Yuck. My question is, will this sludge end up in Lake Mead?
[Excerpt]
Colorado Floodwaters Cover Fracking And Oil Projects: ‘We Have No Idea What Those Wells Are Leaking’
Colorado flooding has not only overwhelmed roads and homes, but also the oil and gas infrastructure stationed in one of the most densely drilled areas in the U.S. Although oil companies have shut down much of their operations in Weld County due to flooding, nearby locals say an unknown amount of chemicals has leaked out and possibly contaminated waters, mixing fracking fluids and oil along with sewage, gasoline, and agriculture pesticides. . .
Back when Wisconsin Governor Scott Wanker Walker faced a recall election, the prevailing wisdom was that recalls are for elected officials who have done something wrong. Not something unpopular, but committed a crime, or done something unethical. So, even though Walker was deeply unpopular, he managed to keep his seat, because Wisconsinites thought a recall wasn't the right thing to do.
Tuesday in Colorado, there was a recall election that was successful. A couple of legislators who'd been behind some modest gun control measures were recalled. They didn't commit a crime, or do anything unethical. They just went against the NRA, a lobbying group with very deep pockets and a fanatical base. Of course, recalling legislators for unpopular actions rather than crimes isn't without precedent. It was done in Iowa with state Supreme Court justices who'd decided in favor of marriage equality. In fact it was attempted in two separate elections, though it failed on its last try.
But I guess I'd like to see a little consistency in the conventional wisdom. Are recall elections for unpopular (or just unpopular with a small but vigilant group) a good thing or a bad thing?
[Excerpt]
NRA Fires Two Colorado State Senators For Doing Their Jobs And Voting On Stuff Welcome to the USofNRA! And woe be unto you, any politician who dares to cross our not so new overlords in this quick-draw special interest group, by trying to maybe take high-capacity magazines from any maybe-crazy-maybe-not person who wants to get their warm, live fingers on a gun. Because in Colorado, where two rather awful mass-murdering shooting sprees were committed by some awfully deranged mass-murdering spree shooters in Columbine and Aurora, state Senator Angela Giron and Senate President John Morse were straight up recalled by 56% and 51% respectively of the maybe voter suppressed folks in their districts, because “Morse and Democrats passed laws that limit ammunition magazines to 15 rounds and require universal background checks on all gun sales and transfers. . .”
Ugh. Well, that was unpleasant. I am not only referring to the pervasive opinion in the punditry that "Romney won," but to the whole affair. I'm a political junkie, and I painfully endured the whole thing, while relying on my Twitter feed to keep me sane. The Other Half--slightly less interested in politics--left the room after twenty minutes. You'd think that we were cringing at President Obama's lackluster performance. But no. It was just an interminable, wonkish, unpleasant hour and a half.
It is true that the President was off his game. He was reactive, allowing Mitt Romney to run roughshod over the (very loose) debate format, and thus allowing Romney the last word far too often. The President was so reserved, I honestly suspected him to come out blazing in the third quarter, and when that didn't happen, I wondered if he intentionally threw the first match in some of that three-dimensional chess strategy he's famous for.
Whatever it was, it was something different from what it will likely be spun to be in the beltway media. This may have been a "win" for Romney in the technical sense, but he is presented with several problems as well. First, he came off no more likable than he ever has been. In fact, he furthered the impression that he's just a dick. If his aim from the start was to trample Jim Lehrer, the moderator, and set the agenda throughout, he was successful, so points for that. Dickish points, but points nonetheless. He also supplied quite a bit of material for fact checkers to refute, while also coming off quite caffeinated. Which is rather odd for a Mormon. There is also the problem of his terse, artificial smile/smirk. More of that dick thing, I guess. [Story continues below]
The President had his moments, and a couple of times I thought, "here we go!" But he never went for the knockout punch. He didn't use "47%," he didn't pierce the Medicare cuts lie, and he certainly didn't try for any Romneyesque lie/zingers. But he was mostly playing defense, only rarely turning the narrative around on Romney to an effect. The biggest criticism I'd have of the President is to say that when he saw Romney being a dick, he didn't act dickish in return. Actually, I'm kind of glad he didn't. But I'd liked for him to at least spike the ball back into Romney's court.
The only way this debate will be any kind of game changer, hinges more on perception than anything that actually happened in it. MSNBC--contrary to their "in the tank for Obama" reputation--may have unwittingly made things worse by making the debate seem more dire than it actually was. I mean it was bad--all around--but with "friends" like Chris Matthews and Ed Schultz, who needs enemies? They've done their part to cement the perception of a big Romney win, whether or not it really was. When it was over, I was just happy it was over. The format, the debaters, the questions, the answers. . .all of it was just boring and mind numbing. But if you believe the pundits, it was some huge performance by Romney. Again, maybe in style. Certainly not in substance.
Frankly, I'm more interested in how this debate plays into the next. Will Romney be cocky (and dickish, of course), and jinx himself? Will the President overcompensate, and come off desperate? Will the scales balance? Hard to say. But it would be difficult to be more uncomfortable to sit through. One thing is for sure: Obama will have a different approach.
[Excerpt]
Candidates battle over tax plans in first debate
Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney's tax cut proposals consumed the opening moments in his first debate versus President Barack Obama, as the two candidates sparred over whether the math behind the Republican presidential nominee's plans matched his rhetoric. . .
"As a culture, we have become so disassociated from reality that we are to the point where even though men, women and children are mowed down in schools, movie theaters and streets by nut jobs with assault weapons, we rush to defend the right to own these absolutely inessential weapons constructed with the sole purpose of shredding human flesh as efficiently as possible, and cite shaky-at-best interpretations of the Second Amendment as justification."
I don't know how much longer the terrible events in Aurora, Colorado will be in the news. Sometimes these mass shootings fade from the news cycle quickly, sometimes they linger for a long time. But we never really seem to have any meaningful movement on doing something about it. Many gun fetishistsnuts advocates will say nothing can be done, without taking away their "freedoms." Most of the rest of us either sadly shrug our shoulders, or futilely rail about it for a few days. It is the rare elected official who will come out with anything that sounds remotely "anti-gun."
I'm not anti-gun. But I don't think it's unreasonable to consider and discus sensible efforts to curtail the availability of weapons that can kill or wound six dozen people in a minute or two. I don't think that's a bad place to draw the line. Anyway, enough from me. Jason Alexander (George Costanza of Seinfeld) wrote a very, very good piece on this subject, the day after the shootings. It's really good, and captures my thoughts better than I could ever put them. Alexander--whatever you think of him--is a well spoken and smart guy, and this is worth a read.
[Excerpt]
Jason Alexander’s amazing gun rant
. . .This morning, I made a comment about how I do not understand people who support public ownership of assault style weapons like the AR-15 used in the Colorado massacre. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15
That comment, has of course, inspired a lot of feedback. There have been many tweets of agreement and sympathy but many, many more that have been challenging at the least, hostile and vitriolic at the worst. . .
After a big shooting tragedy, we can be sure we'll hear these things:
1. If there were more people with concealed handguns, people would have been saved.
2. Gun control laws only keep guns out of law-abiding citizens' hands.
3.Any restriction or regulation of guns is an infringement on our freedom.
4. Guns don't kill people, people kill people.
5. There's nothing we can do to prevent these tragedies.
6. Now is not the time to talk about gun control/"play politics"
The first one is stupid, just stupid. The second assumes all crazy shooters would know where to get illegal guns, and ignores that most of these guys got their guns legally. Number three ignores that there are restrictions and regulations on all of the bill of rights. Freedom of speech has restrictions. The fourth one would be far more accurate if it were phrased, "Guns don't kill people, bullets kill people." It's tired. Number five sure didn't apply after 9/11, did it? And the last one? Mitt Romney just used that one, and it ignores that the best time to address this issue is after a big tragedy, when it's fresh in peoples' minds, and something might actually get done.
[Excerpt]
Romney: Not The Right Time To Talk About Gun Control Mitt Romney on Monday dismissed calls for more stringent restrictions on the Internet sale of ammunition and semi-assault weapons in the wake of the Aurora, Colo., shooting tragedy, arguing that it is a time to come together and help communities in need. . .
I knew people would go there. My friend (and rival blogger from the other side of the aisle) Dan at LasVegasBadger knew people would go there. And so they have. Gun rights advocates (or gun fetishists, as I like to say) are all over the interwebs, talk radio, and doubtless FOX "News," loundly proclaiming that if they had been there, they'd have stopped it, by cracky! They'd have pulled out their concealed weapon, and popped that wacko before he did so much damage.
I for one am horrified by the thought. It would be bad enough finding myself in a situation like what happened Thursday night in Aurora, Colorado. The terror of an event like that probably can't really be imagined if you haven't been there. But you know what? The Dirty Harry or Die Hard imaginings of these vocal gun nuts is primarily imagination. It's quite simply delusional. And the following writeup from Wonkette--a snarky, largely humorous site--has one of the best takes I've seen on the subject. From a person who was in a shooting incident. Read it, please, particularly if you disagree with me.
Image from Wonkette.
[Excerpt]
Notes From The Periphery Of A Shooting: A Wonkette Moment Of Tenderness
You don’t have to have witnessed a random shooting in a public place to question whether an armed bystander could have stopped the shooter, but it helps. On the morning of May 21, 1998, on the way to a movie matinee, I stopped by a Tucson post office to send a package of comic books (“The Maxx”) to be autographed by the artist/writer Sam Kieth. I take my nerding seriously. . .
Whenever there is a mass shooting in America (and it is far too often), gun fetishists immediately launch into a pre-emptive defense, knowing full well that some people are going to call for something to be done regarding gun laws. They often seem more concerned with that, then about the victims of yet another tragedy. And always, people say "now is not the time" to discuss such things.
Nonsense. Now is the best time to discuss such things. When it is fresh in peoples' minds. When it is not a hypothetical, but a reality. I've said here many times that I'm basically agnostic about guns and gun laws. But I am swayed by calls for sensible gun control laws. Things like competency tests and training. Things like making sure a buyer is not batshit crazy. Things like restricting the availability of guns with the capability of inflicting massive casualties in short periods of time. This guy shot 70 people! It's not crazy to want to make it harder for a madman to kill a bunch of people in a few minutes. What do gun nuts think is coming a zombie apocalypse?
Ron Reagan was filling in for Chris Matthews on Hardball on Friday, and in the "Let Me Finish. . ." segment, gave a brilliant essay on the subject. I was glad to see him use the same phrase I do (gun fetish), and that he also considers himself gun agnostic for the most part. And that he likes tweaking the NRA. I don't know why the right dislikes Ron Reagan so much either. I mean to them, he's practically the son of God, right?
For all of the importance and focus we put on terrorism from without, there seems to be little we can do about it from within. And when it comes to domestic terrorism, there is little more effective than a mass shooting. They seem to happen with disturbing regularity in this country. And without a seismic shift in public opinion, they're going to keep happening.
I'm usually ambivalent when it comes to guns, neither fetishising them as many on the right, nor being energized against them like. . .well, I'm not sure these days who is rabidly against guns. When it comes to tragic events like this, the gun nuts well get over-the-top defensive, and insist that if only more people were armed*, this wouldn't have happened. And for the most part, anyone who wants to be critical of guns or gun rights will soft-peddle what they want to say for fear of being branded anti-gun. [Story continues below]
I'm not sure how we got here, with this issue being so radioactive. Yes, we have a second amendment, but it doesn't say, "An unregulated gun collection, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear unlimited Arms without restriction or oversight, shall not be infringed." It says, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The first part is often left out, of course. And the word "infringe" is rather fuzzy and imprecise. It's surprising that it has become so ironclad. Also, you'd think the word "arms" could be defined to exclude weapons of mass destruction. It already is, in that you can't have a nuclear weapon, or a tank, or a dirty bomb.
This story is new, and we may learn some uncomfortable details--and in the meantime may hear some inaccurate ones--after the facts come in. The shooter could be right-wing, left-wing or completely politically unaffiliated. There may have been laws or regulations that could've helped prevent this, or it may be that no one could have seen it coming. I have to wonder though, why it is impossible to limit--or at least impede--just anyone from acquiring weapons capable of mowing down a crowd.
[Excerpt]
12 shot dead at 'Dark Knight Rises' screening in Aurora, Colorado
Twelve people were killed and at least 50 others wounded early Friday
when a gunman wearing a bullet-proof vest opened fire during a midnight
screening of the latest Batman movie near Denver, authorities and
witnesses said. . .
* The "more guns" argument bugs me a lot. It belies a rather unrealistic mindset, where life is like a movie, and every "good" gun owner is John McClane from Die Hard. I'm not sure the reality would play out like an action movie.
Well, this is interesting. Colorado Springs was one of those municipalities that severely cut back public services--while simultaneously refusing to raise taxes--and is finding itself in quite the pickle. Now, honestly, I hate to pile on here. There have been hundreds of people displaced, and a few die in these fires. It really is terrible. But will it be enough to show people that austerity measures, like cutting police and fire, instead of raising taxes, is a bad idea?
[Excerpt] Wildfire Tests Police in Colorado Tax Movement’s Home
. . .The city where the Waldo Canyon fire destroyed 346 homes
and forced more than 34,000 residents to evacuate turned off
one-third of its streetlights two years ago, halted park
maintenance and cut services to close a $28 million budget gap
after sales-tax revenue plummeted and voters rejected a
property-tax increase. . .
Oh, GOP. What has become of you? Your front-runner can't get up to speed. Your also-ran is thoroughly unlikeable (as is the front runner). You've got a crazy old man with a rabid (but small) following. And you've got a church fart who couldn't win the general election if Barack Obama came out as a gay, vegan atheist. Really, GOP? Rick (don't Google me) Santorum? Thrice??? And for the comedy kicker, none of the contests is even binding! Seriously, WTF?
[Excerpt]
Breaking News: Santorum Wins All Three Caucuses
The dark horse, Rick Santorum, has won all three of tonight’s contests, in Missouri, Minnesota and Colorado. In Missouri, Santorum handily won with 57.4% of the vote. Mitt Romney had 26.4% and Ron Paul, 12.7%. In Minnesota, Santorum had 45.1%, Romney 17.0% and Newt Gingrich, 10.7%. . .
