Land-grabber Deluxe

Using an “adverse possession” common law, a former judge, mayor and city council member in Boulder, Colorado, named Richard McLean, seized a couple’s land after developing an “emotional attachment” to it.

And that’s all he needed.

The judge had been trespassing on Kirlins’ property for over 20 years. He hadn’t taken a shine to the entire land. No, he just wanted enough of render it useless for development. It’s an awful story, but I think it says plenty about the state of property rights in the country today.

(It should be pointed out, there has been an outpouring of anger about the case locally.)

The story is so absurd, so unfair, so ludicrous, I had a difficult time believing that it could actually happen - even in Boulder.

It’s about a couple named Don and Susie Kirlin. They moved to the city in 1980. A few years later, the Kirlins purchased a plot of land near their residence, hoping to someday build a “dream home.”

“We took advantage of the market in the early ’80s,” says Susie Kirlin, almost apologetic for making a smart investment.

Children interfered slightly with the master plan - three of them in the next few years - postponing any development of the property.

As the children began to make their own way in life, the couple decided it was time to finally develop the property in late 2006.

By then, it was too late.

Despite owning the land, despite living only 200 yards from the property, despite hiking past it every week with their three dogs, despite spraying for weeds and fixing fences, despite paying homeowner association dues and property taxes each year, someone else had taken a shine to it. Someone powerful.

Former Boulder District Judge, Boulder Mayor, RTD board member - among other elected positions - Richard McLean and his wife, attorney Edith Stevens, used an arcane common law called “adverse possession” to claim the land for their own.

Read the rest here.

“I’d rather be right than president”

Jesse Walker at reason recently touched on the death the Prohibition Party’s presidential candidate Earl Dodge (”presumably of whatever the opposite is of cirrhosis of the liver.”) Dodge lived near me here in the Denver area and ran for every office imaginable. Though I wrote a an entire chapter in my book about teetotaling do-gooders and neo-prohibitionists, I admired Dodge as a decent person and a man with a sense of humor about himself.

Today, in my Denver Post column, I track down his daughter to talk.

For Earl Dodge, persistence never paid off. Ever.

Then again, constantly losing never upset the man, either. And as Dodge was sober his entire life, that’s an accomplishment worth remembering.

An old-school Baptist, imbued with unfaltering moral certitude, Dodge possessed a trait most moralizing politicians lack: a personality.

Dodge, who claimed to have never swallowed a drop of alcohol, died last week after collapsing at Denver International Airport at the age of 74.

He was on his way to sell political memorabilia - a pursuit that put him in his glory, according to family members.

That’s good. Because there wasn’t much glory in politics.

The Massachusetts native had run for the presidency six times on the Prohibition Party ticket. He also campaigned for governor of Colorado a couple of times and ran for the Senate in two states, among many other offices.

How did he typically fare? Let’s just say that the Prohibition Party’s theme song begins “I’d rather be right than president” for a very good reason.

“He ran for office every time he could,” Karen, one of Dodge’s seven children, tells me from the family’s Lakewood home, “until they made election laws such that it became too difficult for him to get on the ballot. And the truth is, most of the people in the party died off and left, and he stopped drawing a salary. So really he kept at it because he believed that alcohol was the root of a lot of society’s troubles.”

Dodge wasn’t an unsympathetic (or unhinged) puritanical Bible-thumper in a Carrie Nation/Pat Robertson sort of way.

The rest.

Ho Ho Ho, No No No

First Santa is mocked, told that he’s too fat and forced to exercise. Now, in Australian political correctness has gone … well, ho ho ho.

Recruitment firm Westaff — which supplies hundreds of Santas across the country — has told its trainees that the “ho ho ho” phrase could frighten children and could even be derogatory to women.

Julie Gale, who runs a campaign against sexualizing children, says: “Gimme a break. We are talking about little kids who do not understand that ‘ho, ho, ho’ has any other connotation, and nor should they … Leave Santa alone.”

No such luck.

Peace, love and no hugging

In Evergreen, not far from Denver, a middle school has banned the nefarious hug. Or more specifically they have outlined what a proper hug entails. Around two seconds of love, but no more.

“In many areas of our culture, hugging is completely appropriate and welcomed,” said a letter to parents. “Unfortunately, some of our students were taking hugging a bit too far.”

A second clarification letter states that there will be no “prolonged embraces between students that may be considered sexual harassment.”

Other inappropriate behavior (highlights are mine):

Appropriate interactions - no bullying, harassment and intimidation. This behavior can be direct or indirect such as cutting in line at lunch, superior attitudes and put-downs.

Appropriate conversations - no name calling, slang terms or cursing.

Appropriate dress - outlined in the student handbook, which states clothing should not distract from the educational environment.

Appropriate touching - no grabbing, inappropriate or prolonged hugging, slapping, back rubbing, pushing or inappropriate public displays of affection.

No slang terms for teenagers? I’m not sure they’ll have much to say. And isn’t a superior attitude a rather subjective area?

Then again, I suppose we can be happy that excessive hugging, slang and haughtiness are the biggest problems this school faces.

Parents no longer needed

An incredible story in the The Washington Post reports that the parents of around 2,300 Maryland suburban students who failed to get needed vaccinations may now face a $50 a day fine and up to 10 days in jail if their children fails to meet the state’s immunization requirements.

The threat of legal action is a last resort after months in which Prince George’s has struggled to get its 131,000 students immunized for chicken pox and hepatitis B, as mandated by the state. More than 2,300 students have not been immunized and have been barred from attending schools, almost two months after a Sept. 20 deadline for meeting the requirement.

“We can do this the easy way or the hard way, but it’s got to get done,” Prince George’s State’s Attorney Glenn F. Ivey (D) said at a news conference in Upper Marlboro. “I’m willing to move forward with legal action.”

What a tyrannical pipsqueak.

My wife and I would not allow our doctor to stick a needle into our two little girls with hepatitis B vaccine, not because we’re anti-vaccine, but because we deemed this vaccine unnecessary at such a young age. But even if Prince George parents are wrong about the shots effectiveness and worth, are we know a country where an attorney general coerce parents to inject pharmaceuticals into their children? If parents fail to walk lockstep will they now regularly be threatened with prison?

And yes, I realize there are negligent parents out there. I can assure you no law or threat of jail time will make them better parents. There are, however, hundreds of thousands of parents who have health concerns about hepatitis B — and other vaccinations.

Here are three actions parents take that are indisputably more harmful to a larger group of American children than skipping your hepatitis B vaccine in elementary school:

1. Feeding kids soda and junk food every day.
2. Allowing kids to watch 5 hours of TV every day.
3. Allowing kids to play five hours of video games every day.

Are AGs prepared to threaten these parents with jail terms, as well?

We Had a Deal!

Everyone in New York has to deal with pigeons. I lived in the New York area for over 30 years and worked in Manhattan for about a decade. Were pigeons really that big of a problem? No. Occasionally a person is crapped on. So is the world. And so is everyday life in New York.

Now, it seems, New Yorkers will be dealing with a hyper-nannyistic councilperson who is going to disturb the way of the world. A $1000 fine for feeding the pigeons? If we’re handing our excessive penalties for victimless crimes, why not a 5-year term in Sing Sing? I can assure you, no one will ever feed the pigeons in NYC again.

Don’t feed the pigeons … or else. A new pigeon plan is in the works that includes the creation of — get this — a pigeon czar.

New York City is a smorgasbord for pigeons, but something could break that bread line.

“We hope people who are spending their time collecting old bread from bakeries to feed pigeons to poop on your head will stop,” Councilman Simcha Felder, D-Brooklyn, said.

A Pigeon Czar? We don’t have enough idiot Czars in this country?

The whole thing reminds me of the classic Seinfeld episode in which George runs over a obstinate pigeon:

JERRY: You ran over some pigeons? How many?

GEORGE: What ever they had. Miranda thinks I’m a butcher but it’s not my fault is it? Don’t we have a deal with the pigeons?

JERRY: Of course. We have a deal. They get out of the way of our cars, we look the other way on the statue defecation.

GEORGE: Right! And these pigeons broke the deal. I will not accept the blame for this.

The law isn’t exactly the law

Hayley Jaqua, a 25-year-old full-time college student recently charged with a petty drug offense, is the subject of my Denver Post column today. According to the Higher Education Act’s aid elimination penalty provision — passed by Congress without any debate in 1998 — a student must check off a box on financial aid applications, revealing any drug offenses. Jaqua was caught with small amount of pot. Still, even her 100 dollar ticket may mean a denial of college aid.

According to marijuana-legalization advocates — and the ACLU — more than 200,000 students have lost out on financial aid for this reason since 1998.

What’s more irritating to me, at least, is that Denver had passed an initiative legalizing the carrying of small amount of marijuana in 2005. It went completely ignored. The next year pot busts actually rose in Denver. “It’s still illegal in the city of Denver, because Denver’s in Colorado,” Denver District Attorney Mitch Morrissey (who works for the people of Denver) once helpfully explained.

A couple of days ago, Mile High voters passed another initiative making marijuana busts the city’s lowest priority. Denver cops just follow state law. And most residents realize, again, their vote will be ignored.

Is the city gaining anything from moving forward with prosecutions that cost taxpayers - taxpayers who have already plainly stated they don’t want to prosecute - thousands of dollars for every case?

And why do we have initiatives in Denver if city officials simply ignore them anyway?

You know, sometimes you have to wonder who exactly is smoking ganja around here.

Always “For the Children”

Some progressives seem to be holding Big Bad Tobacco culpable for the failure of citizens in Oregon to walk lock-step towards collective medicine.

The New York Times yesterday ran a predictable and absurd editorial fingering tobacco for the defeat of an SCHIP-lite initiative in Oregon. The editorial was titled … wait for it … “Big Tobacco Defeats Sick Kids.” According to the Times, Oregonians didn’t vote against an open-ended, budget-busting socialized health-care plan because they happen to be suspicious or judicious. Nah, they were just fooled by Big Tobacco’s media buys.

Convenient.

First of all — and I realize this is unpopular — tobacco companies still have a First Amendment right to inject themselves into political campaigns. Though, frankly, it’s irrelevant as their power is declining precipitously.

Here’s a fascinating article about Senate and House members relying on sin taxes to bolster tax hikes, especially for “children’s health bill.” This holds an inherent absurdity, as Congress tries to crush the blight of smoking while they rely on smoking to fund health care. What happens when folks quit, one wonders? I suppose government can then turn to taxes on Big Food and Big Macs.

Anyway, the piece also tells us a little about the waning and almost non-existent power of so-called Big Tobacco lobby these days.

The tobacco industry gave $3.5 million to federal campaigns and candidates in the 2006 election cycle, ranking 64th among major industry groups, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Ten years earlier, it gave $10.5 million, ranking 26th.

George Soros probably handed out $3.5 million to a “progressive” organization in the time it took me to post this.

In reality, many lawmakers, according to Associated Press, have never heard boo from a tobacco lobbyist in their career. Something you’d never learn as hip anti-smoking public service announcements continue to contend that Big Tobacco is a player in Washington — or anywhere else.

Then again, when the NYT editorial board’s narrative is disrupted a boogey man is needed.

Earth is in the balance, after all

My Denver Post column wonders why Colorado is working on making “sustainability” and climate change science standard fare in all K-12 classrooms?

Standard fare? I’m a weird person. I don’t want social conservatives teaching my kids about creationism. I don’t want Republicans teaching my kids about balanced budgets. And I don’t want Democrats teaching my children global-warming hysteria.

Locals should be particularly worried because the state of Colorado has failed miserably in providing children with the skills that may actually help them in this “New Energy Economy” everyone is talking about. You know, things like proficiency in English, math and hard science.

“I love having a cigarette with a beer”

University of Colorado regent Michael Carrigan recently proposed the banning of all smoking on school property across the state — which amounts to nearly 2,000 acres.

“The university has an opportunity to be a leader in 21st-century health care, and I’m confident that 10 years from now, most campuses will have a smoking ban in effect,” Carrigan said.

I agree with Carrigan that most schools probably have smoking bans in ten years – perhaps most towns in America will as well — but it has nothing to do with schools leading us into 21st century health care. (Does that mean socialism, I’m not sure.) And it has everything to do with adults being treated as children.

I had that opportunity to listen to Carrigan on a local Denver radio show throw out all kinds of ridiculous statistics about smoking bans dramatically bringing down heart attack rates. Naturally, his contentions went unchallenged.

“We don’t want tobacco use and addiction promoted on our campus …” Carrigan said to the CBS affiliate in town.

Actually, by allowing students, most of them still free adults, to make those choices for themselves, you’re promoting individual responsibility and choice. When you promote coerced 21st-century health care models, you promote the opposite.

Though perhaps there is still some hope for our youth.

“I love having a cigarette with a beer or with a coffee, in between class or when I’m reading,” sophomore Jonathon Gold said. “If you can go in a store and buy them legally, you should be able to smoke in a public place.”

Amen

Eat more, live longer?

A recent study by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Cancer Institute report that there “100,000 fewer deaths among the overweight in 2004, the most recent year for which data were available, than would have expected if those people had been of normal weight.”

This study, and others, have, according to the New York Times led experts to think about re-examining the relationship between weight and health. They should also re-examine what they’ve peddled as an ideal weight.

“If we use the criteria of mortality, then the term ‘overweight’ is a misnomer,” said Daniel McGee, professor of statistics at Florida State University.

“I believe the data,” said Dr. Elizabeth Barrett-Connor, a professor of family and preventive medicine at the University of California, San Diego. A body mass index of 25 to 30, the so-called overweight range, “may be optimal,” she said.

The question, however, is will the media report these studies with the same zeal they did the now-debunked CDC report claiming obesity kills 400,000 people yearly. And will Morgan Spurlock run a correction?

What would Jesus do?

For starters, he’d enjoy only a half serving of eggnog and leave the cookies to the kids.

In England, Santa Claus is getting a workout because he’s setting a bad example for children. The corpulent quasi-religious symbol is just too fat. Far be it for me, as a non-believer, to wade into religious battles, but you know who was in really good shape? Jesus. Perhaps those plump English children should start celebrating Christmas with Jesus, they’d be slender — and righteous.

The traditional children’s hero, best known for feasting on mince pies left out on Christmas eve, has always sported a bulging midriff.

But shopping centre bosses are giving the well-wisher his marching orders - to the nearest gym - to tackle the increasing problem of obesity.

The revelation comes after a medical report earlier this month stated that by 2050 more than 50 per cent of Brits will be obese.

NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams…

… interviewed me for a short feature on pampering children and super safe playgrounds and schools games (video). In addition, here is a special web extra that features, an extended look by NBC at Nanny State and children.