Peoples Press Collective » Colorado

In Defense of the Political Insult

Eileen McGuire-Mahony — Fri, 16 Sep 2011 22:31:55 +0000

Being able to publicly insult politicians with impunity is a sign of a civilized nation. It leads to empowered citizens, readable satire, and terrifically fun campaign seasons.

Electoral politics, by its nature, basically ensures the worst characters will win. In the time it takes one candidate to balk at some amoral tactic, a dozen others will have rushed ahead. It is a cynical and axiomatic truth that those who survive politics at the very top levels are not at all the best men. Governed as we are by ethically dubious egomaniacs, we owe it to posterity to record the character and disposition of the jackals we’ve been foolish enough to elect.

Obviously, this makes us look bad. It makes the politicians look worse.

Lèse Majesté, the French term for ‘injured majesty’, refers to laws criminalizing anything deemed offensive or derogatory to the dignity of a sovereign. We have no such nonsense in America. For one thing, the majority of the Congress would soon be hanged for violating lèse majesté against itself. Though, come to think of it, wouldn’t that be nice?

A relic of hereditary power, lèse majesté is usually found in the remaining pockets of monarchy. In some places, people can actually earn prison sentences for nasty remarks, including those made privately. It’s been used against foreign nationals who made unflattering comments while in a country with lèse majesté, including a Coloradan who “defamed” the King of Thailand.

In practice, those states that have such statutes often expand their use of lèse majesté to go after people who malign the sovereign’s main squeeze, rugrats, and assorted grasping relatives. For instance, a man was fined several hundred Euros for saying rude things about Beatrix, coronated git of The Netherlands, and describing some rather intimate things he’d like to do to the old dame. I pulled up her picture. Quite frankly, in passing judgment, I’d prescribe therapy or, perhaps, corrective eyewear. Even better, I’d recommend that the delicate little snowflakes at the royal court grow a pair.

The proper response to an insult is, if it was witty and well-aimed, appreciative laughter, and, if it was gauche and unimaginative, cold silence. Decent people have better things to do than bring the power of the state to bear on irreverent words.

Refining the dialogue and punishing the most ill-bred cretins among us is the work of culture; it is not a fit task for the government. While we must, so as to preserve civil rights and private life, abide a certain level of vulgarity in the arena, we are under no obligation to stand for such behavior privately. In fact, it is precisely because we allow such freedoms in public life that we may maintain our own standards in our own personal spheres.

It is one thing to allow some behavior legally and another altogether to smile upon it in polite society. Trying to legislate manners is as stupid and dangerous as trying to lower the murder rate via cotillion lessons.

The state that proposes to regulate barbed speech wherever it is found is, make no mistake, proposing to regulate private life.

When a state does not quite outlaw the act of tittering at the political class but goes about obsessively collecting information on sharp-tongued critics, it’s a dire sign. In the era of the Absolute Monarchs, this sort of spying was, I imagine, down by mustachioed cads who went bopping about in run-down neighborhoods, probably wearing long capes and velvet masks. These days, such stuff is relegated to a number of Foggy Bottom cosplay groups while the work of collating data on dissenters gets done via the Web; that, of course, is infinitely more frightening.

Modern technology has allowed levels of surveillance and intrusion once unimaginable. Even thoughtful people, with keen grasps of policy and ethics, admit that theory lags far behind technology here. Hypothetically putting such marvelous machines and gizmos in the hands of Potomac troglodytes who never think and have no morals is a formula for crisis. Worse, we won’t be able to say rude things about the inevitable screw-ups.

A state that chases down each insult and every aspersion is necessarily an exspansive police state, a society that recognizes no free speech and respects no privacy. The paranoia and malice of such a government infects the citizens, making them reproachful against one another, turning them into unpaid spies who work by a sort of ‘Denounce your neighbor lest he denounce you first’ logic.

Ironically, by the time any state could be well along the path to such dystopia, it would too late to do much fighting back. The increase of government surveillance strikes at the root of the ability to effectively resist the overreach of the state. It is for this reason that I have some sympathy for immediate and pronounced reactions when some facet of the government announces plans for one or another asinine program. Just think, if we’d all flown into timely, apoplectic rage back in January 2010 when Homeland Security began rolling out backscatter x-rays, it might still be possible to fly with dignity.

Alright, fine, there’s my theory and pontificating. How does this apply? Do I think the United States is on the brink of upending the First Amendment and assigning the political elite to a special realm where no one may dare criticize them? No. For one thing, American free speech protections and American slander and libel laws give wide latitude to speech that might be upsetting and unkind. Especially compared to some states, we have a way to go before even getting close to criminalizing insults.

But, I stand by the idea that the strongest way to fight off attacks on civil liberties is to push back immediately, not to belittle the threat. Happily, if applied soon enough, a few belittling insults can work wonders in cutting down the sort of pompous twerps who might like to shroud themselves in some sort of artificially polite aura. In free speech matters, one must remember that the First Amendment protects the rights of those advocating to restrict free speech, paradoxically putting legitimate champions of unrestricted speech at something of a disadvantage. So, say I, mock early and mock often.

PPC 2010 Colorado Ballot Initiatives Sample Ballot

T.L. James — Tue, 02 Nov 2010 02:00:32 +0000

For those of you voting along at home, we here at PPC have looked over the initiatives on this year’s Colorado general election ballot and developed a set of recommendations. These are the opinion of the PPC board, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of PPC’s contributing authors (who are not only free to disagree with us, but encouraged to write about it, here, if they do).

(Read the recommendations after the jump…)

The most controversial choices here are bound to be our NO votes on Amendments 60, 61, and 101. While it’s hard to not look fondly on any effort to limit the taxing and borrowing power of state and local governments, we believed these amendments included too many unnecessary and poisonous elements along with the highly desirable limitations and TABOR-strengthening provisions.

AMENDMENT P

YES

Regulation of Games of Chance

Text of Bill

WHAT IT DOES:

Alters Article XVIII of the state Constitution to establish a licensing authority for games of chance (including raffles, bingo, etc.). Moves the licensing authority currently held by the Secretary of State to an independent authority to be established by the Legislature.

WHY WE VOTE YES:

Oversight of charitable raffles, bingo, and other such gaming is currently performed by the Secretary of State, while casino gambling is regulated by the Department of Revenue. The proposed change would grant the SoS’ longstanding request to transfer oversight authority to the DoR, to consolidate similar functions of government under one department. The Amendment does not appear to increase the authority of the state government, and holds the potential for a small increase in efficiency through consolidation of similar functions.

AMENDMENT Q

YES

Temporary Location for the State Seat of Government

Text of Bill

WHAT IT DOES:

Establishes a Constitutional process whereby, in a defined emergency situation, the Governor may convene the Legislature and Supreme Court away from Denver, for the purpose of designating through legislation an emergency capital for a defined temporary period. Defines Denver as the permanent state capital, along with a process under which this designation may be changed through a vote of the people.

WHY WE VOTE YES:

The Colorado Constitution (Art. VIII, Sec. 3) currently requires a two-thirds vote in a general election to change the location of the seat of state government for any reason. In the event of a disaster or emergency that rendered Denver unsafe or unusable, this existing provision would bar the core branches of state government from relocating and continuing operations. Amendment Q would provide a constitutional process for temporarily relocating the functions of the state government in an emergency, while preserving the original intent of Art. VIII, Sec. 3 that the voters must approve any permanent relocation.

AMENDMENT R

YES

Exempt Possessory Interests in Real Property

Text of Bill

WHAT IT DOES:

Exempts from property taxes those possessory interests in real property less than or equal to $6,000 (with inflation adjustments). In other words, it exempts things like ranchland leases or park concessions with a lease value of $6,000 or less from property taxes.

WHY WE VOTE YES:

The measure will help reduce the operating costs incurred by small ranchers and lease holders, and is at least a start on eliminating what would appear to be an unfair instance of property taxation on land not owned by the lessee.

AMENDMENT 60

Property Taxes

Ballot Question | Text of Measure

WHAT IT DOES:

Overrides actions by the state government and Colorado Supreme Court which weakened TABOR. Restores tax laws and limitations changed or weakened without voter approval.
Provides a mechanism for citizens to enforce TABOR by lawsuit, and to petition for tax reduction measures in all districts.
Requires enterprises and authorities to pay property taxes, and prohibits them from levying mandatory fees or taxes on property.
Specifically defines a mill levy freeze as a tax increase.
Establishes sunset provisions on all revenue increases.
Rescinds tax increases since 1992 which have exceeded approved ballot language/titles.
Cuts school district tax rates in half, replacing lost revenue with state aid.
Separates tax bills from other property levies, and tax measures from debt measures on November ballots.

WHY WE VOTE NO:

“No” votes on Amendments 60, 61, and 101 were difficult recommendations to make, given the immediate appeal any tax reduction, debt limitation, and TABOR-strengthening proposal. Unfortunately, the devil is in the details with these three amendments.

Each contains excellent elements, particularly those parts aimed at overturning the recent Colorado Supreme Court rulings which permitted “fees”, mill levy freezes, and other revenue-increasing end runs around TABOR. Unfortunately, in each of the three amendments, these salutary elements were paired with overreaching and unnecessary provisions which would wreak havoc on the already troublesome budgeting process.

We urge the sponsors of these measures to strip them down to the vital elements, and try again.

AMENDMENT 61

State and Local Debt Limitations

Ballot Question | Text of Measure

WHAT IT DOES:

Restores Constitutional prohibition on state use of debt by loan. Defines quite firmly what constitutes a “loan”
Repeals legislative power to limit local government debts, replacing it with mandatory voter approval for use of debt in loans by any unit of government.
Requires ballot title to specify the use of funds, and prohibits voter-approved debt from being diverted to other uses.
Limits non-enterprises from borrowing in excess of 10% of the assessed value of their tax base.
Overturns court rulings weakening TABOR definitions.
Prohibits approved debt from continuing past its stated term, and taxes established to pay that debt from being continued after it is paid (ie: prohibits another mill levy tax freeze).

WHY WE VOTE NO:

See Amendment 60.

AMENDMENT 62

Definition of Person (aka “Colorado Fetal Personhood” Initiative)

Ballot Question | Text of Measure

WHAT IT DOES:

Adds to Article II “Bill of Rights”, the term “person” as used in the state Constitution to apply to “every human being from the beginning of the biological development of that human being”.
Specifically applicable to Article II’s Sec. 3 “Inalienable Rights”, Sec. 6 “Equality of Justice”, and Sec. 25 “Due Process of Law”.

WHY WE VOTE NO:

As with the previous incarnation of this amendment in 2008, the amendment seeks to outlaw abortion, by making specific sections of the Colorado Constitution’s Bill of Rights applicable to all humans from the “beginning of the biological development of that human being”.

Vague law is bad law, and the proposed language is so vague that it would include as a rights violation anything that causes the death of a fetus from the moment of conception, including spontaneous abortions and accidental miscarriages.

Furthermore, the plain intent of this measure is to outlaw abortion in all forms and all circumstances in the state of Colorado…without actually saying so. The measure is a sneaky attempt to slip an abortion ban into the state Constitution without once mentioning the word “abortion”. This is dishonest and deceptive, and that alone should dissuade Coloradans from voting for this amendment.

AMENDMENT 63

YES

Health Care Choice

Ballot Question | Text of Measure

WHAT IT DOES:

Prohibits the State of Colorado from requiring any citizen to participate in any private or public health care plan.
Bars the state from prohibiting, restricting, or penalizing giving or receiving direct payment for medical services.
Excludes emergency services required by law, and health benefits associated with worker’s comp insurance.
Specifically states that this provision is an exercise of US Constitution Amendment 10.

WHY WE VOTE YES:

This amendment blunts to some degree the odious individual mandate included in “Obamacare” by prohibiting the state from passing any enabling legislation to support it. It also prohibits the state from banning fee-for-service healthcare (a development witnessed in other countries when they implemented socialized medicine), while not tampering with legal obligations regarding emergency care. The amendment is a step towards protecting the rights of individual Coloradans, and the separation of powers (state versus federal, in this case) under the U.S. federal system.

PROPOSITION 101

Motor Vehicle, Income, and Telecommunications Taxes and Fees (Statutory)

Ballot Question | Text of Measure

WHAT IT DOES:

Lowers car ownership taxes in 4 increments to $2 for new cars and $1 for used cars; sets combined registration charge at $10; terminates all but a few taxes/fees and clarifies any new charges are (TABOR-applicable) tax increases.
Sets the 2011 income tax rate at 4.5%, with 0.1% annual decreases to 3.5% in each year in which income tax net growth exceeds 6%.
Terminates as of 1/1/2011 all program-related charges on telecommunications service accounts, and defines any such charges added in the future as (TABOR-applicable) tax increases.

WHY WE VOTE NO:

See Amendment 60.

PROPOSITION 102

N/A

Criteria for Setting Bail and Type of Bond (Statutory)

Ballot Question | Text of Measure

WHAT IT DOES:

Makes changes to statutory law (not the Constitution) governing the criteria to be considered by judges when setting bond for criminal defendants.

WHY WE VOTE “PRESENT”:

The measure appears to push judges towards more significant bond terms in cases of violent crime, limiting in such cases the use of personal recognizance bonds.

It’s not clear that this is an issue of such vital urgency that the voters of Colorado should be asked to override normal legislative procedures to address it directly.

9News Laphamizes the Elections

T.L. James — Sat, 30 Oct 2010 02:37:38 +0000

I’m guessing this election results page at 9News is merely something published accidentally while they were testing the site for Tuesday, but it’s interesting and amusing (while it lasts online). Will be especially interesting and amusing to compare their “predictions” to the actual results.

Breaking: Coffman Withdraws Support for Maes

T.L. James — Fri, 03 Sep 2010 19:14:15 +0000

Hot on the heels of Republican Senate candidate Ken Buck’s announcement, Rep. Mike Coffman (R-CD6) will announce shortly that he is also withdrawing his support for Colorado Governor candidate Dan Maes.

Time is running out for Maes to make a decision — SoS Buescher is looking to certify the ballot by close of business today.

UPDATE: Here’s Mike Coffman’s announcement:

“It is because of my concern for the working families of Colorado that I am asking Dan Maes to quit the governor’s race. Colorado can’t afford to have the Mayor of Denver as our next governor who would continue the failed policies of Bill Ritter.” – Rep. Mike Coffman

UPDATE II: The Politico (for what it’s worth) suggests that there may be another Dan Maes-related scandal waiting to erupt:

In a meeting Friday morning, party chairman Dick Wadhams and other members of the state GOP executive committee met with Maes to present what one called “damaging evidence” that hasn’t yet been made public but would further erode his standing as a candidate, according to the source.

A second Republican consultant confirmed the account and said while there was no explicit ultimatum presented by the chairman to Maes, the message was clear.

“It was: Do you really want to put your family through this? If you stay in the race, you’ll have to endure this and this,” said the Republican, citing potential reports by the Denver Post.

UPDATE III: Dick Wadhams tells Complete Colorado that the Dan Maes “damaging evidence” story at Politico is false.

Will Ken Buck’s extremism beat Barack Obama’s?

Donald E. L. Johnson — Sat, 14 Aug 2010 14:29:19 +0000

Ken Buck is going be a big target for the Dems, especially on social issues. That could scare away the independents' votes for Buck. In the eyes of independents, moderates and Democrats, Buck is an extremist on social issues. Indeed, that is how I see him, but i"m willing to put that asside because I'm more worried about Obama's extremism than Buck's. Voters are very unhappy with everything Obama's doing, and outside groups will hammer Bennet on that. At this point Buck has the anti-Obama tide at his back. But Bennet has more money and better name recognition as well as the Obama organization behind him. As I've said before, outside groups will make the campaign vicious and nasty. While that will turn off the non confrontational know nothings in the electorate, it will ensure that most voters will know more about the candidates, including a lot of lies, than they ever wanted to know. This election will be about values, goals and the future of Colorado and America. It will be decided not by traditional Colorado Democrats and Republicans but by the more than a million of us who've moved to the state over the last 20 to 25 years. You might think of this year's senate race as a battle between Midwestern Republicans and California Democrats, although it's probably not as black and white as that. Ken Buck is going be a big target for the Democrats, especially on social issues. That could scare away the independents' votes for Buck. In the eyes of independents, moderates and Democrats, Buck is an extremist on social issues. Indeed, that is how I see him, but I'm willing to put that asside for now because I'm more worried about President Barack Obama's extremism than Buck's. The Tea Party didn't made the difference in the GOP primary. The social issues Republicans did. But nobody but the Democrats want to talk about that. And they already are making it an issue by calling Buck an extremist. Most Colorado voters are very unhappy with everything Obama's doing, and outside groups will hammer appointed Obama Democrat Senator Michael Bennet (D-Washington, DC) on that. Obama and Bennet are doing all they can to give the federal government the power to micromanage our lives and limit our liberties, and that should cost them big in the November elections. At this point Buck has the anti-Obama tide at his back. But Bennet has more money and better name recognition as well as the well-organized and well-funded Obama campaign organization behind him. This will be a fight between Buck's believers and the government employes and unions who want to use Bennet to control the federal government. Buck's supporters want to take our country back. Bennet's supporters have strong financial incentives to work for them. Indeed, the federal government is paying them to vote for him. Government employes and unions want to be their own bosses, and they can do that at the expense of taxpayers by electing Obama Democrats like Bennet. If government employes and unions control the Democrats and the government, they write their own rich tickets at the negotiating tables when union contracts with the federal government come up. No wonder federal employes on average make nearly twice as much as the taxpayers they work for. They negotiate with themselves and give themselves rich salaries and benefits. As I've said before, outside groups will make the campaign vicious and nasty. While that will turn off the non confrontational know nothings in the electorate, it will ensure that most voters will know more about the candidates—including a lot of lies—than they ever wanted to know. The Buck versus Bennet election will be about values, goals and the future of Colorado and America. It will be decided not by traditional Colorado Democrats and Republicans but by the more than a million of us who've moved to the state over the last 20 to 25 years. We're a Blue, hard left state until the voters change their minds and turn Colorado Red again. It is in no way a sure thing that Colorado will turn red in 2010. Buck's extremism on social issues might keep Colorado Blue. And he can't move to the center on social issues because he doesn't want to be called "Both ways Ken." Republicans' only hope is that Bennet's rubber stamping of Obama's job-killing extremist positions on spending, taxes, health insurance, energy, climate change and union card checks will help Republicans turn Colorado Red. Bennet is trying to move to the center, but his hard left record is there for all to see. It's the record of a senator who represents government workers and his home town of Washington, DC, not Colorado values. It's the record of a shameless Obama rubber stamp. If Buck's supporters want me to elaborate on his extremism, I'll be glad to. If they're smart, they won't ask.

Why Ken Buck leads Michael Bennet 46% to 41% in Rasmussen poll

Donald E. L. Johnson — Fri, 13 Aug 2010 16:36:16 +0000

Why is Ken Buck leading appointed Obama Democrat Senator Michael Bennet (D-Washington, DC) by 46% to 43% in Rasmussen Reports' Aug. 11 survey of 750 likely Colorado voters? Some reasons that Buck starts the general election campaign with a small lead: Andrew Romanoff's attacks on Bennet in the Democrats' primary were much tougher than Jane Norton's snips at Buck in the GOP primary. Bennet is living down Washington and Wall Street and a bungled financing deal for the Denver Public Schools. Buck is living down high heels and half a dozen "dumbass" Tea Party birthers. Bennet has voted for numerous job killing amendments and bills, and he promises to vote for more. He voted for a job killing stimulus bill early last year and for ObamaCare. ObamaCare imposes huge tax increases on all Americans while giving Obama the power to sharply restrict access to care for very sick people and most seniors. After the election, win or lose, Bennet will vote during the lame duck session for job killing climate and energy bills and for job killing union card check bills. He's a rubber stamp for Obama's job killing efforts to redistribute wealth in America. Buck knows Colorado and wants to represent the state. Bennet grew up in Washington, DC, and wants to represent the over paid employes in his home town. He wants to create more government jobs and spend more on our failing public education morass. Even though Bennet made more than $11 million in the private sector, he wants to crush it. Bennet knows how to give us the same kind of centrally-planned and mismanaged Federal government that destroyed the old Soviet Union. While he enjoys being rich, he thinks being powerful would be more fun and satisfying. Bennet is Washington, DC's first Senator just as the man he replaced, Sen. Ken Salazar was Mexico's first Senator. Ken Buck is very accessible to reporters, editorial writers, columnists and most bloggers. He isn't afraid to discuss anything with anyone. He believes that if he answers questions honestly, he'll win. Michael Bennet is relatively protected by his highly-paid political consultants and handlers, most of whom probably are from out of Colorado. (I don't really know, but high-powered campaigns usually bring in talent from outside the state.) Ken Buck has spent the last year driving to all 64 Colorado counties multiple times. He has friends and believers in every county, and they are working hard for him. Bennet's been too busy micro managing our lives in Washington to spend much time in Colorado. He has establishment Democrats who depend on government jobs and handouts working for him in every county. Financial incentives in the form of jobs and expensive government handouts for party hacks will work to Bennet's advantage, but true believers will work to Buck's advantage. LINKS: www.Rasmussenreports.com. Bennet versus Buck. Editorial, The Daily Sentinel. Bennet, Romanoff join hands, shift target to GOP's Buck. By Michael Booth. Colorado Dems make nice as contest gets tougher. By Michael Booth. Can Ken Buck buck the system? By David Cantanese & Jonathan Martin.

Colorado Elections 2010: Primary Results

T.L. James — Tue, 10 Aug 2010 14:00:01 +0000

This post will be stuck to the top of PPC for the day, as a place to post and discuss the results from Colorado’s 2010 Primary Elections.

Tom Tancredo’s saying that Scott McInnis has to quit or he’ll run as 3rd party candidate

Donald E. L. Johnson — Fri, 23 Jul 2010 00:52:10 +0000

Scott McInnis has to decide. Is it time for Gov.-elect John Hickenlooper to measure the curtains in the governor's mansion? Will he let his kids live with the disgraced McInnis name, which will be hard to live down if doesn't quit the governor's race? Does McPlagiarist plan to spend the rest of his life herding sheep because he won't dare set foot off the ranch? How will he explain to his contributors that he not only blew off the Hasan Family Foundation, he blew off people who sent him more than $2 million for his campaign? Can he stand being the butt of Colorado jokes for the rest of his life. He's no Bill Owens, Roy Romer or Dick Lamb. Will he make his living talking about mishandling his disgraceful demise to ethics classes? Does he really want to let Tom Tancredo use his gubernatorial campaign to sell his Amendment 42? That ballot initiative would make Colorado a UN-Free Zone exempt from any UN treaty that overrides the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution. Today, Tancredo said that if Scott McInnis and Dan Maes don't promise by next Monday, July 26, that they will drop out of the governor's race if they win the Aug. 10 primary, he will run as a third party candidate. Tancredo wants the winner of the primary to drop out and let a 24-person vacancy committee name a new candidate. Tancredo correctly believes that if McInnis or Maes runs against Gov.-elect Hickenlooper, they'll not only lose to Hick, they'll take down the entire GOP ticket with them, regardless of national trends. If Tancredo winds up in a race against McInnis and Hick, 95% of Republicans, including this one, will vote for Tancredo. 80% of independents and 100% of Democrats will vote for Hick. Scott McInnis must decide what kind of state he wants Colorado to be. He needs to decide how he wants Colorado will remember him. And he has to decide whether he wants to make the McInnis name such a joke that his kids and grand kids will move out of the state to escape his reputation.

Tom Tancredo makes Ken Buck and Jim DeMint look like moderates

Donald E. L. Johnson — Fri, 09 Jul 2010 04:04:57 +0000

Former U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo today said President Obama is the biggest threat to America's liberty. This brought condescension and flames from the left, and Buck didn't applaud the statement, which Tancredo made at a Buck fundraiser attended by Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC). While Tancredo obviously reflects the views of a lot of conservatives and independents, his comments shocked the hard left Obama Democrats and a few too cool liberal reporters in the mainstream media. Actually, Tancredo showed how he can use a few words to make Buck and DeMint look like moderates.

Scott McInnis promises to roll back Democrats’ tax increases, restore tax exemptions, balance budget

Donald E. L. Johnson — Sun, 04 Jul 2010 21:39:04 +0000

Colorado Republican gubernatorial candidate, Scott McInnis, has used an interview with the AP to reiterate his promises to roll back the Democrats' tax increases, reinstate tax exemptions eliminated earlier this year by General Assembly Democrats and to find ways to overcome the state's looming $175 million budget deficit without reducing "essential services." If he is elected governor, McInnis will need a legislature that is controlled by Republicans instead of the Democrat-controlled legislature that has helped create Colorado's budgetary problems. This was McInnis' first interview with a major news organization. I've interviewed him as have small town papers and some broadcast reporters and talk show hosts. Find the AP interview by searching for "Scott McInnis" on the web.