Two ways CO Democrats have made life harder and more expensive. The demand for sexism at the Colorado Sun outstrips the supply. Once again nature defeats my simple ideas.
Two ways to make our state less friendly (and costlier) for business which will make it costlier for us all and reduce economic opportunity.
The two things linked below deal with expenses for business in this state.
The first is a report by the Common Sense Institute, a right-leaning think tank, about how laws that expand the number of things that business can be sued for (referred to in the report as "civil causes of action").
I'll leave it to you to delve into the report yourself if you'd like, but I excerpted the abstract as screenshot 1.
There are some things there that I'd like to give special attention to:
--Regulations like these are especially harmful to small businesses because they, unlike large corporations which have in-house counsel, have to purchase their help with navigating regulations and/or defending themselves in court RETAIL not wholesale.
--Quoting the abstract, "Colorado had the 9th-highest tort cost per resident in 2020. Between 2016 and 2020, Colorado experienced the second-highest rate of population-adjusted tort cost growth among the eight states studied in this report. Only California’s costs grew faster." This from our "Libertarian" and "Pro-Business" governor who is a believer in freedom.
The second link below is about a survey of 156 business owners in Colorado commissioned by the Chamber of Commerce. I took a lengthy quote that summarizes things well and attached it as screenshot 2.
Want to see something more dire? Check out screenshot 3 from the same article. Again, our policymakers are so busy playing to their base that they forget that this isn't a one-player game and no business is required to be here. They're free to move or close. Push hard enough and they will (or they'll just never decide to join the game).
We need to, as a state, decide what kind of economy we want. Regulations that differentially harm small business, that cause out of state headquartered companies to leave, that hamper expansion or creation of existing or new businesses are an outcome of the policy coming out of our capitol.
Do we want to please the Democrat base in this state at the expense of jobs and the ability to put food on the table?
It is possible to have a functioning economy and a good environment. Saying that we have to do as we've done to have environmental health to pass to our children is just as extreme as saying that we should thoughtlessly wring every bit of money out of the earth that we can, nature be damned.
Unfortunately for us, we have politicians running this state now that are that "other side of the extremism coin" from the latter crowd.
Get involved and speak up. Particularly if you like a functioning economy with items you can actually afford. The stakes here are as plain as the nose on your face.
https://commonsenseinstituteco.org/co-legal-expenses/
https://tsscolorado.com/chamber-survey-regulations-have-put-economy-on-wrong-track/
The demand for sexism outstrips the supply for the Colorado Sun audience ...
When a plant gets stressed or low on water or senses that it won't have enough time, it will bolt. It will produce SOMETHING, fruit, flower, seed, even if that something is subpar because it feels the same imperative we all do: get your genes into the next generation.
I think of that with articles like the one from the Sun (proud home of the racist OB/GYN's!) because by nearly any reasonable standard, what they produced is a reach. It's an attempt to get SOMETHING about sexism out there even if it's not really all that good. Gotta keep those left-leaning readers (who expect sexism and racism) reading.
Is there really a "need" for women avalanche rescuers? There may be a need for them and women can fill the need, but if the jobs are staffed by competent people of whatever gender, would that leave a hole somehow?
About the best examples as to need that I could find here were ...
-- we need women in avalanche education so that other women can learn about avalanches better (dubious claim at best—coming from someone who has been an educator for more years than I can count)
--so that there is more than one woman in an avalanche rescue group in case one woman has a safety concern and wouldn't speak up (if you cannot speak up at a safety breifing, you’re not fit for the job, and also not speaking up during safety meetings when you should is not a problem exclusive to women it’s a business-industry-culture problem).
Consider, too, this gem of a quote from the company that was profiled for the article:
“'It’s hard enough for anyone to make a living as an avalanche professional,' said Azissa Singh, a program manager for the nonprofit [American Institute for Avalanche Research and Education]. 'Then you add in other factors in people’s lives, such as not being connected or preconceived notions around what a person can and can’t do.' Those barriers can be further amplified by women who face discrimination based on race, physical ability, nonconforming gender identity or whether they’re mothers, how much money they make and a host of other historically marginalizing factors, Singh said."
Yeah, just let that marinate for a sec before moving on.
Look, I don't think I care about whether or not the person who would be tasked with finding me and/or digging me out in the unlikely event I'm caught in an avalanche (not a common thing on the Eastern Plains) is black or white, male or female, has a "nonconforming gender identity" or is more masculine than Tom Selleck a la Magnum P.I./more feminine than Barbie.
I just want them to be competent.
Yes, let's welcome women into avalanche rescue and education. Let's do it, however, from the idea that we need more competent people not that we need more women (and we'll worry about competence later).
https://coloradosun.com/2023/09/14/colorado-avalanche-education-women/
Related:
Interesting blog post to share about a study asking about femininity in America today.
I, again, question the value of surveys so take the numbers here with a grain of salt.
The point here is that you should take people as individuals. Yes, indeedy, that woman who wears pink with 2" long fingernails may not be bubbleheaded.
And I know this might shock you, but she may be dressing that way 'cause she likes it, not to please someone else.
https://ifstudies.org/blog/what-does-it-mean-to-be-very-feminine-in-america-today
Well, I think I was wrong. Or I at least have to acknowledge that my simple idea may have run up against the complexity of the world.
It's that time again. Last post of the week and that means something interesting, a curiosity or something fun that's not related to politics.
As before, too, this will be the last one til Sunday. I'll be away from my computer tomorrow.
So, I had this theory in my garden.
My idea goes like this: I water the plants twice to ensure better absorption of the water (particular when I'm watering in an area that has a slope to it).
I don't give EXTRA water, mind you. I just come through and give a little at first and then more after that's soaked in.
My thinking is (was??--see the video below) that by wetting the soil first with a little water, the second shot of water will soak in better or faster and there will be less runoff.
Seemed like a good idea to me and, while I didn't do any real scientific investigation, seems like maybe it helped reduce run off.
I have to wonder now whether or not what I was seeing was an example of seeing what I want to see (confirmation bias).
I say this because I recently watched the Practical Engineering video below about whether or not droughts make floods worse, and one of the serious questions he addresses is whether wet or dry soil changes the absorption of more water.
I'll leave it to you to watch up, but the short answer is (as it distressingly often can be) that it's both "complicated" and "it depends".
Given that, and the fact that watering twice like I've done sometimes eats up your time, I think I may transition back to watering once.
Have a good Friday! Back at it Sunday.