ritter to redder-than-red Eastern Plains farmers are hot to trot for
renewable energy.
Two years ago, the local lines
were clearly drawn between the pro-growth and slow-growth camps. Now,
everyone’s for balance, with environmentalists correctly proclaiming
the need for a healthy economy and pro-development candidates promising
to preserve our local environment. That’s because most local voters
understand both the economy and the environment matter.
But
scratch a little below the surface, and the fault lines become clear.
For example, take the district two race between Matt Fries and Lisa
Poppaw, in the area east of College between Harmony and Drake. (Full
disclosure: I’ve walked a few neighborhoods for Lisa.) Fries
won the endorsement of the Chamber of Commerce. Does that make Poppaw –
an at-home mom and volunteer with her local school and City government
– anti-business? Hardly. The Chamber admits it endorsed Fries without
even bothering to interview Poppaw. Indeed, it endorsed Fries even
before the deadline for candidates to file for office! What if, say,
Jesus Christ Himself filed to run just before the deadline? Okay, bad
example, since Jesus isn’t registered to vote here, and would be
considered anti-business anyway for throwing the moneychangers out of
the temple. But you get my point: the Chamber had its man in Fries.
One
of Poppaw’s selling points is that she is the only woman running and
there ought to be at least one woman on council. I don’t vote solely
because of gender – I would never vote for Marilyn Musgrave, and if
Hillary is the Democratic Presidential nominee I’m proudly voting for
Nader again – but Poppaw makes a good point. Fries counters by saying
he’s the only small businessman running and there ought to be at least
one business representative on council. Pardon me, but between the
Mayor, banker/warrior Diggs Brown and the ever-present corporate suits,
the business class is hardly under-represented at City Hall. Fries
would do better pointing out that if he loses, there will be no
professional document shredders on council, which might come in handy
in a pinch.
Check the campaign finance reports, both
for the conservative candidates and independent committees, and you’ll
see a Who’s Who Among Local Automobile Dealers, Developers and
Realtors. We’re never going to out-Loveland Loveland, where the
McWhinneys are now hell-bent on building a brand new “Old Town” next to
I-25. (No word on when they’ll build a faux CSU.) True, they declared
open fields as urban blight and got their city to pony up millions in
corporate welfare, but we shouldn’t copy them. Our strengths are our
real Old Town, our university, the Poudre River, our arts scene, our
involved citizens. In other words, our quality of life is the driver of
our prosperity, the magnet that draws people here and made us #1 in
Money Magazine’s eyes. And that’s what really at stake in the upcoming
election. Business counts – but the broader community must rule.
Party
on, City Council Candidates!
Fort
Collins Weekly
14 January 2007
Eric Fried
A
specter is haunting City Hall – the specter of political party
involvement in officially nonpartisan city council races.
Recent
mailings sent by the Fort Collins Future Committee urged voters to
support the Republican candidates (Troxell and Fries, to no one’s
surprise) and misidentified Glen Colton as a former Green Party member.
Let’s set the record straight. Glen Colton never
has been
registered Green – not that there’s anything wrong with that! Defending
yet another falsehood, Karl Rove wannabe Andrew Boucher said he got his
info from Cathy Hutchinson, wife of the mayor and webmistress of
fortwatch.org. In turn, Hutchinson says this factoid “could have” come
from a Green Party newsletter. I was party co-chair in 2003, and we had
no newsletter. Cathy has a long history of fantasizing about Greens,
and apparently this “fact” sprang full-blown like Athena from her
fevered brow.
City law that prohibits political
party
involvement in city elections cannot stand up in court and should be
repealed. The city can’t suspend the Constitution at the city limits,
and has zero authority to prohibit political parties from exercising
their rights to free speech and free association. Just because our
local political culture has frowned on party involvement in the past
doesn’t make it illegal. I have to agree with the Republicans here.
Another
clearly indefensible ordinance prohibits city employee involvement in
city elections. This rule is stricter than laws regarding county,
state, federal or school district employees, and is totally
un-American. The city rents its employees’ labor during work
hours,
but does not purchase their souls. When they are off duty, they have
every right to work on city campaigns, even to run for council
themselves if they choose (provided they resign their job if they win).
City
council pay is clearly inadequate. I know it’s politically suicidal to
advocate spending more tax money on politicians – a word people
generally spit out with disgust – but the low pay and long hours
required to do a good job prevent most working people from serving on
council. That’s why so many council members are independent
professionals, businessmen, Hewlett Packard engineers, CSU professors,
retirees and the like. Who (besides David Roy) represents the
waitresses, truck drivers, plumbers, telemarketers, renters, students
and other moderate-wage citizens on council? Raising council pay
modestly is a small but worthwhile investment in a more inclusive
council that represents all of us, not just the suits.
Another
contrived controversy making news is Progressive Majority’s endorsement
of David Roy and Lisa Poppaw. Local righties including Erik Rush
(recently featured on Fox News smearing Barack Obama’s church) portray
these two as Manchurian candidates who will do the bidding of the
international progressive conspiracy if they win. Get a grip! PM’s
entire in-kind contribution to Lisa – less than $40! – was about two
phone calls giving her generic campaign advice. Besides, I know of at
least two other organizations that seek to recruit candidates for
office, train and mentor them and help them move up the ranks: the
Democratic and Republican Parties. There’s nothing sinister about it.
Apparently
the word “progressive” itself is now meant to scare you. Funny, I saw a
Matt Fries brochure touting his “progressive” platform, and even right
wing former county commissioner Tom Bender was involved with the
coalition of northeast Colorado counties called “Progressive 15.” Is
the p-word only terrifying when actual progressives use it? Or is it
the growing understanding that on broad economic and social issues we
progressives actually are the majority?
Clearly, the
partisanship genie is out of the bottle when it comes to our quaint
little municipal elections. So let’s level the playing field and give
people power an equal standing with money power. Allow city employee
involvement in elections, make political committees abide by the same
contribution limits as candidates, and raise city council pay to at
least minimum wage. I bet we get a broader, better city council out of
it.
What Would Jesus Do About the Menorah?
Fort
Collins Forum
January 2007
Eric Fried
I
wasn’t going to discuss the magic nine-headed candelabra. I swore I
wasn’t. But when I got a letter from my Aunt Marilyn (no, not THAT
Marilyn) in Florida asking why Fort Collins was displaying a Christmas
tree but no menorah, I knew I could avoid it no longer. All the good
publicity generated by Money Magazine anointing us the best place to
live in the US? Forget it. It’s gone. Wiped clean. Now we’re known
around the country as that city where Jews (and other non-Christians)
are not welcome. This is probably not what the City Council intended,
but it’s the result of their cowardly decision nonetheless.
As
readers of this column know by now, I was brought up Jewish. So I must
admit that Chanukkah is really no big deal. In the pantheon of Jewish
holidays, it’s not even in the top five. Chanukkah commemorates one of
history’s first successful guerilla insurgencies, as the Jews fought
off one of an endless series of oppressive imperial powers, with
miraculous intervention by The Big Guy Himself (or so the story goes).
As with everything Middle Eastern, it all boils down to oil, and so we
light oil lamps (menorahs) for eight nights and eat oily potato
pancakes and doughnuts. And as for dreidels…I forget. Ask my Aunt
Marilyn.
Here in America’s melting pot, to make
Jewish kids feel included around Christmas, we upgraded Chanukkah’s
importance. In a kinder, gentler era that is only a fading memory,
acknowledging ALL the winter holidays was considered a simple act of
generosity quite in keeping with the Christmas spirit of goodwill
towards all.
But now, with the likes of Faux News trumpeting
its trumped-up “War on Christmas,” even saying Happy Holidays rather
than Merry Christmas is regarded as heresy. The religious partisans
claim “Christmas is the reason for the season,” and urge their cohorts
to stop pretending we are celebrating anything but Christmas.
As
usual, the zealots’ grasp of history is a bit fuzzy. No one knows for
sure when Jesus was born, but it was probably in early Spring (when
shepherds would have been out in the fields with their flocks). The
date of December 25 was chosen by Pope Julius I’s marketing geniuses to
re-brand the long-established Roman midwinter Saturnalia celebration.
Coming soon after the shortest day of the year, December 25 was
celebrated as the “birth of the sun,” so it was just a short hop to
“birth of The Son.” Christmas, Chanukkah, Winter Solstice all celebrate
the rebirth of light in the season of greatest darkness. THAT’S the
real reason for the season.
Except for Councilman
Kurt Kastein, who let the cat out of the bag by saying as a Christian
he saw no problem in having the City promote his preferred holiday, the
rest of the council took refuge behind a legal fig leaf. Relying on the
kind of hair-splitting legalisms Jesus himself railed against, they
cherry picked a Supreme Court decision that claims some Christmas
symbols are secular and some are religious. It’s true that bringing an
evergreen tree inside began as a northern European pagan custom, but it
has since come to be inextricably linked to the Christ-mass and no
other religion. That particular decision ranks as one of the dumbest
ever made by the Supremes, right up there with ruling that money is
speech, corporations are persons, and African-Americans are not full
human beings. In any case, the Supremes have also ruled that a menorah
(clearly a religious symbol) CAN be displayed with other cultural
symbols without violating the bedrock constitutional principle of
separation of church and state.
So what’s the
problem? If we allow the menorah, would that “open the floodgates”?
What floodgates? Are local Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists and
celebrants of Kwanzaa marching on City Hall to get their winter holiday
symbols installed too? And if they do, why not let them? Where is the
harm? Why not welcome everyone? This city belongs to all of us equally.
That’s what makes America great. After all, if Chanukkah was good
enough for Jesus, it’s good enough for Fort Collins.
I’m
Already Against the Next War
Fort
Collins Forum
December 2006
Eric Fried
First, a mea culpa. In
cheerleading for SoPro last time, I inadvertently annexed a half mile
up Lemay. Obviously, Poudre Valley Hospital has always been north of
Prospect...
Now, if you think THAT was
a bit off, consider this: hopelessly stuck in the middle of a bloody
civil war in Iraq, and rapidly losing Afghanistan to a resurgent
Taliban, the lame-duck Bush administration is moving ahead with plans
for war with Iran.
I’m no fan of Iranian President
Mahmoud Ahmedinajad, who denies the Holocaust and says he wants to
destroy Israel. But he was elected with over 60% of the vote, and Iran
has every right under international law to develop nuclear energy (even
though it is a horrible idea). How do we know Iran is instead trying to
build nuclear weapons? Because the Bush Administration says so. Since
they also said Saddam and bin Laden were buddies, Saddam had weapons of
mass destruction, and Iraqis would greet our troops with flowers and
chocolates, their credibility is a bit lacking.
For
argument’s sake, let’s say Iran is trying to develop nukes. Can you
blame them? Of the three countries labeled the “Axis of Evil” by Dubya,
North Korea acquired The Bomb, and we treat them with kid gloves. Iraq
was all but defenseless, and we blew them away. The real
message we are sending Iran is: get The Bomb as soon as you can!
Israel, Pakistan and India have all acquired nuclear weapons in
violation of international treaties, and we’ve rewarded them with
military aid and foreign trade.
Some cheerleaders
for war say you can’t negotiate with “evil”, so why even talk to the
“enemy”? I mean, how do you dialogue with an ultra-nationalist
hard-line President who has to placate religious fundamentalist power
brokers, despises dissent, and who apparently believes God has picked
him to hasten the End of the World? And it’s no better talking to
Ahmedinajad . . .
Iran has made repeated overtures
to us in recent years, but they’ve all been scorned. Hard-liners won
the last Iranian election partly because we spurned the peace feelers
of the prior President, moderate Mohammad Khatami, who had nothing to
show for advocating dialogue with the US. Contrary to the
neo-conservative ideology of the “geniuses” advising Dubya, threatening
another nation causes its people to rally around their government, not
overthrow it.
War in Iran would be far worse than
the current debacle in Iraq. Iran is much larger, more populated, and
much stronger militarily than Iraq was, and its government enjoys much
greater popular support than Saddam’s did. True, Iran’s national
elections are not totally free, as the ruling conservative clerics
decide who can run for office, but compared to our close ally Saudi
Arabia, whose national elections…oh that’s right. Saudi Arabia is an
absolute monarchy, and they don’t bother with national elections.
(Maybe that’s where we should be seeking regime change!)
Even
if you think a war with Iran is a jolly good idea, is this the crew you
want running it? Look how badly they bungled the Iraq war from day one.
And do the words “Hurricane Katrina” ring a bell?
We
can work things out diplomatically with Iran, if we choose. We’re still
mad they seized our hostages, and they’re still mad we overthrew their
democratically elected government in the 1950’s and imposed the
tyrannical Shah. They want security guarantees, and we want them not to
develop nuclear weapons. We need their help in preventing Iraq from
totally exploding (which is also in their interest) and they want
recognition as a regional power. Why not recognize reality as a
starting point, for once?
Since our intelligence
experts say Iran is at least five-to-ten years from developing The
Bomb, we don’t need another rush to war under false pretenses. As Dubya
says about possible troop withdrawals from Iraq, that’s a decision best
left to a future President. We can all sleep better knowing Barack
Obama will handle the problem sanely and competently.
CALENDAR
NOTE: Poudre Valley Green Party hosts a Winter Solstice celebration on
Thursday, Dec. 21 from 6-8 p.m. at Avogadro’s Number, 605 S. Mason St.,
Fort Collins. Food/beverage provided – free admission – donations
welcome.
Top 10 Reasons I Love SoPro
Fort
Collins Forum
November 2006
Eric Fried
I
am a progressive who lives on the south side of town. To my liberal
friends on the north side, I might as well be living in Tierra del
Fuego. The very mention of the south side – the Republican end of town
– sets their eyes rolling back in their heads while visions of beige
cookie cutter houses on identical cul-de-sacs and an asphalt sea of
national chain store parking lots dance in their heads. True,
the post-WWII development pattern, which generally begins on the south
side of Prospect Road (SoPro), does lead to less through-streets and
more uniformity. And yes, Fort Collins landmarks like Old Town, CSU and
(most of) the Poudre River are in the older part of town. Until I moved
here, I thought I wanted to live on the northside too, but now I’m
convinced this is the best part of town to raise a family.
Here
then, in no particular order, are the top ten reasons I love living in
SoPro.
1) Health food. We have most of the natural
foods markets down here. I know that’s hard to believe, and you do have
the venerable Food Coop downtown. But we have Wild Oats, Sunflower
Market, the pricey but gorgeous Whole Foods (food porn!), and my
mainstay, the unpretentious, all-organic produce, low-priced Vitamin
Cottage. Since organics have gone mainstream, even mainstream
supermarkets now carry them, such as King Soopers and Safeway…and we
also have most of those markets here in SoPro.
2)
Movies. With the closing of Campus West, every single movie theater in
town is in SoPro, including the drive-in. Once the new indie/art film
house opens on Mountain Avenue (welcome!), SoPro will have every movie
theater…except one.
3) Parks. We have the best
parks. Yes, you north-enders have Martinez Farm and City Park, but we
have Rolland Moore, Edora and Fossil Creek Regional Parks. And now the
Southwest Regional Park is under construction.
4)
Dog parks. We have both dog parks, the one at the west end of
Horsetooth and the one I go to at Fossil Creek. There’s also the
unofficial dog park at the old Fort Collins High School. For pooches,
SoPro rocks.
5) The Environmental Learning Center.
You could lump this one in with parks, but it really is a different
animal. One of Fort Collins’ treasures, with regular environmental
classes, the Raptor Center and miles of trails along the river, the ELC
entrance is off East Drake Road.
6) Bagels. I grew
up in Brooklyn, so I know something about bagels. We ate bagels before
eating bagels was cool, and in my humble opinion the best bagels in
Fort Collins are Gib’s NY Bagels. There are three Gibs outlets in town,
and all three are located in SoPro, including one within walking
distance of my home.
7) Medical care. If you twist
your knee hiking, get bit at the dog park or choke on a bagel, be glad
you live in SoPro. Not only is Poudre Valley Hospital and PVH’s Harmony
campus here, but so are most of the other medical professionals.
8)
Schools. The north end has Poudre High and Centennial, but we have Fort
Collins High, Rocky Mountain High, and Colorado’s greenest high school,
Fossil Ridge. We have all the new elementary schools, while the north
end struggles with declining enrollment in aging schools. We also have
every single charter school in town, including Pioneer, Liberty Common,
Ridgeview and the brand new T.R. Paul Academy of Arts and
Sciences. If you’re feeling a little jealous up north, I’ll
be glad to trade you Ridgeview and its Maximum Leader for, say, a
future draft pick…
9) The Main Post Office. This one
might be a little tough for north-enders to swallow, but the newer post
office on Boardwalk IS the main post office. That old building you got
with the IRS on the upper floor and the FBI hiding in the basement?
That USED TO BE the main post office. Now it’s only the annex. Sorry.
10)
Location, location, location. We are closer to Boulder, Denver, and the
rest of the world. You’re closer to Laramie, Wyoming.
I
rest my case.
And now for the rest of the story…
Fort
Collins Forum
October 2006
Eric Fried
Last
time we discussed ballot issues to raise the minimum wage, establish
basic legal rights for same sex couples, constitutionally ban gay
marriage and legalize up to one ounce of marijuana. The remaining
ballot issues are also important, but not quite as sexy, so let’s
plunge right in.
Start with the local tax issues.
Measure 5C will create a self-governing library Special District funded
by property tax, just like almost 50 other Colorado communities have.
We have a great library system in Fort Collins, used by people
throughout the county. Only Fort Collins residents pay for the system.
A recent letter to the editor from a mom in Wellington opposed to 5C
claimed she used the library every week and it seems fine to her. Of
course it seems fine to her: she’s not paying a dime for it! The county
stopped paying its share to maintain the library years ago, making its
budget better and the city budget worse. With library use up and funds
down, services like Saturday morning hours and story-time for children
have been reduced. A library district will restore services and provide
stable, long-term funding so we can have the kind of library system
America’s #1 city deserves. It will also finally give the fast-growing
southeast side of town its long-promised branch library. If Measure 5C
fails, city budget cuts will be even worse than planned.
The
jail tax (Measure 1A) is a different story. It is a multi-billion
dollar tax increase forever to expand the jail, just a few years after
the last tax increase to expand the jail. Most inmates have mental
health, drug and/or alcohol problems, and treating them at the jail is
the most expensive and least effective way to deal with these
underlying issues. America already locks up more people than any other
nation in the world (monarchies and dictatorships included) and this
proposal is more of the same, with a few nods towards alternative
sentencing and drug court. The sheriff and county commissioners have to
think outside the box (literally!), and defeating this proposal is the
first step.
On the state level, Amendment 38 would
expand the ability of citizen groups to propose changes to state and
local laws. I generally favor anything that gives citizens more power,
but I think this poorly written measure will make our state
legislature’s job all-but-impossible. Given the hidden anti-government
agenda of the measure’s sponsors, that is precisely the point.
Amendment
40 would limit the terms of Colorado’s supreme and appellate court
judges. The ideologues who proposed it want to fire “liberal activist
judges” who dare to issue rulings they don’t like. This measure would
destroy judicial independence, blow up our system of checks and
balances, and lead to hyper-partisan warfare. It is so bad even
Governor Owens opposes it. You should too.
Amendment
41 would restrict lobbyist gifts to public officials (which totaled
over $200,000 last year), create an independent ethics commission, and
establish a cooling-off period of two years before former legislators
could begin lobbying. Unlike most states, Colorado does not prohibit or
restrict lobbyist gifts to public officials. With lobbying scandals
engulfing Washington DC, this is our chance to help clean up our state
capitol.
Referendum E would extend property tax
reductions originally for senior citizens to fully disabled veterans.
Referendum F would move recall deadlines from the constitution to the
statutes and require recalls to be in general elections not special
elections whenever possible. Referendum G would delete specified,
obsolete constitutional language. Sure. Why not? You betcha.
Referendum
H would reduce tax deductions to businesses hiring unauthorized
immigrants. If it is illegal to hire (and exploit) foreign workers,
businesses shouldn’t get a tax break for doing so. Referendum K would
require our state Attorney General to sue the federal government to
enforce immigration laws. Good luck with that!
Amendment
39 and Referendum J require school districts to spend at least 65
percent of their operating budgets on specific items. Spending less on
overhead and more in the classroom is great in theory. Don’t you think
local school boards already try to do that? Do we really need
state-level one-size-fits-all micromanagement of local school boards? I
think not.
Big Ballot Looms in November
Fort
Collins Forum
September 2006
Eric Fried
Colorado’s
November 7 ballot just missed setting a new record for initiatives and
referenda we voters need to sort through. Citizens placed seven
measures on the ballot and the state legislature added seven more, two
shy of the record 16 on the 1914 ballot. Everything from raising wages
to legalizing marijuana to banning gay marriage (again!), as well as
technical measures on petition deadlines, term limits and obsolete
constitutional provisions, will be up for a vote. As a public service,
here’s a guide to some of the issues.
Raising
Colorado’s minimum wage: Despite giving themselves repeated hefty
raises, the US Congress has refused to raise the federal minimum wage
in a decade. Stuck at $5.15 an hour, a full-time minimum wage worker
earns a princely $10,712 a year – not even enough to lift a small
family out of poverty. Amendment 42 would raise the state minimum wage
to $6.85 per hour for most workers, and adjust the wage annually for
inflation. Contrary to popular myth, most minimum wage workers are not
teens, and raising the minimum wage actually stimulates, not hurts, the
economy. That’s because low-paid workers will immediately turn around
and spend the money in their communities on things like housing, food
and clothing, rather than hide it in tax shelters in the Cayman
Islands. A recent study by the Economic Policy Institute shows that of
the 12 states with minimum wages above the federal level, seven had job
growths rates above the national average, with five below. In addition,
raising the wage floor has a ripple effect, raising wages for all
lower-paid workers. That’s the kind of percolate-up economics – a real
rising tide to lift all boats - that America should be all about.
Domestic
partnerships and gay marriage: Same-sex marriage is already illegal in
Colorado, but defenders of “traditional marriage” want more. Though
unable to explain concretely how allowing same-sex couples to wed in
any way threatens heterosexual couples (or why Massachusetts has the
lowest divorce rate in the US), they want to write this discrimination
into the state constitution through Amendment 43. Don’t let them. As
somewhat of a counterpoint, Coloradoans for Fairness is backing
Referendum I, which provides same-sex couples the opportunity for basic |
