About Me

Name: NOTLEGALROADKILLYET
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

A Trip on Air Tran

A few weeks ago, my wife booked a flight from Denver to Atlanta for this past weekend.  At the time she booked the flight, she was fully mobile.

Over the holidays, she slipped on some ice while getting the mail and broke her ankle.  It wasn't a bad break, and she got a walking boot, rather than a cast.  However, even with the boot, she wasn't all that mobile. 

She and I have flown to Atlanta from Denver several times, and she knew that she wouldn't be able to walk the required distances in either airport in her boot.  She would need a wheel chair.  She thus called Air Tran to ask that her ticket be marked for that assistance.

She is back from Atlanta now, and has nothing but glowing things to say about Air Tran service.  I could relate all of the things that they did for her, and other passengers, but I'm not sure that is necessary.

So often bloggers, myself included, focus on the negative.  It is nice to be able to write a positive comment on service by a business.

She and I will almost certainly fly Air Tran again.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Memo to Dave Kopel

This weekend, Dave Kopel wrote a catchall column in the Rocky Mountain News.  Catchall columns wander from subject to subject., and Dave eventually wandered into the subject of Colorado Political Blogs.  He made the following claim:

Colorado has dozens of political weblogs, but most merely comment on well-known stories. Here are some that go further:  

Kopel then proceeded to identify three local blogs, two of which were left leaning.  One, Coloradopols, he complemented for a speculative December post claiming that Allard's staffers were looking for new jobs, indicating that Allard would be quitting.  Huh?  No staffers were named and the speculation didn't make sense, given that Allard and his staff will keep their jobs until 2009, if they like.  Actually, back in July, 2005, Kopel himself noted that his father had served in the legislature with Allard and was speculating that he would be leaving on the Senate in 2008.  That, was a lot more solid than the Coloradopol speculation. 

I thought I might take the opportunity to list some of the "original reporting" that this blog has done in the five months of its existence, and not in any order:

1.  Observed that the Colorado Republican Website had stopped being updated in August.
2.  Observed that Republicans are not googleing themselves.
3.  Observed that the Democrats were using Wikipedia to demonize Republicans and puff themselves.
4.  Reported on dirty Democratic google bombs.
5.  Speculated how Republicans could use google bombs legitimately.
6.  Suggested a blog strategy for Republicans.
7.  Reported on Media Matter's efforts to push Colorado media outlets leftward.
8.  Reported on the strange construction of CRS 13-5-136 and suggested a fix
9.  Observed that the townhall main bloggers, MKH, HH, MM, etc., did not appear to have blogrolled a single townhall blog.
10. Reported that the Supreme Court had made it impossible for citizens to make some ethics complaints.
11. Reported that Cornell U had observed that the Supreme Court had never needed to define dilatory practices.
12. Reported that the CBA had spent $500,000 to defeat Amendment 40, four times what the Supreme Court spends in a year to reimburse citizens for attorney misconduct.
13. Reported that the Supreme Court has no interest in having citizen members appointed to its rules making bodies, and couldn't be bothered to respond when I applied.
14. Reported that the Supreme Court seemed to believe its primary constituency was the Bar Association and was making its reports easily available to Colorado Lawyer, but not to the public.
15. Identified six reasons that the DA Carol Chambers trial was a show trial timed and intended to impact the election.  No one has ever challenged my logic.
16. Noted that the Chambers decision was released on December 26th in an apparent attempt to avoid news coverage.
17.  Reported that the Judicial Retention Commission system doesn't always report derogatory information to the public.
18.  Reported that several Colorado District Court Judges have broken CRS 13-5-135 and the Commission on Judicial Discipline does not appear to have taken any action.
19.  Deconstructed and demonstrated the intentional deception of a Rocky Mountain News guest article opposing Amendment 38.
20.  Pointed out the awful logic of the first Rocky Mountain News editorial supporting Bill Ritter.

The fact is that almost anyone could do what I am doing.  The News, the Post, and the Gazette all practice agenda journalism.  They either flat out refuse to cover important stories (like legal ethics), or they cover them in such a slanted fashion that they leave wide holes for bloggers like me to walk into and explore (Carol Chambers).

Except to go back and look up the exact number of CRS 13-5-136, I wrote this essay from memory.  I am quite sure that if I had looked back, I could list at least ten and perhaps twenty more issues, big and small, that I am writing about that no one else is writing about, or, quite frankly, has even thought much about.

When you next promote blogs that are doing original research and making original observations, please include mine.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

This is How it Should be Done

I have often made negative comments about the quality of the Rocky Mountain News editorials and will doubtless do so again.  As noted in the previous essay, the Denver Post turned Senator Allard's announcement that he was retiring into an opportunity to attack him on all fronts.  There are times when that kind of editorial might be appropriate, but the death or retirement of a politician is not one of them.

Today, the Rocky Mountain News far outclassed the Denver Post with an editorial on the same subject:

As inevitable as his decision seems now, it didn't seem so before the announcement. Even his staffers were kept in the dark, not learning of his decision until the last moment. There was always the chance he could have bowed to those party regulars who tried to convince him he was the party's best hope next year, since open seats are harder to win.

Those who choose to leave office voluntarily should have a well-developed sense of timing. If they announce too early, they turn themselves into lame ducks with little chance of accomplishing their legislative goals. If they announce too late they can throw their party into turmoil. The name of Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell comes to mind; he waited until March 2004 to pull the plug on his re-election campaign.

Allard's timing was just about right: There is no clear-cut favorite for the GOP Senate nomination, and the party needs time to sort out the hopefuls.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

You Gotta Love the Denver Post Editorials

I know I write some ragged stuff sometimes.  Anyone who wants some recent examples need only look back to almost everything I wrote this weekend.  I have two excuses, though.  I had a bad cold and I don't get paid.

The Denver Post Editorial board does get paid.  Why, then do they put out drivel like "Party Sought Allard's Timing?"   There is no consistency or logic to the piece.

They attack Allard for making the announcement at all because it makes him a "lame duck:"

Allard told reporters Monday that the timing of his announcement was the result of state and national Republicans encouraging him "to make an early decision so they could plan ahead." That may be good for the GOP, but Allard wasn't elected by the political bosses - he was elected by the people of Colorado. His early abdication surely will not benefit his constituents. As Colorado's senior senator, Allard sits on two powerful committees - Appropriations and Budget. But his clout is now diminishing.

I guess the Post is so used to Democratic politicians going back on their word that they expected Allard to do the same.  In the paragraph immediately preceding the above paragraph, they admitted that Allard had term limited himself ten years ago:

Allard made a pledge in 1996 to serve no more than two terms, but over recent years he's let on that he might reconsider. He made an honorable decision to hold to the pledge, and opened the gate on what is sure to be one of next year's most spirited congressional campaigns.

While the Post was busy attacking Allard for announcing that he wouldn't run in 2008, they had no similar criticism for Representative Mark Udall, who months ago announced for the Senate seat and has reportedly amassed a million dollar war chest. 

The Post tipped its hand when it wrote that Allard's announcement made it possible for both parties to start looking for a replacement.  The Post would have much preferred that Allard do what Joel Hefley and Ben Nighthorse Campbell did-step out at the last possible moment.  Both of those late announcements cost the Republicans dearly in party unity and made "Senator" Salizar a reality.

Allard's lame-duck status means both parties will look immediately toward filling his shoes. Among the GOP possibles are former Reps. Scott McInnis, Bob Schaffer and even Bob Beauprez, the landslide loser in last fall's gubernatorial race. Rep. Tom Tancredo, another possibility, said Monday he'd like to see McInnis run for the seat. Former Gov. Bill Owens may want to test the political winds. Dick Wadhams, a candidate for state GOP chair, said a party primary is "not necessarily a bad thing."

Not content to castigate Allard for announcing his intent to keep his word, the Post then proceeded to throw in another attack paragraph:

Last April, Time magazine named Allard among the five worst senators in the Senate, "so bland that his critics have dubbed him Dullard." It was noted he "almost never" played a major role in legislation. Allard aides said the senator is a workhorse, not a showhorse, but that doesn't explain his record of voting with the White House 98 percent of the time, more than any other member of the Colorado delegation. We hope his change of status will give Allard a more independent outlook, particularly on environmental, fiscal and military matters.

All in all a very slanted editorial.  Colorado Media Matters will be happy with with this one, but that is what the Post expected.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

If Anyone Has Doubts . . .

. . .about why Dick Wadhams should be running the Colorado Republican Party, they should read the Denver Post's article "Allard's out, but watch his 'pit bull'" by Diane Carmin.

She assumes Wadhams has the job and makes a prediction that Wadhams'

Job 1 . . . will be to find someone to run for Allard's seat in 2008.

If history is any guide, it'll be a smiling, underestimated good ol' boy.

I know the perfect candidate.  He is likely not on any one's list.  The problem is that I don't know if he has an interest.  We'll leave it at that.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Colorado Republican Party Blog

Holy Cow!  I didn't know that the Colorado Republicans had a blog.  I will be adding it to my blogroll when they start posting. 

It is probably a bad sign that it is already past the middle of January and they are yet to make a 2007 post. 

An even worse sign is that they have not updated their "newsroom" since August 17th.  I had thought the election was over sometime in early November, but I guess it ended in August after all.

I have commented elsewhere that blogs need to be active for two years or longer to build an audience.  Political blogs can't just start a few months before the election and stop after the election.  They need to operate all year around.

In fact, any Republican who thinks he can be,  or ought to be a serious candidate for office in 2008 should have had his blog in operation YESTERDAY!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Tancredo for President?

It seems that Congressman Tom Tancredo will be running for President, and not the Colorado Senate Seat being vacated by Senator Wayne Allard. 

I believe that he once described himself as being too short, and too fat to be president.  Those aren't his only problems.  While he has tried to ride the Immigration horse to national prominence, he is still a one issue candidate.  If that single issue had proven strong enough to bring Republicans to victory in 2006, he might have gained credibility. 

Tancredo made a big bet when he supported a tough immigration candidate for Congress in Arizona over the National Republican Party's more moderate choice.  While his man won the primary, he lost the general election badly.  

It would not be surprising if Tancredo's real goal, if he is realistic, is to take a shot at getting the Vice Presidential nomination.  

Even failed Vice Presidential candidates gain enough visibility that they become somewhat credible candidates for a future run at the Presidency in their own right.  Think John Edwards, Joe Lieberman, and Bob Dole, to name a few recent examples.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Bloggers accredited to the Libby Trial

On Sunday, the Gazette Telegraph printed an AP story that reported that the Federal Judge hearing the Scooter Libby Trial was issuing six press passes to bloggers.  Unfortunately, they did not put it on their own site and I have been unable to find it anywhere else, so I will do a bit of real loose paraphrasing mixed with my own commentary.

Judge Reggie Walton of the US District Court for the District of Columbia is issuing six of 100 press passes to bloggers.  This is actually a big deal because it drives a stake into the heart of the MSM claim that bloggers are not journalists.  As long as the bloggers who show up don't step on their own feet, this will go a long way toward legitimizing bloggers as journalists.

The article quotes Robert Cox, "president of the 1000 member Media Bloggers Association" as saying that two of its members were getting seats.  After doing some digging, I discovered that the two were both liberal blogs, though Cox claims to be inviting big and small blogs, across the political spectrum.

I had never heard of the "1000 member Media Bloggers Association" so I googled it.  The site I got must have been an old site because it appeared to have links to "members," about half of which were dead.   There is a newer site.  Cox also runs Wordsinedgewise.  After looking that blog over, it appears that Cox may be doing bloggers a big service, and that the liberals simply discovered it first.  Wordsinedgewise has a link to the new Medial Bloggers Association site with a story on what he has accomplished.

I plan to follow this story more to see who ends up with the six slots.  If they go to nothing but liberal bloggers, you can expect the coverage to be as negative as possible, and Cox will have done himself or the blogosphere no favor.

After searching more, I found two Washington Post articles.  The first was titled "Too casual to sit on Press Row."

This weekend the Washington Post had a small article, again mentioning the "Media Bloggers Association," and identifying additional bloggers as representing the HuffingtonPost and Daily Kos, both of which are far left wing blogs.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (2) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

It is Just Easier

I have to give my wife credit for this observation, and it appears to be true.  She says that Democrats and their voters always look for the easy way out. 

It is easier to run than to stay and fight, so the Democrats are always for running.
It is easier to raise taxes than to make government more efficient, so the Democrats always favor tax increases.
It is easier to pay welfare than require people to be self supporting.
It is easier to have Sandy Berger destroy documents than to answer to history.
It is easier to claim to protect Social Security than to try to fix it.
It is easier to clean up an American city bombed by Iran than to prevent it from happening.
It is easier to launch a few cruise missiles at empty camps than arrest or shoot down an American enemy.
It is easier to withdraw from Somalia than to land five tanks.
It is easier to hold hearings than to govern.
It is easier to vote as a block not to convict an impeached President than to make him take responsibility.
It is easier to write about profiles in courage than for Senators to exhibit any.
It is easier to fight a war piecemeal than to try to win overwhelmingly.
It is easier to allow a third rate country to hold our embassy 444 days than take meaningful action.
It is easier to be a Democrat because it is the party of irresponsibility.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Allard Won't Run in 08

Colorado Senator Wayne Allard announced that he will not be running for a third term.  Life is going to get interesting in this state. 

The Rocky Mountain News has the story.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

I Can't Wait for Superbowl Sunday

If yesterday was any indication, the nation's eyes turn to pro Football this time of year.  My blog hits went way down yesterday.  My pages viewed to visitors was half what it has been, meaning that most folks who came didn't spend a lot of time looking around.  I'm guessing Superbowl Sunday will be as dead as Christmas.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

25 Blogging Tips

I am always looking for insight as to how the blogosphere works.  When someone writes a bunch of tips, they provide the needed insight.  Searchengineland.com provides just such an article, 25 Tips to Optimize your blog for readers and search engines.

I had to chuckle last night as I wrote and then removed an essay that commented on townhall's main blogger blogrolls.  You can do what I did.  See if you can find a townhall blog among them. I didn't.  Be careful, though.  I did get forwarded to a porn site when I went to a defunct blogrolled site, of which there are too many, and followed their supposed link to their new site.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

State of the Judiciary

This week, Colorado Chief Justice Mary J. Mullarkey gave her "State of the Judiciary" speech this week.  Law Week Colorado Online has made the speech available to the public.  Normally they will leave it available for only a week, so I expect the link to be broken.

Two paragraphs stood out to me.  The first was her celebration of her party's taking control of all branches of Colorado Government, and the potential it creates for bigger government.

The first week of a new session always fills us with optimism about the future and the hope that great things can be accomplished for the citizens of our state. When state government works together to build a future that better meets the needs of the public, there is reason to be optimistic.

Toward the end of the speech, she said:

The future of the Judicial Branch depends on the support of the citizens and the other branches of government. In the past year, as the state celebrated the fortieth anniversary of the merit selection of judges, Colorado voters rejected a proposed constitutional amendment which would have imposed term limits on appellate judges. The effort to educate voters about the impact of the proposed amendment came from many different sources, but especially from leaders in the Executive and Legislative Branches of government. This effort reinforced my belief that the three branches of government must understand one another and work together to educate the public about the functions of state government. The people of Colorado must continue to treasure and respect the role of the Judicial Branch as an essential feature of state government. We have only to look around the world to see what happens in a place that does not have the rule of law.

I think it is clear that John Andrews has not gone away.  He will be back in 2008 with a stripped down version of Amendment 40, and I think he might well win.   It is in Chief Justice Mullarkey's interest to try to encourage the governor and the legislature to fight it more vocally the next time around, so the part that says "especially from leaders in the Executive and Legislative Branches of government"  is more wishful thinking, more propaganda than truth. 

Amendment 40 was defeated thanks to the efforts of the Colorado Bar Association which spent $500,000, on the effort.  That is an amount four times greater than the annual amount spent on citizen restitution for attorney misconduct by the Colorado Supreme Court.  If the CBA is to keep those expenses (about $5 per year per attorney) down, it must keep the current crop of justices in office.  If any reader thinks those facts are lost on either party, I have land just south of New Orleans that I'd like to sell.

If the "leaders of the legislative branch" tried to "educate" the voters on Amendment 40, they did so very quietly.  It is true that four current and former governors and Attorney General John Suthers came out vocally against 40, and that they had some effect.  Except for the attorney general, though, and possibly Governor Bill Owens, none of those people had to risk a future election.

The news media can be counted on to gloss over the ethics problems that the Supreme Court has created and let fester.  For the most part, they don't even bother to report on the issue, but when they do, they are careful not to identify individual judges.  At no time do they report that multiple judges are breaking the state law requiring 90 day decisions, or even that there is such a law.  They certainly don't report that there is a potential penalty to District Judges of loss of 90 days pay for late decisions, but that that law is not enforced by the Supreme Court.

I wonder how much will change between now and the 2009 State of the Judiciary address.  If the voters of Colorado get tired between now and then of the Chief Justice talking non-partisanship at retention time but acting very partisan the remainder of the time, we could see some Supreme Court justices not retained.

If the MSM is made aware that they won't get a free pass when they give the legal system a free pass, we might see some honest reporting on legal issues.  They might even report on the fact that it is impossible for citizens to make certain kinds of complaints against attorneys despite the wording of the Code of Professional Conduct.

If Lawyers who are CBA officers are called to account on the internet, both personally and professionally for the positions of the Bar Association on legal ethics issues, they might see a need to protect the public first, and lawyers second.  That would be a welcome change from the current mentality: Judges protect lawyers, lawyers protect judges, and no one protects the public.

If individual politicians are made accountable for their failure to sponsor and vote for legislation that reforms the system, they will be unlikely to want to "educate" the public" as to how a new Amendment 40 is a bad thing.

Yes, a lot can happen between now and 2009.  An informed public is not likely to "treasure" or even "respect" a judiciary that believes its first constituency is the Bar Association.  It should be a fun two years.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Stumbling Around Wikipedia

I spent a part of the day stumbling around Wikipedia, both looking at some of the posts, and playing in their "sandbox." 

It is clear that there is a lot to fix, far more than a single individual could accomplish.  One of the requirements of making changes is that they be documented.  You can't just go in and add a statement, for example, that the sun rises in the east.  You have to go find where someone else said that and use them as a reference.  Then someone will challenge your work, whether it is good or bad.  You must stick around to defend what you have done.

You have to use your imagination to stumble onto articles.  For example, there is an out of date article on the CO5 2006 race.  I wouldn't have guessed there would be such an article.

I've tried to figure out how to organize an ongoing system to fix this stuff.  It appears that it is in the interest of the Congressional Staff of Congressmen and Senators to monitor their own, and their potential opponent's articles.  When they need help, as for example, when there is a vote, they could call on the party's blog coordinator. 

It has occurred to me that this would be a good job for organizations like High School and College Young Republicans, provided they had good supervision.  No vandalism can be tolerated. 

I think that it is fairly common for College students to have Lexus-Nexus access, which would assist the process of finding links.

Wikipedia has a policy against blog owners citing their own blog, and they discourage others from citing blogs that aren't quality blogs.  As I read that, I wondered what would happen if the person citing this blog about an issue made the claim that the MSM was not covering the issue.  The need for legal ethics reform falls in that category.

When I looked at the discussion tab of the Bob Beauprez article, I discovered that "sholom," a prolific editor, was proposing leaving in the stuff about the NCIC data base in and taking out some of the more obnoxious controversies that weren't controversies at all in his opinion.  He only thought it was a controversy because the Denver papers were playing it up.  He is not from Colorado, so he couldn't know that, a few days before the election, the Post admitted that no one in the history of that law had ever been prosecuted.  Nor could he know that the Denver papers were not trying to be objective in their coverage.

When the MSM is not being objective, the solution is for a prominent Republican to give a blog an interview and use that interview as a reference.  That is another reason for the Republican Party to have its own blog, both at state and county levels.

Also, when I write my blog entries, I almost always source them and link to the sources.  If someone were to use the sources, rather than my blog as a reference, no one could have an objection.

I won't be publicly listing the articles that I think need to be fixed, as that would draw opposition.  I will be making a list, and checking it twice, to see who is naughty, and who is nice.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

And John Edwards Wants to be President!

Former Senator John Edwards is a multi-multi millionaire.  He made his millions as a trial attorney, and is widely admired in trial attorney circles for some of the stunts he has pulled.  He even wrote a book about it, Four Trials.

Last week, I provided some "wacky warnings" as legal humor.  Those were not original to me, of course, and I gave credit.  Other bloggers, law bloggers, saw the same information and there has been an ongoing discussion of the issue.

Overlawyered.com quoted from Edward's book, and I am going to quote much more than I normally would to make a different point than they did:

"[Edwards & Kirby partner David Kirby] had asked [the defendant's chief engineer] a fairly straightforward question: 'Would you agree that the manufacturer of a product has an obligation to inform all of the users of its products of all the dangers that are known that are associated with the use of their product?'

"'I don't believe that.' The reply was chilling."

(John Edwards, Four Trials 197-98 (emphasis added).) Well, I don't believe that, either, and neither do the vast majority of people: that's why there isn't a warning on my bottle of Poland Springs that excessive water drinking can be fatal. But Edwards went on to use that deposition excerpt at trial to argue that the defendant exhibited "corporate indifference."

The warning in question would have been merely redundant and irrelevant, rather than wacky, but Edwards' position can be one of only two things: either (1) omitting the tiniest detail from a list of warnings is "chilling" indifference to safety; or (2) it's perfectly alright for trial lawyers to lie about the meaning of deposition excerpts and misrepresent a reasonable answer as damning evidence.

I normally would have made the second point (my red highlight) about the ethics of any lawyer who did this.  John Edwards wants to be President.  Doesn't he recognize that this kind of conduct is not what we need at this point (or any point) in our history.  By writing this passage, he is admitting that he is unethical.  If he gets elected, he will be quibbling about the meaning of the word "is."

If you read the comments, you will notice that John Edwards doesn't have the support of quite all the liberals.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive