Liberal and Loving It

My drive-by with the Gov

I got a quick phone call from Governor Ritter today. For some reason he's very busy right now but was nice enough to talk to me about the upcoming election.

He started off talking about how intense it is here in a swing state. He is definitely on top of the world right now - he says virtually everyone he talks to, Democrat, Independent, Republican, they are all charged up for Obama.

But the main topic was Amendment 58. And that was interesting.

So politicians watch the polls, listen to their constituents, and then try to find that perfect position that gets the most support and honks off the fewest people. And we then complain that they're just being politicians.

Then when someone steps up and does something that is not designed for maximum political benefit, we ask them what's wrong with them - why aren't they designing something to appeal to the most people.

Talking to the Gov it was clear that Amendment 58 was not designed to be easy to pass - it was designed to do what the Governor thought was what we most needed. Throughout the conversation as he discussed what is in the initiative, and why, there was not one word about how well (or badly) it would appeal to the voters. The entire conversation was around how key it is to the future of the state.

So for all of you that want a politician who steps up and does something because they believe it is important, even if it is not designed for maximum popularity, you've got it. I give him major kudos for doing what he sees as best as opposed to popular.

Bill Ritter clearly believes in the power of scholarships. That is how he was able to go to college and law school and so he understands how these scholarships are the future for so many kids. This is personal for him.

He also brought up the wildlife part of it, and again when he discussed how it was in there, even though it didn't bring in votes, because it was the right thing to do. He's clearly gone all-in on crafting the best bill here.

He brought up a very interesting point on having this as scholarships - that this gives poor students in High School a very direct personal message that if they graduate, college is there as an affordable next step. I hadn't thought of that but a scholarship is a more direct message than "college is less expensive" - which is what would happen if the funds went direct to the schools. Clearly Bill Ritter is in this for those that can't afford college.

I asked him if he thinks the money following the student will help improve the schools. I got a resounding yes. And he then discussed how if it plays out as he thinks, we will see most of our state colleges expand to meet the additional students that will be coming in with these funds.

He also talked a lot about how this is the future of Colorado. That everything we want to do from clean energy to healthcare to a booming economy - it all requires an educated workforce. And this gets us that workforce. These scholarships are step 1 for accomplishing all these other tasks we face.

So there you have it, and I think the Governor is spot-on in all of this, Amendment 58 is key to our future here in the state.

Streaking is for adults only

I asked both Superintendent King and Chief Beckner if I could talk to them about the response to the recent streaking incident. No surprise, not even a reply of "no" from Chris King. (Why is it every time BVSD screws up - they clam up?)

But kudos to Mark Beckner who did make time to talk to me. Short conversation but interesting.

His primary point on the "crime" of streaking is that it's like running a red light (his example), they won't catch all cases of it, and if 100 people all decide to do it at the same time, they don't have the resources to catch everyone even if it occurs right in front of them, but they will catch those they have the resources & opportunity to get.

Fair enough. But then we got in to the specifics of the recent naked bicycle ride, tonight's naked pumpkin run, and students streaking. They did not arrest any of the naked bicycle riders because "there were too many." At the pumpkin run tonight he said if it was just 1 or 2, then they probably would be arrested. If there were lots then he said it depended on the situation but was not willing to say anyone would be arrested if it was a large group.

So here's where it gets interesting. I asked what would happen if 40 or 50 students streaked the football game. And his reply was they would probably only be able to catch and arrest 5 or 6 of them. When I asked why in that case they would arrest 5 or 6 but did not do so for the naked bicycle ride and probably would not for the naked pumpkin run - he said "because they are different." Yet when I pressed him for what was different, he was not able to give me anything specific.

Here's my theory - the only difference is that in one case it's students and in the other it's adults. It's a double standard, it may even be subconscious, but unless Chief Beckner can give us a clear credible explanation about how they are different and why that difference deserves the different approach - I think we should assume it's discrimination.

On a related note, I pointed out that the "crime" of streaking carries with it the possibility of being labeled a sex offender. Yet the police view it as a crime to enforce as resources allow. I asked him if he could think of any other crime where you can be labeled a sex offender, yet the police view it as enforce it only if resources are available. He couldn't think of any other.

Really screwed up priorities

Finally I asked him what was being done about the person on the Boulder High side that was shooting paintballs at the Fairview side and came within 2 inches of blinding a girl in one eye. He was not aware that it even occurred. Not did Chief Beckner ask for information so he could have an officer follow up on it. So streaking, they're arresting. Shooting someone in the face with a paintball gun - not interested.

So what should we do?

First, I think our City Council should ask Chief Beckner to speak to this difference in enforcement. It is a primary job of the council to demand of our Police that they treat all of our citizens equally. We need to insure that our High School students are not second class citizens in the eyes of the law.

Second, I think the City Council should ask Chief Beckner why he has no interest in someone being shot in the face with a paintball gun. Or more to the point, how these different crimes stack up in importance to the police. Because my child was in the Fairview stands and I don't care if she sees a streaker - but I do care if she is blinded by someone randomly shooting her in the face with a paintball.

Third, I think the City prosecutor and D.A. need to make clear that streaking, in the forms we have seen occur recently, will never be treated as calling for labeling the participants as sexual offenders. To have that hanging over their heads, even with a very low probability, is not right. Especially if the prosecutor uses that possibility to get the prankster to agree to whatever plea bargain they want.

Fourth, BVSD and the Boulder Police need to get a life. A streaker at a High School football game is not a crime, it's a prank. Call in their parents, lecture them, suspend them for a couple of days. But don't involve the police.

None of the above is a giant issue (unless a kid gets blinded by a paintball next time). But it all does impact the quality of government we have here in Boulder. And it does impact the kids view of authority, which is never high to start with. It should be addressed.

My idea of landscaping

Mark Beckner & Chris King - Kings of the double standard

Ok, can someone explain this to me. Back in June of this year we had a bunch of naked bicyclists. And Mark Beckner, Chief of Police, had this to say about it:

Beckner said last weekend’s Boulder arrest and the Frederick incident are more direct, obvious abuses of the law — while a groups of naked people enjoying “civil disobedience” doesn’t necessarily meet the threshold for police intervention.

“I think the police department tries to reflect the values of our community,” Beckner said. “I think our community values are pretty tolerant of civil disobedience.”

And, he said, groups of protesting bikers or runners have a different impact on the public at large.

“To ride by an intersection exposes people to less nakedness than if we stopped them for 20 minutes ... standing there naked exposing themselves to everyone in town,” Beckner said of the recent riders.

Ok, thoughtful, reasoned response. All good so far. Now we have the naked pumpkin run coming up and once again we turn to Mark Beckner who says:

Monday, Chief Mark Beckner said his department won’t send officers out specifically to bust participants. But he noted that officers who observe the nude sprinters do have the option to enforce indecent-exposure laws.

“I would not recommend anyone participating in it,” Beckner said of Friday night’s run. “We certainly do not condone the behavior.”

Ok, another very sensible response to the upcoming event. He discourages participation, points out police can arrest people for participating, but makes it clear that they are going to handle it appropriately and ignore it as long as it doesn't get out of hand.

But bring involve the BVSD (motto, we only graduate 70% of them, but we oppress all of them) and everyone loses all sense of proportion. First let's visit the Fairview/Boulder game last year where we got:

****[student] received a ticket for indecent exposure Sept. 20 after he attempted to sprint across the field wearing only racing flats and some purple body paint. His plan was foiled by security guards, who caught him hopping over the field's fence and held him until police arrived.

**** **** [student's father] said he learned that some students at the same game who were busted for fighting and being intoxicated were suspended for three days, as opposed to his son's week-long abeyance from classes.

And now we have it again at this year's game:

*** ******[student], a junior at the school, managed to dodge several security guards before he fell over a fence and was caught. He was booked at a Boulder juvenile detention center and later released to his father.

The boy faces a class-one misdemeanor charge of indecent exposure, Boulder police Sgt. Pat Wyton said Saturday.

The charge carries fines ranging from $500 to $5,000 and/or a sentence of six to 18 months in jail.

Wyton said it's also possible that a judge would order the teen to register as a sex offender, although that scenario is unlikely because a judge might view the stunt as less serious than other indecent exposure offenses.

So tell me - what's the difference? Why is a mass group of people running or biking naked ok while a student streaking a football game is a crime? This is a gigantic double standard.

The Police Department needs to be called on to explain what is going on. And if the real reason is that they choose to discriminate against students, that discrimination needs to be ended immediately, and an apology issued to the children that were inequitably charged.

This is a really bad move by the Police. The lesson the students take from this is that the police are a bunch of jackbooted thugs that can choose to randomly arrest those who they choose to while letting others go free. This sets these kid's view of law enforcement at a very impressionable age. While it may be a fair and accurate view of the police, it does not help generate a respect for the rule of law in our children.

Chief Beckner - I would welcome an explanation from you about why this double standard is equitable. After all, you theoretically work for us and I think it is very reasonable of us to ask you to answer.

And then there's BVSD. A more serious punishment for streaking than drinking & fighting? Where on earth are your priorities? And create the possibility that a child will carry a lifelong label of sex offender because he streaked. This isn't misguided, this is flat-out stupid.

Superintendent King - you also work for us. We entrust you with our children every day. Can you please tell us why the gigantic over-reaction to a harmless prank? And can you please tell us why you think this is worth possibly labeling an individual a sex offender for life over this action? We need to know because if you'll do something this inappropriate with our children, who knows what other dumb moves we can expect from you.

A final message to Mark Beckner & Chris King - try to show the judgment of an adult. The students were acting in an age appropriate manner - you two are not.

Did the Daily Camera distribute Child Porn?

Ok, in Saturday's Camera we had a picture of the infamous streaker at the Boulder/Fairview football game. Now a couple of facts are incontrovertible:

1. The Camera included a picture of the streaker from the back, showing 100% of his bare butt.
2. The naked individual is 17 - a minor.
3. The boy faces a class-one misdemeanor charge of indecent exposure.

Now lets look at the U.S. law about what constitutes child porn:

• “minor” means any person under the age of eighteen years;
• lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;
• “child pornography” means any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct,

Ok, it looks like we have 2 questions:

1. Is the naked butt part of the genitals in the eyes of the law?

2. Is "indecent exposure" considered a "lascivious exhibition?"

If so, I think the Daily Camera may be facing a charge of distributing child porn by publishing that picture. As are probably half the students at the game who used their cell phones to snap a picture. The question here is, in enforcing what the law states, did the Camera publish child porn.

Ok, so lets step back for a second. I am not proposing charges being brought against the camera. I am pointing out the stupidity of treating this streaking as a crime. Yes, the BVSD administration wants it treated as a crime because how dare a student thumb his nose butt at their authority. But the rest of us, reasonable people all, see that this is a prank, not a crime.

The police, the school, everyone - they need to relax and not try to make a harmless prank more, much more, than it is. Drop the charges, end the suspension. Because otherwise, in the need to treat everyone equally, we are potentially looking at child porn charges against the Camera, wholesale arrests at the upcoming naked pumpkin run, the list goes on...

The students at least understand the levity this should be treated with - signs today everywhere at Fairview and many wearing t-shirts all with the same slogan - Free Tom.

The naked kid is the reasonable one

Go down and look at your water heater. Go ahead, we'll wait. On the side you'll see what looks like a valve that is never used. It's a pressure valve and it's purpose is to let water out if the pressure in the water heater becomes so great, the tank might explode. Better to release water than have shards of the tank hurtling through the house.

A high school is a pressure cooker. You have all those hormones coursing through the kids, they're all cramped together having to obey the system imposed on them, and on top of all that the school is also trying to teach them. The kids are in a system where they have virtually no power, and that leads to a desire to rebel.

And so we need to have pressure relief valves. A kid streaking at a football game is a harmless prank that lets all the students enjoy a moment of thumbing their nose at the school administration. It's not just ok, it's needed. If all actions are treated as serious legal breaches, then we get instead serious physical damage done to the schools rather than harmless pranks. BVSD needs to learn about appropriate response.

What they should have done was chase the kid - and fail to catch him. By catching him the BVSD administrators did not show that their authority cannot be challenged (clearly what was driving them), but rather they showed that their judgment sucks. Hey guys, grow up - try to be more mature than the kids.

Then we have how they caught the kid. First we had the school administrator who tackled him lying on him for quite a while afterwords. Do we need to worry that this grown man found it necessary to stay in that kind of contact with a naked minor for that long? (Seriously, what is with that guy?)

Second, they they kept him naked for quite some time after catching him, and kept him out there in front of all for quite some time. Clearly this was their showing all the students that they had won and mortifying the child in the process. In addition, if the "crime" of the kid was to expose himself to everyone, then shouldn't the BVSD administration face the same charge for keeping him out there naked in public?

Third, we have the biggest failure of BVSD security that evening. A student on the BHS side fired paintballs at the FHS side. One hit a girl in the cheek. Two inches higher and she would have been blinded in one eye. Security didn't stop it, security didn't get the student shooting the gun. So the serious event that night was ignored by the Keystone Cops while the innocuous thumbing of the nose at authority was not. Talk about screwed up priorities.

And of course Boulder's "Finest", the Boulder Police Department (motto: Since we can't solve serious crimes, let's overreact to minor ones), had to show that they could blow it as well as BVSD.

The boy faces a class-one misdemeanor charge of indecent exposure, Boulder police Sgt. Pat Wyton said Saturday. The charge carries fines ranging from $500 to $5,000 and/or a sentence of six to 18 months in jail.

Are you kidding me? 50 people bike naked through town and the police just direct traffic (yes, the BPD in that case actually had the appropriate response), and for this they're talking 6 - 18 months in jail. The appropriate response was to take the kid home to his parents and that's it. Even talking about charges shows the police have the judgment of a grapefruit.

And who's that in the background running to catch up saying "let me join the screw up express?" Why it's the Boulder Daily Camera who published the child's name (no link to article on purpose). The Camera properly does not publish the names of 17 year olds who kill others due to drunk driving because they are minors. But apparently streaking is cause to do so. So now, whenever this person applies for a job and the prospective employer Googles them - they get this story. (Yet apparently could not find time to write about the kid shooting paintballs and almost blinding a student.) 

By the way, having a daughter who goes to Fairview and attended the game, I knew who the kid was, and his parents, hours before the Camera published it. And I chose to not write about it even though it would have been a "scoop" due to who the parents are. Congrats Heath Urie, you wrote something a blogger found unethical to write.

The only person in this whole thing who acted in an age appropriate manner was -- the kid who streaked. BVSD handled it in the worst possible way, which is to be expected. The Boulder Police Department over-reacted while ignoring the serious crime, which is standard operating procedure. And the Daily Camera made a two mistakes.

As to BVSD in your ongoing quest for respect - why not concentrate on the 30% of the children you are failing to educate. Because, to be honest, we don't give a s#%t if you catch a streaker. But we do care that you are failing miserably at your job of educating all of our children.

Exhausted, in pain, mentally wiped - loved it

I went out canvassing today. In the morning I got a list from the Obama office in Boulder and hit a boatload of houses in a middle class part of Boulder. Then in the afternoon I went with New Era/Democrats Work and hit a blue collar part of Longmont.

It is exhausting work, both physically & mentally. And you need to be on top of your game to handle any response. It's brutal - and it's also wonderful. If you haven't volunteered yet - go do so tomorrow, next weekend, and the Monday/Tuesday after. You will feel so good after you have done so - I promise. (Republicans too - it's a bi-partisian feel good effect.)

I get to the Obama office around 9:30 and have to wait about 10 minutes for a training "class." They appear to be giving one every 20 - 30 minutes. There were 7 in my class, 3 pairs (I think husband & wife each) and me (Mrs. Blog is not politically active).

The class was all of 5 minutes long and gave the basics on how to hit the houses, how to fill out the forms, and what to do for questions we could not answer. It was very sensible in that it did not give us 40 things to remember as people can only remember 3 - 7 things. So they kept it short & sweet.

The people managing the office were very impressive. People came in wanting to do all kinds of different volunteer work (I walked in and asked what they wanted me to do). And in each case they talked up going door to door and in a very nice way got everyone who walked in set to canvass.

During the class there was an only in Boulder moment when a woman came in dressed sort-of goth/witch/??? - full white facepaint and a very weird outfit. She just wanted yard signs and then flew away on her broom with them.

Ok, so out hitting the streets. A bit over ½ the people were not home. The remaining ones were 100% Obama except one house where the residents were not home, but the cleaning person is a McCain supporter. Another only in Boulder moment - the rich homeowner is Obama, the working stiff housekeeper is McCain.

But the ground game does matter now - a lot of these people are Obama supporters, but I did not hear the comments that make one think they will cast that ballot no matter what. A supporter who doesn't vote hurts half as much as an independent on the fence who votes for McCain. Getting those supporters to cast their ballot is the main job of canvassers in Boulder.

The list was solid, I think there were 2 people that no longer lived there. So they're working with good data.

I would also ask about Udall and Polis. And the vast majority of those who have not voted said "don't know" (for Udall vs Schaffer) and "who?" for Polis. Polis I understand as he hasn't really been campaigning (and why on earth waste time asking about him) but Udall is interesting as this is his House district and he's been advertising like crazy. The polls tend to be accurate but the people I hit are still officially undecided.

I also met one woman with an excellent reason to wait for election day. She's taking her 4 year old daughter with her to show her voting the old way. I thought that was neat.

Ok, then off to Longmont to meet up with the New Era/Democrats Work group. Basically they bused up a bunch of students in matching New Era t-shirts from CU to hit part of North Longmont. It looked like an Up With People band.

Got my list and hit the street. They were pushing a number of amendments (58 at the top!!!) and asking how people are voting on Brandon Shaffer, Betsy Markey, & Barak Obama. They gave us 2 flyers, one with Brandon Shaffer on one side and the amendments on the other and a second for Betsy Markey.

Over half were not home and had a number where the person was no longer there (and one house which I think had been foreclosed on and the people evicted). Also one address that didn't exist (or at least I couldn't find it).

I talked to one person who is "51% McCain, 49% Obama." Her big worry is that Obama might take away her right to carry a gun. I told her that my personal opinion is that the Dems aren't going to touch gun control - but didn't push. Hopefully I moved her 2% to "Obama 51%, McCain 49%."

I also talked to a very nice older woman who told me she has already voted and that I wouldn't like the answer. So a vote for McCain (damn!). But when I asked her about Markey/Musgrave she said that Musgrave was so awful that she left it blank. I think this is a major indicator for Betsy Markey - this woman bleeds Republican blood, she would never vote for a Dem. But she can, and did, leave the vote blank. And that helps Betsy. So Betsy not only pulls independents, but also gets Republicans to leave their vote blank.

So get out there and hit the street tomorrow. The walk list they give you will look a little imposing but it is about a 2 hour effort each. You'll be a little slower at first. Once you get good at it, you can do them in 1½ hours each (that's my speed). You plan your route carefully, walk fast between houses, and when talking keep it short & sweet as most people don't want to spend even 2 minutes on this.

Some people clearly didn't want to be bothered by me (including one C.U. student who I clearly woke up at the ungodly early hour of 12:05), some were ok about it, and a number were quite friendly & talkative. But no one was rude or mean.

Go do it, you'll feel really good about it afterwards.

What's the difference between Matt Applebaum & Sarah Palin? Lipstick.

The recent troopergate report came out and Sarah Palin stated that the report fully exonerated her. You read the report and you see that it states that she did violate the law and what she did was unethical. So refer to the report, and claim the oppisate of what it says.

In today's Camera Matt Applebaum does the same on Question 2-B.

Question 2B, allowing executive sessions, is a very hard sell, as it should be. Who, after all, prefers closed-door meetings to completely open and transparent government? And hasn't our prohibition on such meetings served us well for decades? Yes, until you look more closely. Because councils do need to sometimes meet privately to discuss negotiations, personnel matters, security issues, etc. -- and indeed Boulder's councils have done just that. It's just that you don't know about it. We troop into the city attorney's office, two by two, and whisper sweet secrets. No notice is given, no records kept, and no council discussion held, giving staff great control. By contrast, executive sessions would require approval, in public, by a 2/3 vote of council, minutes/recordings would be made, and council members would get to hear their colleagues' opinions. [bold added]

Now, how can he claim the minutes/recordings will be made. Well the question says "Executive sessions will only be held in conformity with locally enacted procedural rules that are at least as restrictive as those set forth in the laws of the state of Colorado". Ok, what exactly are those rules?

Title 24, Article 6, section D reads in full: "No portion of the record of an executive session of a state public body shall be open for public inspection or subject to discovery in any administrative or judicial proceeding, except upon the consent of the state public body or as provided in sub-subparagraph (C) of this subparagraph (I) and section 24-72-204 (5.5)."

Ok, lets give Matt credit for being technically correct in what he said. The executive sessions will be recorded. However, no one will be allowed to view those recordings. So the end result is not the impression Matt gives as no one will ever be able to view those recordings. They might as well not be recorded since they will never be played back.

We're being sold a pig in a poke here folks. This question will give the Council the ability to meet in secret and we will never know what they actually discussed there. We need to vote no on 2-B and have the council come back with a proposal where the records are made public after 90 days.

Even Matt Applebaum indirectly validates the need for the public release as he is claiming the recording of the sessions as a reason why it is ok to hold them. And Matt, if you have nothing to hide, there is no reason not to make them public after 90 days.

No on 2B (Executive Sessions)

The Boulder City Council members make some very good points about the need for executive sessions. So yes, we do need executive sessions. But then comes the question, can we trust this council to exercise this ability to meet in secrecy honorably? And I use the word honor purposely, will they truly restrict its use only to the topics and discussion where it is really called for.

The answer is no. When this council faced the issue of one of their own, Crystal Gray, who defrauded her employer, they did nothing - it's clear that this council (Suze Ageton excepted) does not have the moral backbone to handle this power appropriately. And definitely not honorably.

So we're in a quandary. Executive sessions are needed. Our present council-members will almost certainly mis-use the power. What to do. Here's my suggestion. Vote no on 2B. And when it fails, we suggest that they craft a similar law with one addition.

All Executive Sessions will be recorded on video and that video will be made publicly available in full 90 days later.

Virtually everything that calls for Executive Session does not need to be kept confidential forever, it merely needs to be kept confidential while negotiations of some type are underway. This addition to the proposal enables Executive Session while retaining open government.

Vote no on 2B.

McCain win

Wow, ok this was a win for McCain. Not a giant one, but a clear win.

At the begining McCain was in the groove and making his points clearly and persuasively. And Obama was off - he was a bit unsure and was not responding well. And the biggie was that McCain was on offense with Obama on defense.

Then we have Joe the plumber. It worked, and worked to McCain's favor. And while it got old having him keep coming up, Joe was clearly painted as someone who will support McCain with Obama plaintatively trying to get Joe's support. Joe was not good for Obama.

Then we hit McCain's "I am not president Bush." What does that do? Well the 20% of the country that thinks Bush is doing a good job is going to be honked off bigtime. They won't vote for Obama, but now they may not bother voting for McCain either. It will be interesting to see how this affects the base - to dis your own party's president.

For the independents, I think this was the single most powerful thing he could say. It responds to the biggest attack of Obama's campaign. But I'm not sure it helps much, especially this late. Because the Obama campaign has consistently hit McCain not for being Bush, but for supporting him. This will get McCain some votes, but I don't think it will be a significant shift.

McCain also handled the is Palin qualified question very well. He made a strong argument for her using arguments that are reasonable. He clearly was prepared for that question and made it a non-issue for this debate.

Then we hit the angry old man part. McCain was clearly mad about what was being said about him in the campaign while Obama handled it as part of the job. This was easily McCain's one bad part in the debate. But I don't think this will count for much either. Dems will think he got too upset, Repubs will agree with McCain, and independents I don't think will see anything that bad in someone who gets a bit upset.

The second half of the debate was pretty even. Obama hit his stride and gave as good as he got. Both had times when they did a good job talking up themself and hitting the other. Both took hits that landed. But McCain was also doing well and so I would say the second half was a wash.

What does this mean? That Obama has won. Obama continued to come across as competent and presidential. He has a 7 - 10 point lead in the polls. And nothing in this debate made for a noticable change.

Finally, I am disappointed in Obama. He should have distinguished between himself and McCain on handling the economic mess we are in today. He didn't.