Colorado Luis

Colorado Springs Tips Against Bush

The latest Survey USA poll puts Bush at his lowest approval level ever in Colorado, only 39%, with 58% disapproving.  The regional breakdowns are, as usual, the most interesting.  Metro Denver is 37% favorable/61% unfavorable.  "Rest of Colorado" is not much different -- 38% favorable, 59% unfavorable.  As usual, the Colorado Springs area props up Bush's numbers:  48% favorable, 49% unfavorable.  But it is amazing to see "unfavorable" ahead, even by a point, in the Springs.  If Bush's unfavorables top 50% in the Springs, that could be a true tipping point.

So is Bob Beauprez still planning to run for governor on his close ties to Bush?  (Or will he try to have it both ways?)

Friday, February 17, 2006 at 04:25 PM in Colorado and the West | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
Madden Endorses Ritter

I'm disappointed that Alice Madden has decided not to challenge Bill Ritter in a primary for the Democratic nomination for governor.  (With apologies to Gary Lindstrom, this effectively seals the nomination for Ritter.)  Not because I think Ritter would be a bad governor -- I'm not going to hesitate to support him in the general election -- but because I think this is one of those situations where a contested party would have been a positive.

There has been a little bit of quibbling that Ritter isn't charismatic enough -- as if Bill Owens hadn't already proved that lack of charisma doesn't matter.  But let's face it, there is only one reason anyone considered mounting a challenge to Ritter at this stage, and that is his position on the abortion issue.  A primary that focused on abortion would be a good thing for whichever Democrat won, in my opinion, because the ongoing debate would only highlight that the two Republican candidates are both locked in to the extreme right wing position required by Colorado Springs religious conservatives.  And yes, I would have liked the opportunity to support a candidate who doesn't think it is OK to force his own religious dictates on non-believers.  I may very well vote for Lindstrom in the primary just to send a message.

Paul Hackett

I know next to nothing about Ohio politics, but it seems pretty clear that the whole situation surrounding Paul Hackett's withdrawal from the Senate race was badly mishandled on both sides.  I had no reason to favor either candidate until this Toledo Blade story about a Hackett campaign event made me a Sherrod Brown supporter:

    Someone then asked about illegal immigrants. The Bush administration, Mr. Hackett said, “is willing to let illegals come in and take the jobs of Americans.”

    The answer made several of the young Democrats squirm in their seats. One pushed Mr. Hackett to clarify. “Deport them?” Mr. Hackett was asked.

    “If we can afford to,” Mr. Hackett said, “yeah.”

    The original questioner began to speak about the racism of Hispanics against whites. Mr. Hackett stood silently. An audience member suggested the discussion move on.

First of all, this is repeating the Tancredo critique of Bush without regard to the immigrant victims of our current policy.  Second, the best you can say about his use of the term "illegals" is that Hackett was an inexperienced candidate who doesn't know anything about the issues (even Republicans say "illegal immigrants"); the worst is that he is deliberately aligning himself with the race baiting elements of the Republican Party.  And for a candidate of either party to stand there silently while the questioner who brought up the immigration issue moves on to rail about alleged racism by Latinos against whites (!) is unacceptable.

The fact that this guy's withdrawal is viewed as a loss by the majority of the so-called netroots speaks volumes.

Yearning to Breathe Free

As an asthmatic who loves to drink beer in bars, I am really looking forward to July 1, when most public places in Colorado are expected to go smoke free with the passage of HB 1175.  The bill will exempt casinos, some hotel rooms and (of course) tobacco stores.  The big problem, for me and for many Colorado employees who currently work in unhealthy environments, is that there is a powerful movement to also exempt bars that hold "tavern licenses" as opposed to restaurants that have bars in them.  The bill might not pass if the tavern exemption is put back in, because restauranteurs who support the current bill don't want their competitors to offer smoking.  In the meantime, people like me will continue to be assaulted in bars by other people's smoke.

I'm always amazed at the framing of this debate as one of personal rights versus government mandated healthy behavior.  What about my personal rights?  Shouldn't I be free to go to a bar without risking an asthma attack?  If the answer is, well you can choose to stay home, why doesn't that argument apply to smokers?  If they want to smoke they can stay home.  This is just a balancing of two competing claims, and to me what tips the balance in favor of regulation is the interest in protecting restaurant and bar employees from the dangers of second hand smoke.

An even worse argument is that this somehow interferes with the rights of property owners.  That's the same argument raised against workplace safety and anti-discrimination laws.  I'm shocked and disappointed to see a so-called Democrat like Sen. Lois Tochtrop of Westminster frame the issue as one of property rights.  Even Republicans believe in regulating property owners' use of their property.  If that's the way she feels she should re-register as a Libertarian.  Otherwise, quit the bogus posturing.  I probably should note here that support for the smoking ban is cutting across party lines, with a majority of House Democrats and half of House Republicans voting in favor.

Finally, there is the argument that it isn't the government's business to try to make smokers lead a healthy lifestyle.  I agree with that.  But it isn't the motivation for this bill.  Sen. Ron Teck (R-Grand Junction) sponsored a bill to cut off Medicaid benefits to smokers as a way of giving them an incentive to quit, and I am glad that bill failed.  Go ahead and kill yourselves in the privacy of your own home, but don't drag me down with you with that second hand smoke.

Now Immigrant Ski Workers Are A Problem?

Anyone who spends time in Colorado ski resorts knows that for many years immigrant Australians and New Zealanders (maybe with legal papers, maybe not) have been employed in jobs that used to be filled by American "ski bums." I blogged about it earlier this ski season. Now, the issue of immigrant workers has suddenly become a concern of the Denver Post editorial board. Why? As Denver Post writer Bruce Finley reported recently, Colorado ski resorts increasingly are turning to Latin American students to staff lift lines, mountaintop restaurants and other resort jobs. The trend has set off brisk exchanges over the nation's immigration policies. . . . The history of the ski bum aside, the growing ranks of Latin American students at Colorado's resorts does raise a few questions about immigration policy. The young people are in this country under a U.S. government cultural-exchange program. Critics, including Congressman Tom Tancredo, say the program's purpose is being abused, and congressional auditors say the State Department isn't properly overseeing the program. The growing ranks of Australians and New Zealanders, of course, did not raise any questions about immigration policy. To write an editorial about immigrant labor at Colorado ski resorts that doesn't even mention the words "Australia" or "New Zealand" is truly mind boggling. In contrast, the Post did manage to mention that for many years large numbers of Mexican immigrants have handled ski resort jobs with minimal customer contact (e.g., housekeeping). It's revealing that the furor over immigrant labor at ski areas was triggered by having students from Buenos Aires and elsewhere working as, for example, cafeteria cashiers where they are face to face with resort customers. For the record, I have seen exactly one of these Latin American students at a ski resort, a woman wearing a tag giving Buenos Aires as her home town working in the cafeteria at the Mary Jane base. In contrast, when I went to Copper Mountain over Thanksgiving weekend it was easier to try to figure out who wasn't Australian, at least among the ski school instructors. In my opinion, the biggest problem with the over-the-top racism of this Post editorial and of the people who didn't become concerned about the vanishing American ski bum until Argentines instead of Australians started popping up in ski resorts to replace them is that anything less egregious than this gets reinterpreted as "not a race issue," which helps prevent real discussion of the ways race influences political discourse in this country.

Saturday Beer Blogging 02.11.06

OK, this could be a serious time waster.  It's an interactive map of the 48 contiguous states with the locations of over 1,400 brewpubs plotted.  I spent some time cruising through the Colorado portion of the map and found a few mistakes and some outdated information, like identifying the Heavenly Daze Brewery on Kalamath Street although that has been closed for about a year.  It can be updated by users, and I can confirm that the update function works as I was able to change the listing for the brewery on Rapp Street in downtown Littleton from Columbine Mill (old name) to 5280 Roadhouse and Brewery (new name).  Hopefully this will turn out to be a useful resource for those trips out of town.

Beer blogging correction:  I am advised that I misremembered the name of a beer I had at the Six Rivers Brewery in McKinleyville, California, that I mentioned in my January 8, 2005 beer blogging post.  (Not surprising because I had it at the start of New Years' Eve festivities.)  The beer is actually called Kona Moon and it won a gold medal in the 2005 GABF in the Coffee Flavored Beer category, which was quite competitive at that festival if I recall correctly (and maybe I don't, evidently).  Congratulations to the brewers at Six Rivers!

Unanswered Questions

Call me one of those single issue, litmus test Democrats, but I still think there are a few questions about Bill Ritter's position on abortion that I'd like to have answered.

1.  Ritter says in his position statement that he will "strongly oppose any effort that would seek to criminalize women or their doctors over this issue."  That's good.  But would he support an effort to, say, take away doctors' licenses to practice medicine if they perform abortions?  That could have a devastating effect on access to safe abortions while still fulfilling Ritter's campaign promise to oppose criminal penalties for abortion.

2.  In the comments to my previous post there was a suggestion that Ritter's support for emergency contraception isn't as strong as his website might suggest, because he also supports the "right" of pharmacists and other providers not to offer emergency contraception.  My questions are, is this true, and if so, how far would the "right" extend.  Are we talking about people not getting their prescriptions filled because the pharmacist is a fundamentalist?  Would corporations have the "right" to deny service through an entire chain of pharmacies or hospitals?

3.  Would he oppose a state constitutional amendment preserving the right to have an abortion?

I know a lot of people think asking these questions is needlessly divisive, or that it is better to focus on the latest Bob Beauprez outrage (and it is outrageous), but I think we need to know what this pro-choice state might face under a Ritter administration.  It could be a real problem if right wing Republicans succeed in purging the pro-choicers from their ranks in the state legislature and then retaking one or both houses.  (Are there any anti-choice Dems in the state legislature?  I'm not aware of any.)  Certainly the anti-choice movement is going to be studying Ritter's position, which strikes me as carefully hedged, at least this closely to see what common ground they might be able to find with him.

The Economics of Colorado Water

I've come to realize lack of water doesn't slow down population growth in Colorado.  It only makes development more expensive because someone has to buy water rights away from farmers and change the use to residential use.  There is an interesting bill being carried by state Rep. Mary Hodge (D-Brighton) that is going to make it easier for farmers to sell water to cities on a temporary basis and without also having to sell out the farm. There is a little bit of something for everyone here:  growing cities get water, farmers can make money selling water without getting out of the business, and the rest of us don't have to put up with calls for new dams up in the mountains.

The math works like this:  The average household (of four) uses something like two thirds of an acre foot per year (according to the Denver Water Board).  The average farm in the United States applied 2.48 acre feet of irrigation water per crop acre in 2000.  And that average is dragged down by the many comparatively wet states that don't need so much irrigation; Colorado's average is almost certainly higher (although I can't find what it is right now).

Another way of looking at it is this:  Colorado agriculture uses about 5.5 million acre feet of water annually (according to a Word document I found on the Colorado Department of Agriculture site but can't link to).  If all of that were converted to residential use, which of course will never happen, that's something like another nine eight million households that could be served.  But if a million acre feet of water were converted from agriculture to residential use, that would allow another million and a half or more households to move in.  That's six million people, or more than the entire current population of the state.

So you can see the economic pressures that are pushing Colorado farmers to sell their water for municipal use.  Rep. Hodge's bill makes a lot of sense to me because it recognizes this dynamic while making it easier for farmers not to sell off their land, which encourages sprawl and reduces the state's agricultural production, at the same time they are selling off their water.  The practical result could be more farming in wet years and less in dry years, which makes sense to me.

Saturday Beer Blogging 01.14.06

This has to be one of the most interesting events the Brewers' Association has staged yet:  a celebration of the 300th anniversary of Benjamin Franklin's birth with a national distribution of "Poor Richard's Ale," an attempt to recreate a colonial American ale.  (Franklin's writings extolled the virtues of ale as a healthful tonic.)  The recipe (pdf) comes with all kinds of interesting historic tidbits:  Franklin's favorite beer was probably similar to what we now call an Old Ale, and not a porter (first brewed in America in 1775) or a lager (first brewed in America in 1840).  It was probably light on hops, which were all imported and expensive in Franklin's America, and the hop was probably Kent Goldings, and not Fuggles (first bred in the 19th century).

Probably the most distinctive aspect of colonial American beer to us modern craft brew drinkers, however, is that molasses was apparently commonly used as an adjunct (along with corn).  In fact, the designer of Poor Richard's Ale says he recommends using a medium molasses instead of the more authentic Blackstrap in order to avoid having the molasses taste overwhelm everything else.

Poor Richard's Ale is being brewed by a huge number of different microbreweries around the country, including nine here in Colorado.  Check here for a brewery near you.  Some of the breweries are already pouring Poor Richard's, and all of them should have it available by January 17, the actual 300th anniversary of Franklin's birth.  I definitely want to track down a pint myself.

When Will Reggie Rivers Go National?

Reggie Rivers provides the answer to the question: How does a liberal Black man get a job writing an editorial column in a Denver newspaper?  The answer, of course, is: By being a former Denver Bronco running back/special teamer.  But you know what?  I don't care how Rivers got his column, because his stuff is great, today's piece about "supporting the troops" in Iraq being just the latest example.

We live in a country where it is very hard to get anywhere as an opinion writer of color who wasn't groomed by the right wing media machine.  (See Navarette, Ruben.)  Reggie Rivers is a Colorado treasure, but I wish he had a larger audience.  His attempt during the '90s to be a talk radio host was ahead of its time -- he was on KOA and the wingnut radio audience couldn't deal with him.

So, I'm thinking, how about it, Air America?  Everybody knows AAR needs more people of color in the lineup.  More people from the West too.  And Rivers has already shown that he can handle the talk radio format.  I don't know what his agents think about it, or whether they've already talked with AAR, but I'd love to see Reggie get a national radio audience.  Or at least a nationally syndicated column!

Don't Drink and Ski

That's the only responsible thing one can say in response to Bode Miller's remarks on 60 Minutes about challenging himself by skiing "wasted."  So I said it.  Even though my site's logo picture is of, um, beers at a ski area.

But anyway, I also have to wonder -- how accidental were Miller's comments?  Just a month before the Winter Olympics, Miller got his name in a lot of headlines and generated a lot of buzz.  After one tearful press conference, talk of dropping him from the U.S. team has been quieted.  If CBS were carrying the Games, I'd be really suspicious the whole thing was planned from the start.  Certainly, now that the sponsors have apparently been placated, I think this little controversy will only end up boosting Miller's name recognition.  It could turn into one of those patented Olympic human interest turnaround stories if he ends up winning a gold medal.

(We won't even get into what Keystone's nickname is.)

Bonus Olympic Hype:  Help move Jeremy Bloom up the list of most viewed Winter Olympic athlete profiles.  OK, he's already number four.  Scott Gomez then.