Independence Institute Banquet Photos

The Independence Institute held its annual banquet on November 13. Here are a few photos from the event.


Brian Schwartz runs the Independence Institute's "Patient Power" blog.


State Senator Shawn Mitchell just won reelection. Congratulations!


Dominic Dezzutti, Mike Muel, and Joe Weaver


Wesley Dickinson of the People's Press Collective


Mike Coffman won the Congressional seat that Tom Tancredo is leaving.


John Andrews of Backbone America founded the Independence Institute in 1985.


Jon Caldara, who celebrated his tenth year at the Independence Institute, chats with Weld County Sheriff John Cooke.


Mike Rosen discussed Republican politics. (I respond here.)


Fred Holden, author of Total Power of One in America, received the 2008 Bern Bickel Award.


Seeme Hasan received the 2008 David S. D'Evelyn Award. She serves as chair of the Hasan Family Foundation.


Michelle Malkin offered the keynote address. (I respond here.)

See the collected posts about the Independence Institute's 2008 banquet.

Most Americans Fail Civics

Thanks to an article by Deroy Murdock, I became aware of a civics test and poll from the Intercollegiate Studies Institute. The group's release notes:

[L]ess than half of all Americans can name all three branches of government. And only 21 percent know the phrase "government of the people, by the people, for the people" comes from Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, which president elect Barack Obama cited in his acceptance speech on Election night. ...

30 percent of elected officials do not know that "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" are the inalienable rights referred to in the Declaration of Independence; and 20 percent falsely believe that the Electoral College "was established to supervise the first presidential debates"

Almost 40 percent of all respondents falsely believe the president has the power to declare war

40 percent of those with a bachelor’s degree do not know business profit equals revenue minus expenses

Only 54 percent with a bachelor's degree correctly define free enterprise as a system in which individuals create, exchange and control goods and resources

20.7 percent of Americans falsely believe that the Federal Reserve can increase or decrease government spending

It's important to note that the questions are multiple choice, which makes them a lot easier to answer. Still, I did have to look up a few.

Some of the questions are more meaningful than others. For example, the phrase about "for the people" logically would fit in a variety of documents. And, today, the president does have the de facto "power to declare war," even if war is called by some other name in such cases and the Constitution lists no such power. Most of the questions avoid such problems, and it's a pretty interesting test. You can compare your results with the averages.

Notice that, for most questions, elected officials performed worse than the general populace. Elected officials did a bit better on the question about public goods -- I suppose because they tend to use the public-goods argument as a pretext to increase government spending for projects that are not in fact public goods.

Union Insanity

The following story from Fox offers just one example of the high cost of legalized union force:

Thousands of laid-off auto workers get paid $31 an hour to sit around and do nothing all year under a controversial program that could continue even if American taxpayers bail out the American auto industry.

The program, called "Jobs Banks," has been around for 24 years... thanks to a deal struck in 1984 between the United Auto Workers and the Big Three carmakers. ... But if the automakers go bankrupt, some analysts say, they may be able to eliminate the program, which would abruptly eliminate benefits to the workers in it. ... Hoping to avoid bankruptcy and secure federal loans, carmakers and the UAW are considering eliminating the program anyway.

It is clear that wage controls, including legislation under Hoover and FDR granting unions legal uses of force, prevented wages from adjusting to deflation, kept unemployment high, and worsened the Great Depression. American businesses, consumers, and other workers continue to pay the price for these unjust laws.

Rosen: GOP Message Out of Fashion

At the Independence Institute's banquet November 13, Mike Rosen offered his thoughts on why the Republican Party got trounced. While he provided useful historical perspective, he didn't begin to explain what went wrong with the Republican Party.

While Rosen essentially blamed GOP losses on the spirit of the era, in fact the GOP has actively alienated a variety of voting blocks, and that goes a lot further in explaining why the GOP is now in disarray. To summarize my case, the GOP alienated the free-market wing, nonsectarians, most women of reproductive age, immigrants, homosexuals (and by extension most younger voters), and civil libertarians.

Rosen blamed the mortgage crisis on the "perfidy of some capitalists" as well as the ill effects of certain government controls. This is "not in indictment of capitalism, [but] an indictment of human nature." But there is nothing inherent in "human nature" that makes people turn to central economic controls; that's a result of political philosophy. In general, Rosen avoided discussions of the importance of ideas and focused on the forced of history.

Rosen said, "I understand the limitation of markets, the imperfection of markets." This comment contained two confusions. First, the "market" is merely the combination of individual actors. People can and do make mistakes. The "market" is largely the process by which people respond to and correct mistakes, such as by a businesses going bankrupt. Second, Rosen fails to distinguish between the free market and the government controls that caused the crisis (as well as the private fraud that contributed to it).

"Capitalism and rugged individualism are marginally out of [favor] right now," Rosen continued. Perhaps, but it doesn't help that the Republican Party generally has done everything in its power to foster that trend. So it's not as though people are rejecting the GOP because it stands for capitalism; many rejected the GOP because it has rejected capitalism.

The Libertarian Party did poorly, Rosen argued, because its notions of "rugged individualism and independence" are "too rigorous." But this doesn't begin to explain the failure of the LP. This year the party was fractured, and Ron Paul endorsed another candidate. More importantly, the LP typically stands against government, not for liberty, so the party understandably frightens away many voters. (Of course our winner-take-all system favors two parties.)

Rosen's advice for Republicans is to "return to their Reaganite roots... We don't change our beliefs, but we have to better communicate those beliefs." It would help if the GOP had some decent beliefs to communicate. The GOP is currently the party of the religious right. The GOP does not need to better communicate those beliefs, it needs to jettison them completely. Furthermore, the GOP needs to jettison the massive-government "compassionate conservatism" of George W. Bush as well as the nationalistic, anti-liberty fervor of John McCain. Let us not forget, ever, that John McCain is an enemy of free speech, and as such he richly deserved to lose.

Rosen said Republicans "won't win until the American people are ready to hear our message." No. The Republican Party won't win until it is ready to offer the American people a message of liberty.

See the collected posts about the Independence Institute's 2008 banquet.

Outsourced

Outsourced surprised me with its warm humor and thoughtful treatment of culture clashes. The premise is that an American is sent to India to train his replacement. The job is "selling kitsch to rednecks" over the phone.

The inevitable romance seems contrived, but I quite like the actors. More compelling are the friendships the American forms with his new coworkers (including his love interest).

I also like the film for some of its cultural themes: cultures have much to offer each other, we do well to pick up the finer aspects of other cultures, and outsourcing brings its benefits as well as its difficulties.

The film looks mostly at the brighter side of India, which is indeed heartening as economic opportunity makes headway. The film barely touches on the continuing problems of India, but, hey, it's a romantic comedy.

And the film mostly was filmed in India by local crews, so the film manifests its own theme. Apparently the big difference is that Bollywood typically films first, dubs later, while this American project filmed with the sound, creating a few problems. (Watch the documentary material when you rent it.)

I had really been looking forward to Wall-E, which I found to be a disappointment with its ridiculous premise. I was grateful that in the same week I found the truly enjoyable film Outsourced.

A Note from the War Economy

Recently I looked through some letters that my great-grandmother, Harriett Brown, wrote to my grandfather, Theo Eversol. Included in these documents is a "Basic Mileage Ration" card from the "United States of America Office of Price Administration." The card is dated November 17, 1942, and it lists Brown and her car, a 1936 Plymouth.

Here are the instructions:

How to Use Your Mileage Ration Book

This book has 4 pages of 8 coupons each. Each coupon is numbered and is good only as follows: No. 3 coupons from Nov. 22, 1942, through Jan. 21, 1943 [etc.]...

Each coupon is good for ONE "A" UNIT of gasoline. The number of gallons which each coupon gives you the right to buy will depend upon the demands of the war program; therefore, the value of the unit may be changed. Any change in value will be publicly announced by the OPA.

Do not loosen or tear coupons from the book. Detached coupons must not be honored by the dealer. When buying gasoline, hand the book to the dealer to remove coupons. ... The dealer is permitted to deliver gasoline only into the tank of the vehicle described on the front cover of this book, unless bulk transfer has been authorized by the War Price and Rationing Board.

WARNING

1. Persons who do not observe the rationing rules and regulations of the Office of Price Administration may be punished by as much as 10 YEARS IMPRISONMENT or $10,000 FINE, OR BOTH, and are subject to such penalties as may be prescribed by law.

2. Gasoline obtained by use of this book must not be taken out of the fuel tank of the vehicle described on the front cover.

Of course this was a pretty stupid way to go about things. The program ensured that gasoline available for civilians would not go to its most valued uses. But FDR was all about centralized control of the economy, which he practiced before and during the war, regardless of the harm it caused.

Here's what my great-grandmother wrote about gas and prices in a letter dated December 15, 1942:

Lots of the filling stations have closed since gas rationing went in. You know those packages of raisins we used to get. Well they are 55 cents now. butter 52, milk 11, eggs 42, so you see things are going up, quite a difference since you left [for the war].

One of the things the war accomplished was to dramatically inflate the money supply, which inflated the economy out of the wage and price controls of Hoover and FDR. Today, as the federal government looks to spend trillions on bailouts and make-work projects, I wonder whether the pending inflation is an intended result, or if it is merely a biproduct of the subsidies for politically-correct production and the (disgusting) special-interest handouts.

Make Gun Training a Priority

The following article originally was publshed on November 24, 2008, by Grand Junction's Free Press.

If you buy a gun, make training a priority

by Linn and Ari Armstrong

The media have reported a spike in the sale of firearms. The number of people signing up for classes to qualify for concealed carry also has increased. Firearms instructors have seen more interest since 9/11. Local instructors also have seen the fraction of women in class rise from a quarter to half.

Your elder author Linn serves as an instructor for the National Rifle Association's Basis Pistol and Personal Protection classes. In a recent class, a student asked what the difference is between NRA classes and ones lasting only three or four hours. Linn offered to take up the question at the end of class. We'll start to answer it here.

Before carrying a gun for defensive purposes, one must answer a crucial question: Am I prepared the take the life of another human being to save my own life or the life of a family member? Do my religious and philosophical beliefs allow me to potentially take a life in self defense? Am I prepared to accept or tolerate the judgment of my family, friends, and neighbors if I must defend myself with lethal force?

Barring cases of immediate threats, one should view the carrying of a concealed weapon as a full-time commitment. Chances are that if you carry a gun, you'll never need to pull it from the holster in an emergency. Still, we don't put on the seatbelt every time we get in the car because we expect to get in a crash. There's no need to put on your seatbelt after the crash, and there's no opportunity to go home and retrieve your firearm once you find yourself in a life-or-death situation.

Before Colorado liberalized the concealed carry laws in 2003, some got a permit as the local authorities allowed. Others carried illegally under the notion that it's better to be tried by twelve than buried by six.

The need for a statewide concealed carry law arose from the language of Colorado's constitution, Article II, Section 13, regarding the right to bear arms. The text states, "The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons."

The common perception at the time, we are told, was that only prostitutes and gamblers carried guns concealed, while real men carried guns openly on their hips. Yet there is an important tactical advantage to carrying a gun concealed. If you are the only one in a group carrying a visible firearm, any criminal intent on committing mayhem will make you his first target.

The Colorado Constitution contains some of the strongest language in the nation for self-defense with a gun, though the last phrase puts concealed carry in the hands of the legislature.

The law offers a remedy for treating somebody as a criminal for putting on a jacket that happens to hide a gun on the hip. True, some counties unnecessarily place CCW holders on the same list as rapists and murderers. An advantage of the Colorado law is that 29 states have adopted similar laws granting reciprocity.

What is training for concealed carry and where does one receive it? The NRA describes training as an activity that produces a change in knowledge, skill, and attitude. Linn encourages instructors to view this concept as a circle: more knowledge encourages one to seek out more skills, which in turn encourage an attitude of seeking out more knowledge.

Grand Valley Training Club has faithfully adhered to the NRA training program for students and instructors. All of the instructors volunteer their time. The fee for the 18-hour-plus course is $75.00. Most equivalent courses in Denver run from $250 to $350 per person.

The fee includes three hours of legal review, usually taught by Palisade Police Chief Carroll Quarles or Sheriff's Investigator Beverly Jarrell. District Attorney Pete Hautzinger and Chief Deputy District Attorney Dan Rubinstein also have conducted this portion of the class. As one student said, "The law portion of the class is well worth the price of the ticket."

One of the volunteer instructors, a retired law enforcement officer and explosives expert, worries that, without adequate training, some with concealed-carry permits may lapse in safe, effective practices.

After the recent class that Linn helped conduct, the student answered his own question: "There is no way a three or four hour class can give what is required."

Alon Stivi, who has conducted advanced training classes in the area for police and civilians (see DirectMeasures.com) states, "Training is not a game! A serious gap exists between the training available on the market and what actually works in the real world. In a world of rising terrorism and violence, there is only one way of being prepared: Being informed."


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

Anathem Worth the Digging

About a hundred pages into Neal Stephenson's new novel Anathem, I didn't think I'd be able to make my way through it. In addition to being overlong (do I really need such a detailed knowledge of a building's staircases?), the book requires the reader to memorize -- or at least recognize -- many terms unique to the fictitious world and an entire alternative history. The book contains a timeline in the front and a glossary in the back.

Now that I'm about a third of the way through the book (past page 300), I'm finding the lengthy prologue to have been worth it. Stephenson has crafted an action mystery grounded in philosophical thought.

Notably, Stephenson, or at least his protagonist, is a Platonist. I knew this even before starting the book, because I happened to note in the back (page 937) an acknowledgment of "a philosophical lineage that can be traced from Thales through Plato, Leibniz, Kant, Godel, and Husserl." That's not exactly a line that typically gets me excited, at least in a positive way. I don't know yet quite where Stephenson is going with all this, but it makes for interesting reading. Themes of Leibniz are especially well integrated into the story.

A word of caution: a few years ago, I heard Stephenson talk about a previous book, and I recall him saying something to the effect that he wrote to get his mind into a particular sort of worldview. So it may not be obvious where Stephenson stops and his characters begin. That said, Stephenson's interests are largely revealed by what he chooses to write about.

The science-fiction setup is straightforward, but unfortunately I cannot mention what it is without ruining the mystery of the first few hundred pages. I will note merely that this is a book that requires a bit of patience.

Independence Institute 2008 Banquet: Collected Links

Following is a complete list of my postings on the Independence Institute's 2008 Founder's Night Banquet, held November 13 in Denver.

Malkin's Conundrum
Michelle Malkin rightly criticizes Republicans for violating economic liberty, yet she insists that Republicans pursue the faith-based politics of abortion bans.

Caldara Reviews Initiatives, Buckley
Jon Caldara discusses Amendments 49 and 54, Christopher Buckley, mill levies, and campaign finance laws.

Rosen: GOP Message Out of Fashion
Mike Rosen claims Republicans "won't win until the American people are ready to hear our message," but the real problem is that the Republicans offer the wrong message.

Independence Institute Banquet Photos

Penn Pfiffner Celebrates Defeat of 59

Kopel Talks Guns, Taiwan
Dave Kopel discusses guns, Taiwan, and FreeColorado.com. The mp3 file is linked.

Caldara Reviews Initiatives, Buckley

In the recent election, Colorado's Amendment 49, which I supported, lost. It would have prevented government from withholding a portion of the income only of government employees for transfer to unions. Meanwhile, Amendment 54, which I opposed, won. Unless it is overturned in court, it will prohibit certain government contractors from making certain campaign contributions, which I regard as a violation of free speech. I was surprised by this outcome, so I asked Jon Caldara about it at the November 13 Independence Institute banquet. (Caldara heads the Institute.) We also discussed Christopher Buckley, mill levies, and campaign finance laws. Following is a lightly redacted transcript of our discussion.

Jon: By the way, congratulations on ten years of the Colorado Freedom Report.

Ari: ...and congratulations to you for a decade at the II. ... So I was disappointed that 49 lost. We have some idea of why that lost. Why do you think 54 won and that lost?

Jon: For two reasons, and two reasons only. One, in Colorado, people who write the proposals don't write the title language, the Title Board does. They had superb, wonderful Title Board language. 49 had awful language, and we have no control over that. Secondly, they had two million dollars behind them, which was enough to get the word out. 49 had [practically] nothing.

Ari: Well, thanks for doing that. Is there going to be any follow-up effort to do that statutorily, through another initiative...

Jon: I would like to, but of course this legislature is bought and sold by the unions, these are the same ones who wanted to change the Labor Peace Act... So it's not going to happen statutorily.

Ari: ...so there might be a follow-up, but there's no specific plan. ... So here's my next question. Christopher Buckley. What happened there?

Jon: It didn't work out. But he'll be back. Christopher is likely going to come back and join us for the Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms party. Since he did such a great job with Thank You for Smoking and is such a humorist we thought that might be a better fit.

Ari: The word around the campfire is that you dumped him when he endorsed Obama.

Jon: I wasn't happy when he endorsed Obama, but we found I think a more appropriate place to use him at an II event.

Ari: What else [should we look for] over the coming year?

Jon: I think we ought to keep an eye on the mill levy freeze [See Benjamin DeGrow's article] lawsuit, because, my guess is that in two to three weeks we will have a ruling from the Supreme Court to see if our lower court ruling stands or not.

Ari: Another thing you're in court over is the campaign finance alleged violations. Where is that?

Jon: In fifteen days from now we'll find out... Briefly, the campaign against 47, the right to work, decided to also campaign against our initiative, but did not disclose so on the Secretary of State's disclosure forms. That's a blatant violation of election law, and I'm not a big fan of election law, but if it's there you need to follow it.

Ari: I was actually thinking of the previous thing... Aren't you still involved with the Referendum C case?

Jon: No, we won that handily... We were completely exonerated -- of course, three days after the election was over.

Ari: Well that is an interesting tension. Some people on the right are simultaneously using and complaining about the campaign finance laws. Where should we be headed about that as far as free speech is concerned?

Jon: As a free speech issue, we should change Amendment 27, which is now Article 28 of the state constitution, and allow free speech. If we can't do that, we should make sure that the campaign finance laws aren't just a slam dunk for unions and liberal special interests, but that other groups can use them to their advantage as well.

Ari: In other words, they're not selectively enforced, so long as they are enforced.

Jon: Absolutely... They made the rules, we can still win.

See the collected posts about the Independence Institute's 2008 banquet.

Mortgage Fraud in Colorado

As I've been arguing, "the cause" of the mortgage meltdown is a combination of bad federal policies, including easy money from the Fed, federal lending mandates, and implicit bailout promises.

But, as Vincent Carroll points out, fraud also played a role:

According to a settlement reached between [Paul Anthony] Baker and [Attorney General John] Suthers' office, Encore Lending was basically an engine of fraud. For example:

* "Baker admits that he deposited money into borrowers' bank accounts - or otherwise provided funds to borrowers - in order to enable borrowers to have sufficient assets to qualify for a loan."

* "Baker also admits that, regardless of the borrower's actual income, he stated a borrower's income . . . as whatever the borrower's income needed to be to reach the necessary debt-to-income ratio" to qualify for a desired loan.

* Baker allegedly engaged in other fraudulent practices, too, although he doesn't admit to them in the settlement. But as the settlement notes, the attorney general contends that Baker falsified pay stubs and W-2 forms to submit to mortgage lenders and even assisted unemployed borrowers in finding jobs in an effort to qualify them for loans.

A media release from Suthers's office summarizes that case and others as well.

True, such fraud was encouraged by federal lending pressures. Yet, at least in this case, fraud took on a life of its own and exacerbated the mortgage problem.

The government plays a legitimate and essential role in rooting out fraud. That is one of the conditions that makes possible a free market. And, in this case, judging from Carroll's account, Suthers as a government official is doing the right thing.

A Gun-Show Loophole?

The Denver Post reports:

A group of community activists has raised $1,000 to buy guns from owners in order to trim gun violence in Denver. ...

The group will pay $50 per gun at an anti-violence and gun-buyback rally scheduled for noon Dec. 6, at the Martin Luther King Jr. memorial in Denver City Park.

The guns will be turned over to the police, said Denver police spokeswoman Sharon Hahn.

"Anybody can bring an illegal gun in at any time. Any time that illegal weapons are taken off the street, we are pleased," she said. ...

The $1,000 is enough for 20 guns.

This is a great way to pay people for junked out, nonfunctional guns worth less than $50.

But Denver police spokeswoman Sharon Hahn muddles the issue with her reference to "illegal guns." What are these "illegal guns?" Please do tell. Guns can be used in illegal ways, but I'd really like to know which guns Hahn thinks are themselves "illegal" that will be purchased for $50. (Watch out: the disarmament rhetoric is already ramping up.)

But wait a minute... do these activists plan on meeting the requirements of Colorado's gun-show law (which I opposed)?

Colorado statute 12-26.1-106 states:

(3) "Gun show" means the entire premises provided for an event or function, including but not limited to parking areas for the event or function, that is sponsored to facilitate, in whole or in part, the purchase, sale, offer for sale, or collection of firearms at which:

(a) twenty-five or more firearms are offered or exhibited for sale, transfer, or exchange; or

(b) not less than three gun show vendors exhibit, sell, offer for sale, transfer, or exchange firearms.

(4) "Gun show promoter" means a person who organizes or operates a gun show.

(5) "Gun show vendor" means any person who exhibits, sells, offers for sale, transfers, or exchanges, any firearm at a gun show, regardless of whether the person arranges with a gun show promoter for a fixed location from which to exhibit, sell, offer for sale, transfer, or exchange any firearm.

Clearly this activist group is a gun show under Colorado law.

The statutes continue:

12-26.1-101. Background checks at gun shows - penalty.

(1) Before a gun show vendor transfers or attempts to transfer a firearm at a gun show, he or she shall:

(a) require that a background check, in accordance with section 24-33.5-424, C.R.S., be conducted of the prospective transferee; and

(b) obtain approval of a transfer from the Colorado Bureau of Investigation after a background check has been requested by a licensed gun dealer, in accordance with section 24-33.5-424, C.R.S.

(2) A gun show promoter shall arrange for the services of one or more licensed gun dealers on the premises of the gun show to obtain the background checks required by this article.

(3) If any part of a firearm transaction takes place at a gun show, no firearm shall be transferred unless a background check has been obtained by a licensed gun dealer.

(4) Any person violating the provisions of this section commits a class 1 misdemeanor and shall be punished as provided in section 18-1.3-501, C.R.S.

I'll be interested to see whether the activist group abides by this law -- and whether the law will be selectively enforced.

Update: Of course, the activist group could have a police officer attend the event to take possession of the guns, and presumably the officer could easily pass a background check. Or the activist group could have one or two members pass a background check and collect the guns. However, note the language: "A gun show promoter shall arrange for the services of one or more licensed gun dealers on the premises of the gun show to obtain the background checks required by this article." So the background checks may not be performed prior to the gun show.

If police officers will attend the event in person, will they be on the city's clock, or will they volunteer or get paid by the activist group? It would be inappropriate for the police to spend tax dollars on such an overtly political cause.

Furthermore, the licensed gun dealer on hand must record the transfer of every single firearm, as provided by law:

12-26.1-102. Records - penalty.

(1) A licensed gun dealer who obtains a background check on a prospective transferee shall record the transfer, as provided in section 12-26-102, C.R.S., and retain the records, as provided in section 12-26-103, C.R.S., in the same manner as when conducting a sale, rental, or exchange at retail.

(2) Any individual who gives false information in connection with the making of such records commits a class 1 misdemeanor and shall be punished as provided in section 18-1.3-501, C.R.S.

The gun show also must follow the posting requirement:

12-26.1-104. Posted notice - penalty.

(1) A gun show promoter shall post prominently a notice, in a form to be prescribed by the executive director of the department of public safety or his or her designee, setting forth the requirement for a background check as provided in this article.

(2) Any person violating the provisions of this section commits a class 1 misdemeanor and shall be punished as provided in section 18-1.3-501, C.R.S.

So, again, I'll be interested to see whether the activist group follows the law required of it as a gun show.

'Don't Tell Me About Philosophy'

I'm glad to see that Vincent Carroll seems to have recovered from his temporary bailout insanity and returned home to economic liberty. He writes:

The "core mission" of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce "is to fight for business and free enterprise." It is also "to advance human progress through an economic, political and social system based on individual freedom, incentive, initiative, opportunity and responsibility."

These stirring words appear on the chamber's Web site. Sounds like a political philosophy, doesn't it?

"Don't tell me about philosophy," declared Thomas Donohue, president of the national chamber, during a visit to Denver this week. "If we let this thing go under, we are looking at millions and millions of unemployed people."

Donohue was explaining to his Denver audience why the chamber is so gung-ho about flushing tens of billions of federal dollars into the U.S. auto industry...

"Don't tell me about philosophy." That pragmatic, anti-principled sentiment perfectly reflects why we're in economic trouble to begin with. If more politicians and business leaders had paid attention to the right philosophy, they wouldn't have promoted the sorts of monetary manipulations, federal mandates and controls, and redistributionism that caused the crisis. And they wouldn't advocate the further destruction of economic liberty as the "solution."

Philosophy? Who needs it?

Malkin's Conundrum

Earlier this evening (November 13) I attended the Independence Institute's annual banquet. It was a lovely and fun night. Jon Caldara was in top form. Unfortunately, it will probably take me a few days to get up the photographs and audio interviews, as I need to attend to a family matter. For now I want to address the most important issue of the evening: Michelle Malkin's endorsement of faith-based politics in the form of abortion bans.

Hers was an uncomfortable message to bring to the Independence Institute, an organization known for sticking to matters of economics and self-defense and avoiding divisive "social" issues like abortion. Malkin is wrong in principle. And if Colorado Republicans take her advice, they are doomed to perpetual failure.

What of those who, like me, endorse the separation of church and state and advocate a woman's right to get an abortion? Malkin said Republicans should "let them go their own way" -- in other words, leave the Republican Party.

We have left.

The result is that Bob Beauprez lost the governor's mansion, Bob Schaffer lost the U.S. Senate seat, Marilyn Musgrave lost another House seat, and candidates like Libby Szabo lost the state legislature. (See my pre and post election comments on the GOP's faith-based political disaster.)

Fittingly, the Denver Post published Paul's Hsieh's article on the matter the same day that Malkin offered her comments. Hsieh writes:

I want to let [Republicans] know that they lost the vote of many former supporters (including myself) because they have chosen to embrace the Religious Right.

I voted Republican in 1996, 2000, and 2004. I believe in limited government, individual rights, free market capitalism, a strong national defense, and the right to keep and bear arms -- positions that one normally associates with Republicans.

But I didn't vote for a single Republican in 2008. I've become increasingly alienated by the Republicans' embrace of the religious "social conservative" agenda, including attempts to ban abortion, embryonic stem cell research, and gay marriage. ...

[T]he government's role is to protect each person's right to practice his or her religion as a private matter and to forbid them from forcibly imposing their particular views on others. And this is precisely why I find the Republican Party's embrace of the Religious Right so dangerous. ...

The Religious Right's goal of outlawing abortions would violate that important right, and sacrifice the lives of actual women for clumps of cells that are only potential (but not yet actual) human beings, based on religious dogma. As a physician, I find that position abhorrent and deeply anti-life.

As Ryan Sager writes for Reason, this is a widespread trend (leaving aside the controversies over the "libertarian" label):

The Cato Institute has done excellent work over the last few years tracking the shift in the libertarian vote -- the roughly 10 percent to 15 percent of the American public that can be categorized as fiscally conservative and socially liberal.

Based on an analysis of the American National Election Studies, Cato found that between 2000 and 2004, there was a substantial flight of libertarians away from the Republican Party and toward the Democrats. While libertarians preferred Bush by a margin of 52 points over Al Gore in 2000, that margin shrank to 21 points in 2004, when many libertarians -- disaffected by the Iraq war, massive GOP spending increases, and the campaign against gay marriage -- switched to John Kerry.

While it is true that faith-based politics is only one of the issues driving liberty voters away from the Republicans, it is also true that the faith-based politics of Bush and McCain is of a cloth with their big-government spending. Bush ran as a "compassionate" conservative -- i.e., a religiously altruistic one -- while McCain selected the evangelical economic lightweight Palin as he himself suspended his campaign in order to rubber-stamp Bush's $700 billion Great American Rip-Off.

Malkin made a couple of references to Ayn Rand, saying she recently moved to Colorado to get her own piece of Galt's Gulch and that she has "most virtuous" selfish reasons for wanting local conservatives to succeed. I am continually amazed by how many conservatives selectively read Rand -- and understand hardly a word of what she wrote even as they invoke her works. Notably, Malkin did not quote what Rand had to say about abortion or faith-based politics generally.

Unlike Bush and McCain, Malkin sticks with liberty when talking about economic issues. She hammered McCain for supporting the bailout, pushing environmental controls, and lamenting the evils of profits.

Malkin was positively inspirational. She said the proper Republican strategy is "simple: we stand up for our principles." We don't rebrand our beliefs, "we defend them." "We lock and load our ideological ammunition." "We do not whine, we do not wheedle, we fight."

Malkin said Repubicans must oppose any new stimulus, must oppose new "windfall profit" taxes, must oppose federal loan guarantees. "If you get rid of the ability to fail," she said, "you get rid of the ability to succeed." Right on.

Republicans who endorsed the bailout suffered "ideological pollution."

But then, in an instant, the anti-liberty Malkin took the stage. She said Republicans should not "de-emphasize" or hide their "pro-life" -- i.e., faith-based anti-abortion -- stance. To do so also would be to suffer "ideological pollution." Republicans "need to stand up for life unapologetically," she said.

And those who do not share Malkin's desire to impose religious faith by force of law? "Let them go their own way."

However, as Diana Hsieh and I explain, the faith-based opposition to abortion is not "pro-life," it is anti-life. It would sacrifice the lives of actual people to fertilized eggs. I do not advise Republicans to "de-emphasize" or soften their calls to outlaw abortion: I advise them to completely reject faith-based politics and defend the individual rights of actual people.

Malkin's conundrum is the one faced by the Republican Party generally: she tries to defend and violate liberty at the same time. Her stance is fundamentally untenable. It is no coincidence that the religious right is drifting away from matters of economic liberty and increasingly interested in welfare spending, environmental controls, and of course draconian social controls.

Malkin's treatment of abortion contrasted sharply with her comments on immigration. She admitted that there are "cleavages" in the Republican Party over immigration, but also things "we agree on." Oh, you mean that there are no "cleavages" over abortion? The facts prove otherwise. Yet, for Malkin, on immigration Republicans can agree to disagree, while on abortion the nonsectarians must be shown the door. (As I have argued, it remains possible for secular liberty voters to reform a coalition with those religious voters who endorse the separation of church and state.)

As Paul Hsieh reviews, Rush Limbaugh wants to purge the Republican Party of those who decline to toe the faith-based line. Malkin offers the same advice. She wants me to go my own way. So long as Republicans insist on imposing religious faith by force of law, I remain her obedient servant.

See the collected posts about the Independence Institute's 2008 banquet.

Looter State

We're becoming a Looter State to join the Looter Nation.

In the fantasy land of the central planners, corporate welfare -- that is, taking money by force from those who earn it to give to politically-connected firms -- somehow strengthens the economy.

The Rocky Mountain News reports, "Gov. Bill Ritter announced this morning a series of immediate economic development initiatives totaling $12 million to keep Colorado's economy pumping..."

Of course, the theory that robbing Peter to pay Paul helps the economy is complete nonsense. While Ritter will no doubt sing the joys of Paul's successes, he will utterly ignore the business activities of which he has deprived Peter.

Looter Nation

An article from Wired reveals what's wrong with our nation: special-interest warfare has gained speed, and we're slipping closer to the state where everyone tries to steal from everyone else.

Wired reports: "General Motors, teetering on the brink of insolvency, has taken the extraordinary step of calling on employees and dealers to personally urge lawmakers to approve another loan package that might keep the beleaguered automaker from going under."

And if some of us do not wish to "loan" General Motors our money? Tough: you'll do it, or else. Or else you'll be fined, prosecuted, and locked in a steel cage. Because, as a Democratic activist recently told me, "Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society." Call it a civilized hold up.

During the New Deal, typically business leaders fell into line behind Roosevelt. In a system of massive wealth redistribution by politicians and capricious enforcement of arbitrary law, many business owners look for subsidies or fear retaliation.

As I've noted, it is a sickening spectacle.

FreeColorado.com in the Media, 2008

This month marks the ten-year anniversary of FreeColorado.com. One indication of the continuing influence of the web page is the media coverage it received this year. In 2008, FreeColorado.com or I appeared in outside media 21 times. This is in addition to the twice-monthly columns that my father and I write for Grand Junction's Free Press; see the archives. Here I'll review those 21 pieces.

Reply to Campos

On January 18, the Rocky Mountain News published my Speakout, "Loading the dice against responsibility.” I was responding to Paul Campos's attack on those who advocate "individual responsibility:"

... Myriad economic controls, along with payroll taxes of 15 percent, make it hard for the poor to get ahead. Welfare programs have discouraged work, encouraged broken families, and displaced voluntary charity. Government-run schools and other programs often underserve the poor. ...

The fact is that some people born into chronic poverty break the cycle, earn a decent education, and rise to the middle class or beyond. They are able to do it through strength of character. ...

I believe that it is precisely because political programs rely upon the forcible redistribution of wealth and the forcible restraint of voluntary interaction that such programs tend to miss their lofty aims.

That is not to say that government plays no legitimate role.

Government can be effective when it sticks to protecting people's rights - that is, preventing crime and protecting people and their property from violence.

Bitch Slap

On January 24, the Denver Post ran a story about how ProgressNowAction was beating up Jon Caldara for using the term "bitch slap" on air. I wrote a longish post explaining that many left-wingers had also used the term. Moreover, on January 27 I discovered that ProgressNowAction's "web page published the term 'bitch slap' just last year." This led to some nasty attacks against me by Colorado Media Matters (which I can't help but thinking of as "Media Blathers"), to which I replied.

On January 26, Lynn Bartels wrote for the Rocky Mountain News, "A liberal group targeted conservative talk host Jon Caldara for using the term bitch slap... Blogger Ari Armstrong noted Friday that three alternative newspapers along the Front Range have used the term at least 20 times... 'ProgressNow is clearly going after Caldara because they don't like Caldara,' said Armstrong."

On January 28, I appeared on Peter Boyles's radio show to discuss the matter. The same day, Mark Wolf of Rocky Talk Live wrote, "Jon Caldera managed to get liberal media watchdog group Progress Now to take the bait and generate lots of attention for his late-night radio show by wondering if Hillary Clinton got 'bitch-slapped' during a debate. Now blogger Ari Armstrong reports ProgressNow used 'bitch slap' on its own site last September..." (Progress Now and Media Blathers have huffily pointed out that this comment was left by somebody not employed by ProgressNow, though I've never claimed otherwise.)

On January 30, the Colorado Springs Gazette wrote in an editorial, "[B]logger Ari Armstrong found that three Front Range progressive newsweeklies... routinely published 'bitch slap.' He even found 'bitch-slap' on a ProgressNow Action blog."

It's a bit ironic that I generated so much media attention about an issue that on the surface carries few ideological implications. However, I did make an effort to draw out the deeper significance of the debate. And I'm glad to have stopped the politically-motivated attack on Caldara.

Health Policy

Early 2008 was marked by a heated battle over health policy. While Lin Zinser and Paul Hsieh of Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine carried the heavy load, I wrote quite a lot about the issue.

On January 30, the Rocky Mountain News published a Speakout by Linda Gorman and me titled, "A very costly health-care solution:"

As the health-care debate unfolds, we hear a lot about cost-shifting, the idea that some people are charged more for health care to make up for the fact that others do not pay. Various legislators, journalists and activists tell us that the state should adopt the Blue Ribbon Commission on Health Care Reform's recommendation to impose an individual mandate and force everyone to buy health insurance in order to end the unfairness of cost-shifting.

In fact, the commission's recommendations likely will shift more costs onto those who already have insurance. Along with the individual mandate, the commission recommends large subsidies for those whom the commission considers too poor to purchase the insurance it says they should have. ...

Defending Shawn Mitchell: In late February, State Senator Shawn Mitchell was unfairly accused of making racially insensitive ramarks. I explained why the charge was nonsense. On March 5, the Gazette quoted my post in an editorial:

"But let's say, hypothetically, that Mitchell's comment had some distant connection to the racist comment that people of Heritage X 'all look alike.' Then the force of Mitchell's comment would be to make fun of that racist comment. It's not racist to make fun of racists," wrote Ari Armstrong, on the blog www.freecolorado.com. In the days of "gotcha" politics, however, honest insight and analysis have no place."

"Studies Have Shown"

In February I questioned some of the claims about health policy made in a Denver Post article. This eventually led to a review of the story by Dave Kopel for the Rocky Mountain News, as I reviewed. Kopel wrote:

Studies have shown you shouldn't blindly accept everything journalists tell you about what studies have shown. Consider, for example, "Growth spurt for kids' health plan," the Feb. 10 Denver Post article by Katy Human, writing about the push to expand taxpayer subsidies for health care for middle-class and poor children.

Human's article announced: "Children with health insurance, studies have shown, are less likely than uninsured kids to end up in emergency rooms, more likely to get key vaccinations, and less likely to be absent from school."

My friend Ari Armstrong is a columnist for the Grand Junction Free Press, and also the publisher of the Colorado Freedom Report weblog. Armstrong used to be a senior fellow at the Independence Institute and, although he's no longer formally affiliated with the institute, he still writes for us from time to time. Armstrong e-mailed Human and politely asked if she could send him the names of two or three of the studies she had in mind. ...

None of five studies Human cited after the fact support her article's statement about what "studies have shown" regarding the effects of insurance on emergency room use, vaccinations and school absences.

Prostitution

As much as I disliked Eliot Spitzer, I didn't think it appropriate to prosecute him for hiring prostitutes. I wrote a Speakout for the Rocky arguing that prostitution should be legal:

Sometimes governments ban activities that are not vices, such as practicing homosexuality, coloring a pooch pink, taking marijuana for medical purposes or buying alcohol on Sundays. Widespread support exists for ending such uses of political force.

But prostitution is a vice. Should government therefore ban it? The proper purpose of government is to protect people’s rights, not prevent vice beyond that context. ...

While the article is about prostitution, at a deeper level it's about what role government should play in our lives.

Welfare State

Last year, my wife and I spent a month eating for $2.57 per day each, as I've recorded. On March 20, this earned me a spot in a news story from the Gazette about welfare policy:

The financial picture is getting worse for Colorado's working poor families, according to a study issued Wednesday... Ari Armstrong, a Denver area resident who writes online about political issues, said the calculator [publicized by the Colorado Fiscal Policy Institute] -- at least for him and his wife -- is flawed.

"The calculator suggests that my wife and I need to spend $666 per month for housing," Armstrong said. "We actually spend more than that, including utilities and HOA fees, but we could spend less if we needed to. For example, for several years we rented out the basement of my wife's parents for considerably less. I've checked into local apartments that rent for less."

Armstrong took issue with other estimated monthly costs, including $358 for food and $453 for transportation -- too high -- and $317 in taxes -- much lower than reality.

"I'm all for reducing taxes across the board, and especially for the poor," he said. "If we're really interested in helping the poor be self-sufficient, no single measure could be more useful. Welfare expansions do not promote self-sufficiency. They promote dependency."

Supreme Court Rules on Guns

On June 28, the Rocky published my article on the Supreme Court's gun ruling:

Self-defense is a fundamental human right. Now the Supreme Court has affirmed what most Coloradans have long held and what our state's constitution also strongly protects: the individual's right to own a gun.

The June 26 ruling on District of Columbia v. Heller overturns Washington, D.C.'s handgun ban and requirement that guns be kept inoperable in the home. Gone is the fantasy that the Second Amendment protects only state militias. ...

Amendment 59

On September 7, Colorado Daily published my article, "Am. 59 would impose new forever net tax hike:"

... Yet, even though Colorado voters approved a net tax hike just a few years ago expected to raise over $2 billion more than supporters originally suggested, the higher-tax crowd now want billions more. And let us not forget about the tax-funded FasTracks of 2004, the expected costs of which have exploded from $4.7 billion to $7.9 billion.

Don't be fooled by claims that the new measure is just about education. As one representative of the "yes" campaign noted in a September 1 e-mail, the measure (which advocates are calling Savings Accounts for Education) would "relieve pressure on higher education, health care, transportation and other core services." In other words, because the new taxes go to education, the legislature can transfer other funds from education to whatever it wants. ...

On October 14, Fox 31 News interviewed me about the measure.

As we know, this story had a happy outcome, as 59 was defeated at the polls.

Faith-Based Politics

I spent a great deal of time this election season fighting Amendment 48, which was trounced. But that measure is only one aspect of the broader threat I see coming from the religious right.

On September 11, Boulder Weekly published my article, "With Palin, McCain ignores Colorado Warning." (It turns out I was right about that.)

On September 23, the Pagosa Daily Post published my piece, “Amendment 48 Smoke Screen.”

Diana Hsieh did the heavy lifting for an article of ours published in the October 9 Boulder Weekly, "Abortion and Abolition"

Against the Bailout

I've written quite a lot about the bailout on my web page. On October 13, the Rocky published my letter:

... The Depression was set off by the federal controls of the Hoover administration, but "FDR's economic policies made the Great Depression much worse" and "caused it to last much longer than it otherwise would have," economist Thomas DiLorenzo writes in his history of American capitalism. We have more to fear from new, misguided federal controls than we do from the existing crisis. ...

Harry Potter

I remain pleased with my September 14 Speakout, "Lessons for U.S. politicians from the Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry."

Then, on September 28, 9News broadcast a version of the piece.

On October 28, Westword's web page featured an interview between Joel Warner and me.

Warner writes:

No one is off limits from the cerebral scrutiny of local political writer Ari Armstrong. On his FreeColorado.com blog, he smacked down the liberal website ProgressNow for its hypocritical stance on the word "bitch-slapped." Lately right-wingers, too, have been feeling his highbrow wrath, thanks to columns he’s published online and in newspapers arguing against GOP faith-based politics and the right-to-work issue on the November ballot. Armstrong was once a member of the Colorado Libertarian Party, but now the only thing he swears allegiance to is Ayn Rand's objectivism philosophy. That means he's all about the protection of individuals' rights and the promotion of economic and religious freedom -- and he aims his weighty pen at anything contrary to these ideals.

Those interested in my book, Values of Harry Potter, should see its web page.

Election 2008

On election night, I joined a webcast from CBS News 4 to discuss the election. The station has posted the 37 minute segment online.

It was an eventful year, and I feel I did my bit to spread the word about liberty.

Sickening Display

The New York Times summarizes what's been happening with the "bailout" money: "When the government said it would spend $700 billion to rescue the nation's financial industry, it seemed to be an ocean of money. But after one of the biggest lobbying free-for-alls in memory, it suddenly looks like a dwindling pool."

You mean those with political power are the ones to get the loot? Who ever would have guessed?

Remember that George W. Bush and John McCain are largely responsible for this gigantic swindle. And that's one of the big reasons why McCain lost and richly deserved to lose.

FreeColorado.com Celebrates Ten-Year Anniversary

Media Release: November 11, 2008

FreeColorado.com Celebrates Ten-Year Anniversary

Ari Armstrong's FreeColorado.com celebrates its ten year anniversary this month. Since November, 1998, the web page has become a leading, independent voice for free markets and individual rights in Colorado.

"While I'm amazed that it's been ten years since I started writing on the internet about politics, I'm pleased with the results. While I've lost many political battles, I've also helped to win some, and throughout I've provided a consistent voice for liberty in Colorado," Armstrong said.

"I've also had the privilege of meeting some of Colorado's leading politicians, journalists, and activists, some of whom have become friends, fellow travelers, or political adversaries -- and sometimes all three.

"I look forward to fighting for freedom for the next decade," Armstrong continued.

Following are a few of the highlights:

* Armstrong started his web page in November, 1998, a few months before the term "blog" was coined from "weblog" (see Wikipedia). Originally the web page, called the Colorado Freedom Report, used the domain co-freedom.com. Armstrong learned about web pages from the book "HTML for Dummies." Around 2003, he switched the domain to FreeColorado.com, and in January, 2008, he converted the page to a blog format.

* Armstrong has also written articles for the Rocky Mountain News, The Denver Post, and other newspapers, as well as for the Independence Institute. He wrote a column for Boulder Weekly from October, 2003, to March, 2007. Since July, 2005, he has co-authored a column for Grand Junction's Free Press.

* He has debated Tom Mauser on guns, John Suthers on drugs, and Andrew Romanoff on taxes.

* This year, Armstrong also came out with his first book, Values of Harry Potter: Lessons for Muggles (see ValuesOfHarryPotter.com).

* Armstrong has fought against the Referendum C net tax hike, the Blue Laws, corporate welfare, the smoking ban, eminent domain abuses, and Amendment 48 (defining a fertilized egg as a person). He has advocated legal abortion, free markets in medicine, domestic partnerships for gay couples, and the re-legalization of marijuana.

* In 2002, Armstrong joined a broad coalition to reform Colorado's asset forfeiture laws. The coalition included Shawn Mitchell, Bill Thiebaut, Terrance Carroll, Dave Kopel, the Criminal Justice Reform Coalition, and the Colorado Progressive Coalition.

* In 2001 and 2004, Armstrong served as assistant editor for Sheriff Bill Masters's books critical of America's drug policy.

* While Armstrong once volunteered for the Libertarian Party of Colorado and worked on contract to produce its newsletter, by 2005 he had quit the party and left the libertarian movement.

* Armstrong has been praised as the "founding father of pro-freedom Colorado webbing," responsible for "great independent work."

* Armstrong has also been criticized as a "known misinformationist," a "gun rights zealot," "the Pied Piper of Colorado," a non-"legitimate reporter," "the self appointed Lord High Minister of Libertarian Purity," and a "felonious dick stepper onner." He has received one death threat.

Armstrong said, "I have angered nearly every political faction in Colorado, met some strange bedfellows, entered some heated battles, and earned some dear friends. I've made a few mistakes and grown from them. I've also been proud to advocate individual rights in this state."

Palin Has, Like, A Good Point on Deficits

Now that Sarah Palin is safely back in Alaska, I can't help but love her, just a little.

The bad news for Republicans is that Palin thinks she might actually run for President some day:

I'm like, OK, God, if there is an open door for me somewhere, this is what I always pray, I'm like, don't let me miss the open door. And if there is an open door in '12 or four years later, and if it is something that is going to be good for my family, for my state, for my nation, an opportunity for me, then I'll plow through that door.

Please -- enough with the plowing.

Palin did manage to point to a real failing of the Bush administration:

I think the Republican ticket represented too much of the status quo, too much of what had gone on in these last eight years, that Americans were kind of shaking their heads like going, wait a minute, how did we run up a $10 trillion debt in a Republican administration?

Her figure is correct, though of course we only reached that marker under Bush, who had a bit of help.

But I'm like, okay, at least the debt is still less than the GDP! I'm sure Our Savior Barack Obama will be more than happy to plow through that door.

Ayn Rand Doesn't Need a Bailout

The Following article originally was published on November 10, 2008, in Grand Junction's Free Press.

Ayn Rand doesn't need a bailout

by Linn and Ari Armstrong

Ayn Rand recognized a common pattern in the growth of political power: the enemies of liberty blame the free market for economic problems caused by government interference, then use those problems as a pretext for yet more political controls. Much of Rand's prescient novel Atlas Shrugged revolves around that cycle.

Now Rand's critics sound exactly like the villains of Atlas. They wouldn't attack her if they didn't recognize her as a barrier to their grand central plans.

Recently Alan Greenspan fueled the Rand hunt. In an October 23 statement to a Congressional committee, Greenspan said he had "found a flaw" in his ideology of "free, competitive markets."

There's just one problem with Greenspan's statement: he practiced no such ideology. For two decades, Greenspan served as Chairman of the Federal Reserve, a central-planning agency tasked with manipulating the money supply. Greenspan's flaw is that he long ago abandoned the ideology of liberty.

Two decades before becoming a central planner, Greenspan, while still in association with Rand, warned of the dangers of the Federal Reserve. In a 1966 article, Greenspan noted that, in the late 20s, the "Federal Reserves pumped excessive reserves into American banks." This "spilled over into the stock market -- triggering a fantastic speculative boom." Sound familiar? Greenspan became the monster he once warned against.

Today's crisis centers around risky home loans. But were these loans made on a free market? No. Instead, they were encouraged, and in some cases mandated, by the federal government.

Not everyone has forgotten Rand's wise criticisms of central planning. Before the election, we asked Yaron Brook of the Ayn Rand Institute to summarize the causes of today's crisis.

Brook answered, "The most harmful instances of government interference in the economy include, but are not limited to: the Federal Reserve Board's inflationary policy of keeping interest rates artificially low and the money supply artificially high, the government's hand in the creation and management of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, other government 'affordable housing' policies including the Community Reinvestment Act, and the policy of bailing out large financial institutions deemed 'too big to fail'."

Brook further explained the damage of government inflation: "As Ludwig Von Mises and other members of the Austrian school of economics stressed, inflation does not simply raise everyone's prices. It leads to massive, unfair redistributions of wealth. It starts with the injection of money into one sector of the economy, where participants are rewarded with higher prices for their products -- most recently, we saw an enormous redistribution of wealth to those involved in home-buying -- and then gradually spreads to drive up all prices higher than they would be absent the inflationary spending."

The cycle Rand warned about is in full force. Brook noted, "Unfortunately, despite a few enlightened and courageous voices out there, most politicians and commentators are blaming greed and the market for the current crisis and demanding more government control of markets as the solution -- and most of the public believes them. The media share the general cultural antipathy toward genuine capitalism, so they are inclined to publicize views that blame the market for today's problems."

Both major candidates for president followed that stock line. While John McCain also blamed unspecified "corruption in Washington," he emphasized the "greed and mismanagement of Wall Street."

Barack Obama blamed greed and deregulation, despite the fact that nobody can point to the repeal of a regulation that could have caused the crisis. By contrast, the mechanisms by which government controls caused the crisis are clear.

Obama's rhetoric ignores the nature of the free market, in which the government consistently protects the individual rights of each participant.

Can people be "greedy" on a free market? If that means they can pursue their own prosperity and happiness while respecting the rights of others, sure. If greed means people can use political force to get their way, then we're no longer talking about the free market -- we're talking about the sort of system that McCain and Obama advocate.

Does the government "regulate" the market by protecting property rights, resolving contractual disputes, arresting those who threaten and practice brute force, and rooting out fraud? In a sense, yes. But by imposing political controls that infringe people's rights, the government makes the market irregular and disrupts the rational plans of individual participants.

Unfortunately, Obama has sworn to impose even more economic controls. He wants more corporate welfare and more central planning for energy. He wants to further socialize medicine, even though costs are so high because of existing political controls of the health market. He wants increased federal spending, resulting in higher taxes or more deficit spending.

Obama's central plans are bound to create more economic problems, which he will no doubt blame on whatever liberty we have left. At least Rand through her works will continue to set the record straight.

Ari's Perfect Margarita

Vilis claims to offer the "World's Greatest Margarita Recipe." I'm proud to announce that, while my margarita recipe was inspired by his, mine is a vast improvement.

I few days ago I purchased two mixed bags of lemons and limes from the sale rack for $2. I loaded them up with visions of margaritas floating in my head. I ended up with over a quart of hand-squeezed juice, so I'll be making margaritas for days.

The problem with prepared margarita mixes is that they're mostly corn syrup and, you know, yuck. Vilis's margarita recipe calls for a can of frozen lemonade concentrate. The problem is that I couldn't find one of these that didn't feature corn syrup (still yuck). Plus Vilis called for sugar to sweeten especially sour lemonade. A second problem with Vilis's mix is that it calls for lemon and lime "juice concentrate." Well, the concentrate stuff is hardly as good as freshly squeezed juice. I solved both problems with the following recipe.

1. 1.5 cups of freshly squeezed lemon-lime juice.
2. 1 can of 100% frozen white grape juice concentrate. This sweetens the mix nicely.
3. 1/3 bottle of cheap, rice-based beer (Bud, Coors, etc.)
4. 1.5 cups of tequila. Vilis likes Jose Cuervo; I use Sauza Hornito.
5. 1/2 cup Grand Marnier.

Vilis blends his mix with ice. I prefer to poor my mix over the rocks. Then "stop hiding, and start living, with tequila."

CBS News 4 Webcast Now Online

On election night I joined a CBS News 4 webcast, which is now available online.

A friendly Democrat named Rafael Noboa joined the discussion with two journalists from the station.

I explained why I voted for neither candidate, why Amendments 48 and 59 were bad ideas, and why the Republicans lost votes with their faith-based politics. We also touched on government involvement in health care and education.

It was a lot of fun, and overall I'm pleased with my remarks. (I do plan to do some work to improve my presentation).

The whole thing lasts 37 minutes. I hope you enjoy watching it as much as I enjoyed participating.

Marshall Fritz, 1943-2008

Marshall Fritz has just passed away from pancreatic cancer, I just learned. The founder of the Separation of School and State Alliance, Fritz advocated a truly free market in education, criticizing conservative voucher proposals for risking government control over now-private education.

I first met Fritz back in 1997. I had written one of Fritz's acquaintances a letter about education, and the recipient had forwarded the letter to Fritz. He wrote to me: "I'm going to be in Denver shortly tomorrow, Tuesday... I was *very* excited reading your letter. Do give me a call, please; my name is Marshall Fritz... We're with the Seperation of School and State; you're insights on the voucher are right on target."

I happened to take some notes of our conversation, and they reveal that even then we differed dramatically in our basic ideas even as we agreed on the politics of education. Fritz was a Catholic libertarian, while I was an atheistic libertarian who eventually grew apart from libertarianism as well. I wrote, "Fritz seems to reify evil. He talks about how, 'If there's evil, there must be the opposite of evil, or, God'."

"Fritz argues that the liberals will take over the vouchers within a few years."

"You can de-claw a lion, and it's still a lion. You can de-fang a tiger, and it's still a tiger. But what do you have if you take God out of morality?" I forget the particular beasts involved in the analogy, but that's the idea. Fritz means this as a rhetorical question, to mean, "Morality is nothing without god." I, on the other hand, am tempted to answer his question, "It's a good start."

Fritz seemed keen on making Catholicism more evangelical. He told this joke: "What do you get when you cross a Catholic with a Jehova's Witness? Somebody who rings the door bell but then has nothing to say."

He gave me some writing advice (which I occasionally take): sentences that begin with "you" should be in a two-to-one ration to sentences that begin with "I."

This line is hilarious, given the post-9/11 hysteria: "He lost his wallet and was talking himself onto planes with his picture in his newsletter."

"He bought flowers - 3 supermarket boquets - for Tancredo's wife." I don't recall if this was the first time I met Tom Tancredo, but it was definitely the only time I've been to his house.

We went to the offices of the Colorado Education Association (why I have no idea). Here's what I wrote about that:

My notes on the CEA meeting: 1) He was pretty harsh with Ms. Davis. She said, "we can always improve." He said, "well, our position is that socialism by its very nature cannot be reformed but can only get worse," or some such. 2) The main lady said standards are needed; his main objection is that standards would be too low to be meaningful.

I quoted one of the CEA representatives about Fritz, "He's a nice person, though I disagree with everything he says."

Fritz came back to Denver in 1998, and I picked him up at the airport. I sat in on an interview between Fritz and Janet Bingham of the Denver Post. Her article reads:

Get government out of education, pitchman says

The Denver Post - Wednesday, June 24, 1998

Janet Bingham, Denver Post Education Writer

Marshall Fritz is a salesman. His pitch: Get the government completely out of education.

He wants to end compulsory education and end all government taxation and support for schools.

The result - which even supporters say is a long shot at best - would be the replacement of all tax-supported education, including vouchers, with privately supported schools or home schools.

Government-run schools, he contends, don't work because the "politically strong" are able to impose their views of what education should be on the "politcally weak" - whether they be traditional Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hispanics or any other group. ...

Fritz... claims that more than 3,800 educators, parents, clergy and policy leaders nationwide have signed his proclamation calling for an end to government compulsion in education funding, attendance, and content. ...

Among Coloradans on the list: Tom Tancredo, former president of the Golden-based Independence Institute and Republican candidate for U.S. Congress in the 6th Congressional District; John Andrews, 1990 Republican candidate for governor in Colorado; and Kevin Irvine, 1991 Colorado Teacher of the Year.

A Post editorial of June 28 blasted Fritz:

The California-based Separation of School And State Alliance, with the approval of some Coloradans, would like to see an end to compulsory school attendance and government financing of education.

The Denver Post would not. Education is the highest obligation that government at all levels must face...

Free and compulsory education is the bulwark of a free society and the best insurance that it will stay free. Obviously it is sometimes wasteful, sometimes slapdash and sometimes listless, but it is an established system that can be counted on to give all children a shot at improving their lives. Improving it is an urgent need. Abolishing it is absurd.

The mere fact that Fritz made his agenda a part of the public debate is impressive.

Fritz returned later in 1998 to lead a conference on school and state. The articles I wrote about the event were the first I published through FreeColorado.com (then the Colorado Freedom Report at www.co-freedom.com).

Earlier this year I wrote to him, "Marshall, I'm very sorry to hear the news. It's good to hear, though, that you're keeping your spirits up. Thank you for everything you've done to advance liberty."

He answered on March 17:

Ari....

Thank you.

I still fondly remember you're driving me, our discussion on tutoring and freedom, and Haley's Comet.

And, of course, staying in Tom Tancredo's home.

Love,

Marshall

Marshall was an eccentric and gregarious man who lived his ideals. While we often disagreed, I'll miss his optimistic enthusiasm.

Republicans Win One: Bradford Bests Buescher

I'm not entirely displeased to see that Republican Laura Bradford beat incumbent Bernie Buescher in the Grand Junction state house race. Back in 2005, my dad and I blasted Buescher for supporting higher net taxes and for earning a zero rating from the Colorado Union of Taxpayers.

Still, Bradford barely pulled off a surprise upset in a county that went 63 percent for McCain.

In this race, as in races across Colorado and the nation, voters were faced with a choice of two evils: political force in our private lives versus political force in our economic lives.

In a video on her web page, Bradford criticizes Buescher and Governor Bill Ritter for wanting "higher taxes" and the obstruction of drilling. "My priorities are lower taxes, more jobs, a strong economy," Bradford says. She won on economic issues.

Yet elsewhere on her page she reaches out to the religious right:

Laura supports all life: the unborn, the unprotected, and elderly, the unwanted. She believes that the constitution ensures that ---the endowed rights of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Laura would support the efforts of lawmakers to define 'personhood' to include the unborn. Two recent cases in Mesa County, where a baby died after it was born due to grievous injuries caused to its mother, yet charges are not able to be brought against those who inflicted the injuries. Even in states like California, the baby of Lacy Peterson, little Connor Peterson, was considered a person, and his father charged and sentenced in the cause of his death.

NARAL (The National Association to Repeal Abortion Laws) is the political action arm of the pro-choice movement. During 2007, based on a point system—points assigned for actions IN SUPPORT of NARAL, Representative Bernie Buescher received a rating of 100. ...

Laura would not support any legislation changing the meaning of marriage from one man and one woman.

Laura does not oppose, however, the right for gays to have civil unions, shared estates, medical visitation or other common rights protected for all citizens.

Laura does not support the discrimination of any person.

Notice that Bradford is not shrilly anti-homosexual, as are many Republicans; the debate over marriage versus civil unions is a fair one. And Bradford's concern over criminal penalties for those who harm a woman's fetus do not justify her broader position, for criminal penalties can be applied based on the violation of the woman's rights. While she does not recognize the far-reaching implications of Amendment 48, the personhood measure, at least she doesn't run on those implications (which is both good and bad).

The Denver Post reports that Buescher said that "Republicans attacked him for his support of Ritter's controversial mill-levy freeze that kept tax rates from dropping and on oil and gas issues. Also, he was hit for his support of Senate Bill 200, a measure that bans discrimination based on a person's religious beliefs or sexual orientation."

S.B. 200 indicates what's wrong in the standard debate over homosexuality. The religious right declares homosexuality a sin, consistently demonizes homosexuals, and aims to legally discriminate against them. The left wants to force people to associate with homosexuals in violation of the rights of property, contract, and expression -- that is what 200 accomplishes. How can homosexuals ask for the right to contract freely when some refuse to recognize the equal rights of others? The correct position is that homosexuality is fine and should be socially accepted, homosexuals should have their rights fully respected, but those hostile to homosexuals also have rights that should be respected, even when they practice those rights badly. So beating up Buescher over 200 was entirely appropriate.

From what I can tell, Buescher lost for all the right reasons. And that is another bit of good news regarding election day in Colorado.

Election Blues and Reviews IV: Toward GOP Revival

This essay is the fourth part of a series on the 2008 election. See also:
Part III: Tax Hikes Lose
Part II: Religious Right Loses
Part I: Created Equal

How the Republican Party Can Create a New Winning Coalition

Barack Obama won. But his victory is not a victory for his ideas. Instead, John McCain lost. More importantly, George W. Bush lost. And Obama, with his powerful rhetoric and unspecific appeals to change and hope, won the personality contest by force, appealing especially to younger voters.

If Obama wishes to retain his party's Congressional majorities and head for easy reelection, he will govern from the center, as Colorado's Democrats have done. While some Americans did cast their votes for Obama and his political agenda, many cast theirs against McCain and his. While McCain energized the evangelical vote with his selection of Sarah Palin, he did so only by further alienating the segments of his base concerned with free speech, civil liberties, and economic freedom. The Republican coalition has shattered.

The Democrats offer no viable alternative. Theirs is a platform of corporate welfare, special-interest warfare, dependency, higher taxes, foreign-policy appeasement, global handouts, and central economic planning. This is a platform that can win only when their opponents fail to offer a compelling alternative (or, in the case of Bush and McCain, succeed in offering a worse one).

Independents and many Republicans are weary of the GOP's faith-based politics. George W. Bush is an evangelical, and, largely because of that, he failed miserably as president, massively expanding the power of the federal government and leading an altruistic war in Iraq. The religious right has destroyed the GOP's coalition, and the party now seems poised to become a "permanent minority."

Is there any way that the Republican Party can generate a new, winning coalition? Yes, they can. The question is whether they will. If they fail to do so, the big political action will move to the Democratic primaries -- unless this causes an eventual Democratic schism and the formation of a new party to replace the Grand Old one. So what would a winning GOP coalition look like?

1. Religious Freedom. The religious right has held the reins of the Republican Party for far too long -- and has driven it straight over a cliff. A fertilized egg is not a person. A woman has a right to get an abortion. Homosexuals deserve equal rights. The government should not subsidize religious institutions, fund religious education, or censor Biblically-incorrect expression.

At the same time, people have the right to worship as they see fit -- so long as they respect the rights of others -- or not to worship at all. People have the right to teach their children their values, whether at home or at privately funded religious schools. Religion must stay out of politics, and the state must stay out of religion.

Religious voters can remain a part of a winning GOP coalition, so long as their goal is to keep politics out of religion, not inject religion into politics. Abortion bans and fear mongering about homosexuals can no longer be the litmus tests of primaries. Republican candidates must clearly endorse the separation of church and state, a separation necessary for the protection of both church and state.

As for those who insist on imposing God's alleged will on the rest of us, let them join their compatriots on the left -- as many are already doing. They can only corrupt and impede a new liberty coalition.

2. Free Speech. McCain's lasting legacy is his campaign censorship law. Let the left hold a monopoly on censorship, with its absurdly named "Fairness Doctrine" and government controls of media. Censorship cannot be part of a winning liberty coalition, and a candidate who surrounds the First Amendment with scare quotes cannot lead it.

The GOP should push the civil libertarians of the left into an uncomfortable decision: support the Demcratic censors or support free speech.

3. Free Trade and Economic Freedom. Bill Clinton's left understands basic economics. They understand it in an Ivy League, positivist, and interventionist sort of way, but they do not pander to populist protectionism (much). They know what damage the Smoot-Hawley Tariff did to the country, and they understand the concept of comparative advantage. In this election, McCain played "me too" to Obama's protectionist rhetoric.

A new liberty coalition under the GOP could attract the secularist yuppies of the left who are repelled by the faith-based politics of the right but who enjoy the prosperity of a relatively free economy.

McCain pounded the final nail in his own coffin when he suspended his campaign so that he could rubber-stamp Bush's $700 billion corporate welfare scheme, thereby proving to the free-market segment of the GOP base that McCain, like Bush, cares nothing for economic liberty and will work tirelessly to destroy it.

As it stands, advocates of economic liberty have no political home. The GOP should jettison those huge-government conservatives who confuse compassion with brute political force. Let them join the statists on the left, where they belong.

4. Immigration Sanity. In addition to alienating homosexuals and most women of reproductive age, Republicans have gone out of their way to demonize immigrants. The "family values" voters have wrecked families and torn children from their parents in their anti-immigrant, protectionist zeal. This sort of ignorant populism has no place in a new liberty coalition.

By drawing up sensible immigration policies that open the legal flow of immigrants and treat illegal immigrants with compassion, the retooled GOP would attract the votes of Hispanics and those who understand that one person's gain is, in a free country, another person's gain, and that we can only benefit by welcoming hard-working foreigners to our shores.

5. A foreign policy for America. The Republican foreign policy is to send forth the U.S. military to bring democracy to the world and vanquish oppressors. The Democratic foreign policy is to kiss the feet of our enemies and send forth the U.S. military to intervene in tribal warfare. A sane foreign policy looks to America's legitimate defense, intervenes militarily only to stop serious threats to America, and otherwise practices benevolent disengagement.

A new liberty coalition needs neither the imperialistic neo-conservatives nor the head-in-the-sand pacifists.

The political marriage of McCain and Palin illustrates perfectly the problems of the GOP. McCain alienates those who care about civil and economic liberties. Palin alienates the secularists. They represent the main two types of Republicans today. I cannot point to a single leader within the Republican Party prepared to take on the hard work of generating a new liberty coalition.

Yet, if they want to regain political power -- and, more importantly, if they want to restore the founding ideals that made America great -- Republicans will find or create such leaders, fast. They have no time to lose. If Democrats manage to govern from the center and avoid a backlash, they appear set to hold power indefinitely. The alternative to the new liberty coalition under the GOP is the stagnation or eventual death of the Republican Party.

Election Blues and Reviews III: Tax Hikes Lose

See also Part I, "Created Equal," and Part II, Religious Right Loses."

Something extraordinary happened in Colorado: at the same time voters elected Democrats throughout most of the state, they also rejected several tax hikes on the state ballot. So Democrats would do well not to interpret the election results as a mandate for big-government, tax-and-spend, anti-liberty, regressive "progressivism." This election was fundamentally a defeat of the Republicans, not a victory for the left's agenda. (For example, I voted for several Democrats and not a single Republican this year, yet I hardly endorse the Democrats' corporate welfare, tax hikes, and central planning.)

If national Democrats want to stay in power, they would do well to follow the lead of Colorado Democrats, and run a moderate agenda, pay off their special interests as little as politically feasible, and refrain from pissing off the nation's honorable gun owners.

The big news of of the night is that Amendment 59, the cleverly written net tax hike superficially for education, lost by a healthy margin. (See all of the ballot results.) To review quickly, 59 would have forever wiped out the tax refunds of the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights (TABOR), thus raising net taxes forever. The measure was brilliantly conceived in that it didn't raise the rate at which taxes are collected, it allocated the money to education, and it created a "savings account." Yet, as opponents pointed out, it would merely have freed up existing money for other purposes.

Obviously the measure went down to defeat because of the article I wrote against it back in September. Kidding. Diana Hsieh put up a great web page against the measure. Penn Pfiffner and the Independence Institute put out some material criticizing the measure. Douglas Bruce, known as the father of TABOR, mailed out a flyer attacking the measure. And various bloggers joined the chorus singing no.

But I have to say I figured 59 would win. Its backers raised substantial funds and organized an effective grassroots campaign. I thought this was Referendum C all over again. Meanwhile, Jon Caldara was busy with his failed effort to curb union funding, and Hsieh and I were busy fighting Amendment 48. It's tough when Team Liberty has to go up against the religious right and the statist left at the same time.

In the end three things worked together to defeat 59, I think. First, a lot of voters remember Referendum C, TaxTracks, etc., etc. When is enough enough? Second, the economy is a little shaky, and people realize they can put their own money to good use. Third, with so many ballot measures, I think "no" became the default vote for many.

Two other important tax hikes also failed: 51 and 58. And they lost by wide margins that surprised me. Amendment 51 would have raised the sales tax for "people with developmental disabilities," while 58 would have raised net taxes on energy producers.

Other Ballot Measures

I was sorry to see Amendment 49 lose. That would have prevented government from diverting funds from the paychecks of government employees to unions. But 49 got lumped in with two anti-union measures that I opposed: 47 ("right to work") and 54 (limiting campaign contributions by government contractors). It's too bad that, in their anti-union zeal, the conservatives didn't think about protecting individual rights. Had 49 run solo on the ballot, it would have had a much better chance.

Amendment 46, which would have banned race-based affirmative action by government, remains close, but it appears to be going down. That's too bad, but its practical implications would have been slight.

The other measure worth noting, Referendum O, went down to defeat. It would have made it harder to amend the state's constitution by ballot. So it's status quo.

As far as the ballot measures go, the big news is that 48 and 59 lost. Those were the two most important issues, they were both bad, and they both went down. And that's a big reason why I'm relatively pleased with the election results.

In the next and final part, I lay out a plan for the GOP to regroup and develop a new winning coalition.

Election Blues and Reviews II: Religious Right Loses

See also Part I: "Created Equal."

The Big Loser: The Religious Right

Liberty won another victory in that the faith-based politics of the religious right suffered defeat. I will repeat what I said on the CBS 4 webcast last night: Democrats in Colorado have not won their races; Republicans have lost theirs. (And if Democrats forget that, they will find their majority, both at the national and state level, short lived.) By hitching their party to the religious right, Republicans have driven themselves to overwhelming losses. I'll start at the top of the ballot and work down.

President: Palin Alienated Nonsectarians

As I've pointed out, John McCain's selection of Sarah Palin energized the evangelical vote at the cost of alienating independents and nonsectarian Republicans. McCain selected Palin for one overriding reason: her credentials on banning abortion are unassailable. As a result, McCain selected a running mate utterly unprepared to serve as president of the nation. McCain earned the vote of James Dobson, and he lost the votes of countless others turned off by Palin's faith-based politics and inexperience.

Notably, the Interior West split over the president. Colorado, New Mexico, and Nevada went for Obama, while Arizona, Utah, Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana went for McCain. The Interior West has 44 electoral votes, and they went 19 to Obama, 25 to McCain. This reveals the problem for the Interior West: we had to pick between a candidate who wants more government in our bedroom and one who wants more government in our pocketbook. Generally, the Interior West leans toward liberty -- which explains the paradox of Colorado's election results (which I'll review in a subsequent part). Both Obama and McCain are enemies of liberty on multiple fronts, so figuring out the lesser of evils was a difficult task (and one that I could not ultimately accomplish).

U.S. Senate: Udall Endorsed Separation of Church and State

It came as no surprise that Mark Udall beat Bob Schaffer; Udall maintained a consistent lead. Udall won because he convinced Colorado that he'll legislate from the center, while Schaffer will not. As I've noted, Udall wrote the most eloquent defense of the separation of church and state I've seen from any living politician. His full remarks are worth reviewing. It is that statement, above all, with which Udall earned my vote, despite my profound disagreements with him on economic matters.

A big part of Schaffer's problem is that he was hypocritical on the issue of abortion, thereby alienating both the religious right and the secular free marketers. Consider, for instance, what Schaffer's campaign manager recently told Newsweek about Amendment 48 and its sponsor:

"I do greatly respect Kristi Burton and you have to admire her accomplishments," says Dick Wadhams, Schaffer's campaign manager. "But there is disagreement over whether this is the right thing to do at this time." The state Republican Party will remain neutral.

Well, the state Republican Party did not remain neutral when it passed a resolution to overturn Roe v. Wade at its state convention. And many of its candidates did not stay neutral; they endorsed 48. Besides, neutrality on Amendment 48 is hardly adequate. Now that the Republican Party has firmly and steadfastly proven its loyalty to the religious right, and expressly cast out the free market secularists, it's going to take a lot more than neutrality on a stinker of a ballot measure. It's going to take candidates explicitly and seriously committed to the separation of church and state.

U.S. House: Markey Upsets Musgrave

The big upset of the night was the defeat of Marilyn Musgrave by challenger Betsy Markey. Back in August, I was ready to declare Musgrave the winner. Yet, as I noted, Musgrave's faith-based politics played a huge role in that race. And it was repudiated.

I live in District 2, where Boulder too is located, where Jared Polis (who happens to be gay) soundly beat challenger Scott Starin. I considered voting for Starin just to protest Polis's grand central plans, but I found on his web page the abortion-banning euphemism about "Respecting the Sanctity of life." The fact that he didn't even have the guts to detail his views on the matter also turned me off.

Of Colorado's seven congressional districts, the Democrats now own five. The two Republicans, Mike Coffman and Doug Lamborn, signed the Colorado Right to Life survey, demonstrating that faith-based politics is not everywhere in the state a loser. But those seats were never in question. Neither was Musgrave's seat, so I thought; on the whole the GOP's faith-based strategy has cost them huge.

State Legislature: Hudak Beats Szabo

I live in State Senate District 19, in which Republican Libby Szabo battled Evie Hudak. As I noted, Szabo wanted to outlaw abortion and pass Amendment 48. Nevertheless, I suspected that Szabo would win because her supporters unleashed powerful attacks on Hudak, while Hudak's supporters did not take advantage of Szabo's endorsement of Amendment 48.

The outcome: Hudak eked out a slim victory.

On Monday, I received a letter from Focus on the Family Action complaining that rich guy Tim Gill spent millions electing "those favoring the homosexual agenda." And -- bum bum bum -- Gill has also funded Hudak! I think that's the sky falling. Apparently this didn't scare voters too badly. Nor is it any surprise that Gill spent his money to beat Republicans given the anti-gay vitriol coming from the religious right. A winning political strategy is not to tell successful rich homosexuals that they're corrupting the youth, headed for hell, and undeserving of equal rights. The Republicans richly deserved every penny that Gill spent to defeat them. Plus, as Ryan Sager points out, younger voters are much more accepting of homosexuals, and this year they were energized by the Democrats.

So Hudak did not just beat Szabo and her abortion-banning agenda; she beat Focus on the Family.

In my state house district, 29, Democrat Debbie Benefield crushed challenger Mary Arnold. This outcome was not a surprise.

On Monday, I wrote Arnold the following note:

Dear Ms. Arnold,

Tomorrow I will vote for your opponent because you desire to "pass legislation that would severely restrict abortions."

While I appreciate the fact that you also oppose Amendment 48, that is not enough. If Republicans want my vote, they must endorse the separation of church and state and oppose faith-based measures such as bans or "severe restrictions" on abortions. As much as it pains me to vote for statist Democrats, I deem them the lesser threat to my liberties.

Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life

Amendment 48 lost with preliminary results of 72 to 27 percent.

This is the measure that I spent most of my time trying to defeat. Diana Hsieh and I wrote the paper, "Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life," and I also wrote a lot about it on my other blog.

The timing of Amendment 48 could not have been worse for Republicans, for it kept in voters' minds the simple fact that Republicans have sold their souls to the religious right. The measure caused Schaffer especially a great deal of grief. And I'm glad of that, because it drew out this issue with finality.

However, while the measure was crushed according to the usual political calculus, the simple fact is that 27 percent of the state voted for the faith-based proposition that a fertilized egg is a person. The religious right is not going away. Its leaders do not care about immediate political success; they care about imposing God's alleged will on earth.

And the well-funded opponents of Amendment 48 may have done lasting harm in claiming the measure "simply goes too far." Many on the religious right will be perfectly happy to run a measure that goes slightly less far.

Still, the resounding defeat of Amendment 48, along with the defeat of various faith-based candidates, shows that the religious right is, at this time and in this region, in retreat. And that is the best news of the election.

Election Blues and Reviews I: Created Equal

It was an extraordinary day. And the election shaped up fairly well from where I'm sitting, given the possible outcomes. True, advocates of liberty and individual rights will have plenty of work to do over the coming years. But the cultural climate will, I think, be particularly receptive to a debate over fundamental issues. And that is good, for when given a fair and rational hearing liberty tends to emerge triumphant.

President Barack Obama

Never has the nation so rejoiced to sing the blues. I am very proud of our nation. Just a century and a half ago our nation continued its evil practice of racial slavery, the great sin of the nation's founding. Until about a half century ago the nation continued the viciously unjust legal discrimination against blacks.

And today the United States has elected the first black man (of "melting pot" heritage) as president. This proves that ideas matter, that good can win out over evil. Today in America, for the most part, one is not judged by the color of one's skin but by one's character.

And so we have completed the circle:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal." ... I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

If there is anyone out there who still doubts that America is a place where all things are possible; who still wonders if the dream of our founders is alive in our time; who still questions the power of our democracy, tonight is your answer. ... Ann Nixon Cooper... was there for the buses in Montgomery, the hoses in Birmingham, a bridge in Selma, and a preacher from Atlanta who told a people that 'We Shall Overcome'. Yes we can.

True, Obama does not consistently live up to the ideals of liberty. His stated goal is to expand government force over various aspects of the economy. Yet we owe ourselves a time of magnanimity, for Obama's election finally lifts a great burden from the heart of America. It is the spirit of liberty that made his election possible, and the same spirit will, I believe, ultimately overcome Obama's own shortcomings. Yes, we can.

My election coverage will continue in Part II, "Religious Right Loses."

FreeColorado.com on CBS News 4

Tonight CBS News 4 is hosting a webcast (see the preview) featuring local bloggers.

I'm scheduled to appear from around 8:15 to 9:00 p.m. The entire webcast lasts from 7-10.

See the station's web page tonight for details.

This is a huge election year, and there are plenty of important things to discuss. Please join me. Apparently there's some way to submit questions, so viewers can help guide the discussion.

Voting Day

My wife and I finished watching HBO's series on John Adams last night. It's a remarkable film about a remarkable man. It renewed my sense of wonder at America's founding.

My only criticism is that it's too journalistic; for instance, I didn't need to see Adams sick in bed for quite so long, nor did I need to hear the buzzing sounds of flies for every outdoor scene. But I do generally appreciate the richness of detail and authenticity of the piece.

One thing that struck me about the film is that it shows Adams as president walking around the streets, accompanied only by a friend. Today that would be impossible. Today's president has so much power, and is perceived by the public as such a godlike figure, that the president is no longer truly a man of the people.

I gritted my teeth as Adams signed the Alien and Sedition Acts. Even these heroes had their flaws. But then Jefferson undid this error of Adams, and the two men eventually renewed their friendship.

This morning my wife and I voted. I did not vote for any candidate for president. None of the candidates deserves my vote, and none deserves to hold the same position as Washington, Adams, and Jefferson. Down ballot I voted for the lesser of evils, for candidates who for the most part care little for the liberty and rights for which the revolutionaries fought.

And yet I feel this is a celebratory day. Despite the economic problems, and the prospect that the government might further worsen the economy and erode our rights in the coming years, I feel a sense of hope.

For these words still live:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...

DeVotchKa's Faithful

This Halloween I saw what must be among the greatest shows of the evening worldwide: DeVotchKa's performance. (The crowd's costuming was a performance in itself.) The production was not nearly as extravagant as it was last year, as two nights at the Boulder Theater replaced one large performance in Denver last year. But this is not a band that needs props, given Nick Urata's sonorous energy, Tom Hagerman's virtuoso musicianship (he is a symphony-caliber violinist), Shawn King's intricate and precise percussion, and Jeanie Schroder's steady bass and tuba lines. (Actually it's a sousaphone.)

I don't know who does the heavy writing -- I suppose Urata and Hagerman -- but this band has created some very fine music. I recall going to see another local band some years ago and seeing DeVotchKa in the lineup by accident; it's the only group of the evening that I remember. Then came "How It Ends" and the film "Little Miss Sunshine," for which the band provided the music. And this local band has made it big, perhaps surprising given its eccentricity.

I wasn't sure I'd like the band's new album quite as well, based on my iTunes sampling of "A Mad and Faithful Telling." But I picked up a copy at the concert (for a mere $10 -- modern technology is extraordinary), and so far I've listened to it a half dozen times or so. It is a great album. I don't recognize singles as rousing as the older songs "Death By Blonde" or "The Enemy Guns" -- there seems to be less raucous guitar -- but the album is marked by sophisticated and heartfelt music. I like DeVotchKa's first album, and the other three studios are favorites of my collection.

On stage, Urata said he wished the audience could see the world through his eyes. At least we can hear the world as he hears it.

The 'New Energy Economy' Euphemism

U.S. Senate hopeful Mark "Udall has track record advancing new energy economy," a Speakout headline asserts in the Rocky Mountain News.

A more precise way of putting it is that Udall supports corporate welfare and central planning in energy.

I don't demand that advocates of corporate welfare call it that, but they could at least admit to favoring "corporate subsidies."

But people seem to want to pretend that if we call it the "new energy economy" it's something other than old-fashioned socialism.