Boulder’s dailycamera.com reports that a bed bug problem at the University of Colorado dorms and family housing apartments merely mirrors a similar problem across the country. According to CU officials, the bed bugs were centered mostly in the family housing apartments than elsewhere, at least in part because residents of those apartments are more likely to engage in international travel.

As I sit here contemplating this information, I can’t for the life of me figure out the moral behind this news. Does it imply, as it clearly appears to, that people in foreign countries are more likely to have a bed bug problem than people in the U.S? Is it possible that bed bugs in foreign countries merely have a yearning to move to the U.S? Or do the U.S. family travelers to foreign lands live a not so hygienic lifestyle when they are in foreign countries?

As you can see, I had too much time on my hands today.

Check out more insightful blogs:

"Man’s Prosthetic Leg Set on Fire," Colorado Business Litigation Lawyer Blog, posted 07/13/10

"Don't Tase Me Bro," Colorado Business Litigation Lawyer Blog, posted 05/11/10

"Colorado’s Vicious Wiener Dog," Colorado Business Litigation Lawyer Blog, posted 02/25/10

Judge Bronfin’s order noted that Denver Officer Paul Baca stated in the sworn affidavit for arrest warrant that Aaron Puller, 22, was identified by two witnesses as having participated in the crimes. These identifications were the only evidence linking Puller to the crimes. Questioning of these two witnesses was videotaped.

The judge viewed relevant portions of each videotape and found that neither witness had in fact claimed that Puller was a participant. One witness denied even knowing Puller.

In explaining his reasons for dismissing the charges, Judge Bronfin concluded that the statements in the affidavit were false or at least made with a “reckless disregard for the truth.”

It is unknown whether the Denver District Attorney will appeal the dismissal of the charges. A more basic issue is whether or not officer Baca will be disciplined and/or charged with perjury. We shall wait and see.

Back in May, 2005 the American Hiking Society announced in Aspen, Colorado that on June 4,2005, it planned a 13th annual National Trails Day celebration. Ivan Levin, Trail Programs Manager of the Society said, “American Hiking Society warmly invites members of the American Indian Nations to join in the fun and healing of Mother Earth on National Trails Day at our magnificent National and Urban Parks.”

American Olympic skier Suzy Chaffee, co-chair of Native Voices Foundation noted that "This will make Mother Earth and Father Sky smile." She also commented that "US ski areas are graciously welcoming the tribes back to their beloved ancestral mountains to ski and snowboard, which is snowballing through the snow states.”

Some may say this invitation should have been the other way around.

Harsanyi feels that although Ms. Thomas’ comment that Jews should “get the hell out of Israel” and go back to Germany or Poland or the U.S. or wherever they came from was an “ugly opinion” and “provocative,” that doesn’t mean that “one voice that is probably more honest than others of similar ideological disposition—can be expelled from the conversation simply for offending.” Touché.

In my previous article, I suggested that Ms. Thomas perhaps was a worthy candidate for a mild presidential ass kicking as a proxy for the as yet unnamed BP official responsible for the massive Gulf of Mexico oil leak. I hereby withdraw this tongue-in-cheek opinion. I see the error of my ways.

It seems that the real issue is, does an opinion reporter have a First Amendment right to have an opinion published, no matter how offensive it may be to no matter how many people? Yes. Can there be business consequences to the person offering that opinion? Yes.

Respects to Mr. Harsanyi.

We all know by now that BP and other unknown persons in charge have failed to plug the leak, although BP has recently slowed the leak to some unacceptable level.

Because I am not in the business of writing political pieces, however, I have figured out a way to keep BP/Obama politics out of this article.

Instead, I have zeroed in on another likely ass kickin’ candidate: Helen Thomas, 87, who formerly covered the White House for Hearst News before her recent abrupt resignation. Ms. Thomas was caught on microphone talking to a rabbi at a White House function last week, saying that “Jews should get the hell out of Palestine” and go back to Germany and Poland and the U.S. and wherever they came from. Many of the presidential ass kickin’ backers probably agree that for these comments, Ms. Thomas surely is deserving of the traditional, albeit gentle, presidential ass kicking. Maybe she should volunteer to be a proxy for the as yet unknown, but more deserving, person at BP.

I know that some 87-year olds out there will suggest that I’m discriminating against seniors. This is not true at all. In fact, seniors are my favorite people. I’m sure you will agree that many 87-year olds say profound things, but not when the microphone is on. Still, that doesn’t make them immune from being selected for a healthy ass kickin’ from their kindly president.

In a case of first impression in New York, and cutting through the red tape, the judge found that it was not unreasonable to expect that if Dr. W. knew he had herpes and probably transmitted it to Mrs. L., that Mrs. L. would probably pass it on to Mr. L, with whom she was having regular sexual relations. Thus the duty on the part of Dr. W to disclose to Mr. L that Dr. W had the herpes virus, which to date has no cure. Does this clarify things?

The bottom line is that Dr. W., before having unprotected sex with Mrs. L, should have told Mr. L what he was about to do to Mrs. L. If that had happened, isn’t it pretty unlikely that the case would wind up in court? Or maybe would find its way to court as an assault and battery case or even worse.

For some unknown reason, Mrs. L was not made a party to the litigation.

I suspect that none of my readers will be affected nor are planning to be affected by this decision. Without a thorough review of case law, it is impossible to state with accuracy whether or not Colorado courts have yet weighed in on this issue. Still, a word to the wise should be sufficient.

Is this another good enough reason to be monogamous?

In March 2010, a plea agreement was reached under which the charge against Spork’s owners will be dismissed if Spork keeps his nose clean-- so to speak-- for a 6-month period. Needless to say, the tiny dog’s owners are greatly relieved that, at least for six months, Spork does not face the possible penalty of euthanasia.

The injured veterinary tech, who has had one surgery and faces at least one more, says it was never her desire that Spork be put down. Her motivating factor in seeing that charges were filed initially was her hope that the dog would not bite anyone in the future.

It seems that an Alliance police officer began following a motorist he believed to be intoxicated. The officer had previously been told by a clerk at a convenience store that an intoxicated person had just left the store. The officer observed that the motorist failed to signal for a turn and attempted to stop the vehicle. The driver then led police on a 100- mph chase. The chase was discontinued after the officer visually identified the driver and felt that the chase was becoming too dangerous.

The same car was later spotted by a Brimfield Township officer, who followed the vehicle into a motel. At that point recollections diverged. The police say that the driver began resisting arrest; thus, when Alliance officers came upon the scene, they hauled out their trusty taser and fired, hitting the motorist with one probe. Unfortunately, the other probe hit one of the officers in the hand, administering a five second burst of electricity to the officer. A police cruiser dash camera shows both the motorist and the officer writhing on the ground. For the video, click here.

The motorist says he was not resisting arrest and that the officer who shot the taser--and not the motorist-- was responsible for hitting the fellow officer.

As an aside, the motorist’s dog bit two of the officers, further adding insult to injury.

Moral: Do not drive drunk; do not tase your bro.