Jill Duvall echoes national Democrat behavior => morphs electoral defeat into media spokesperson for the majority vote she didn’t get…
Leftists and political Muslims share a successful strategy of umbrage politics – “Agree with me or I’ll get upset.” Each day news reports come in about the riots, demonstrations, occupations, marches, boycotts, and class actions underway by upset beneficiaries. You’d think that’s all that ever happened in America.
Leftist reporters saturate the media with reports about the struggles. The struggles never end as the numbers of beneficiaries and Muslims continue to grow. No degree of social justice, religious obedience, or equality can satisfy them, as if these things could even be quantified. No fixed amount of entitlement benefits can sustain an enlarging population. The struggles are designed to be unsatisfiable, unsolvable, unwinnable, and unending.
Liberal politicians keep putting more money on the table and unscrupulous beneficiaries keep lining up to collect. You can’t legitimately call either the politicians or the beneficiaries citizens because citizenship implies duties that neither one cares much about. They are gamers – gaming the system for personal benefit, be it preferential law or public money – and gaming the system for votes.
Who even discusses economic and political theories, reasoning, science, education, or even metaphysical foundations anymore? Why bother with intellectual baggage when numbers in the streets will get favorable laws written, favorable court cases decided, entitlement money allocated, criminal prosecutions foregone, constitutional protections denied, the power of the Leftist state and Muslim Sharia increased, and votes?
Conservatives are chasing their tails with volumes of sound and persuasive analysis about these social pathologies, but the groups who trade in power demographics don’t care about what conquered people have to say, except to the extent it identifies more opportunities to exploit.
Pure democracy is literally devouring America. Leftists and Muslims are leading the short walk to the end of our constitutional society. The tyrannies of the minorities are on the march while liberal vote-buying politicians eagerly fund and enable them.
The overwhelming majority of Americans who provide the real value to America that predatory Leftists and political Muslims feed on, are apparently too busy to stop it.
“An activist lawyer
For 12 years – from 1996 to 2008 – Boulder attorney Matt Sura worked for the WCC as a community organizer and, ultimately, the group’s executive director. Now in private practice, Sura has applied for a seat on the new oil and gas task force, and says he’s no longer an anti-energy activist. In March, Sura told The Colorado Observer: “[F]ar from being a fracktivist, I actually work on oil and gas development.”
Sura’s work came under close scrutiny when he was hired by local officials in Brighton, Colo., to help update the city’s oil and gas regulations. He then advised the city to impose a temporary drilling ban. The ban was overturned less than a month later after Brighton residents – many of whom work in the oil and gas industry – learned of Sura’s background in anti-energy activism.
Besides working for the WCC for more than a decade, Sura collaborated with activist groups during last year’s local “ban fracking” campaigns in Northern Colorado. He helped organize an event titled “Tools for Activism on Oil and Gas Development,” which was co-hosted by Frack Free Colorado, Food & Water Watch and several other anti-energy groups. And in November 2013, National Journal reported that Sura was working with activists in Greeley who wanted to impose a moratorium on drilling projects inside the city limits.”
Could Elbert County’s inability to get Agave to perform thus far on all of the elements specified in the standard MOU + Schedule A have something to do with this? Has Elbert County’s CDS gone down another primrose path of over zealous regulation that effectively precludes – or interminably delays – O&G development?
by Peter M. Sandman
This paper by Peter Sandman breaks down the message mechanics of both the pro and anti fracking interests. By doing so Sandman outlines a paradigm whereby we can navigate – manage – the confrontations and polarized rhetoric heard in Elbert Country for the past 3 years, and impacted communities all over the world.
It is most refreshing to discover that the terms of the debate are not limited by, or adequately defined by, the extremists – and that solution vectors exist that can satisfy all stakeholders.
Several of the below issues have already been effectively adjudicated negatively in the first round of failed regs that conflicted with COGCC rules. Persistence in their inclusion reveals a purpose to delay oil & gas development by any means until leases run out on operators.
Enough with the oil & gas zoning edit committee sideshow.
Elbert County Oil and Gas Regulations/MOUs Update
September 14, 2013
The county commissioners continue to undermine public input. The commissioners and the Director of Community and Development Services have held meetings to rewrite the regulations in secret venues; public participation was denied. There is supposed to be an ‘editing committee’ meeting at the administrative building this Tuesday, the 17th, at 6:30 pm. The CDC director is going to present her rewritten regulations and ask to send them to the Planning Commission (their meeting will be held on the 26th).
If you can attend, stress the importance of:
1. No open pits should be used for fluid storage in the county. Only closed loop systems can be used in the county.
2. No flow back or produced water should be spread on open land or roads.
3. All residents, and other resources, should be used to determine if there are abandoned wells in the vicinity of new exploration.
4. Vapor recovery systems, to minimize escaping gas, must be required.
5. Increased setbacks from homes and public places must be required.
6. Extensive baseline water well testing (and continued testing) is imperative.
7. Elbert County should allow green frack fluid only. (This may be a ‘sore point’ and ultimately against State regulations (but will certainly help protect our water, for which the County does have a right to ask.))
Commissioner Schlegel has told us that he does not have to rule by ‘committee’; he wants to run us over for his own personal gain. Commissioner Rowland follows suit
By definition, complaints not grounded in an injury, an injustice, or a wrong, are groundless. [Read more…]
When the Democrat-controlled Colorado Legislature gets through imposing restrictive gun laws upon law-abiding citizens, will we be any safer? No, we won’t, because none of the prescriptions contained in any of these new bills address any element of the crimes committed with guns that will have motivated the bills’ passage.
In the instant case, losers will be law-abiding citizens. Winners will be Democrat politicians, their adoring liberal media, their captive voters, and the criminals who will have an easier time of it going up against a less-armed law abiding citizenry. But that’s only in the instant case. There’s also winners and losers in the larger scheme of things.
The country’s Founders designed a system they hoped would protect minority rights under the governance of a majority. They contemplated that with all the checks and balances between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government, the 4th estate of the press, and the people, that enough pauses to consider would exist in the public discourse over new law, that the best argument, the best philosophy, the best solution, the mostly soundly reasoned answer, would tend to carry the day.
They did not anticipate ruthless progressivism with its will to win at all costs, and notwithstanding the soundness of their argument. They did not expect that all of the checks and balances in our country would fail in their primary function and become the captive organs of a single cult mythology.
Wherever progressives get a political majority, they ram through their agenda. Sound arguments to the contrary are not rebutted, nor debated. Opposed parties are procedurally silenced, crowded out, shouted down, ridiculed, overwhelmed, and ignored.
Sure, we have instant winners and losers as each issue comes up under the progressive agenda. But the bigger loser is our system, the one that brought us to this point of social evolution, the one responsible for our success.
And perhaps the biggest losers of all are the progressives themselves. The ones who have no idea what they’ve lost by damaging their fellow American minorities, whom they take such joy in suppressing. The ones dancing in the streets after each victory, the ones shouting in the streets when they’re not dancing.
They’ve lost their minds.
Enviros fool themselves over the purported dangers to the environment from oil and gas fracturing. The only thing this technology puts at risk is their ability to control society through fear. Environmentalism requires that man pose a continuing threat to the earth. For them, man is essentially evil, destructive and polluting. He damages everything he touches. Enviros built a trillion dollar industry on this myth, and any evidence to the contrary must be ruthlessly suppressed. No tactics are off limits in this final battle for our very survival—and the protection of their rice bowl.
Oil and gas fracturing pops the balloon of environmental mythology with a pin of proven technology. Rather than merely promising betterment, fracturing delivers, and this genuinely threatens environmentalists. In Jonas Nightingale’s words in the movie Leap of Faith, “I know the real thing when I see it.” When enviros look out above their denial, they know it too.
Meanwhile, science, causation, the direction of time, basic physics, language definitions, human nature–these building blocks of civilization must all bow to the higher objectives of the mission. Reality must give way to the higher purposes of gaia lovers, busy replacing God with a new supreme being. They practice new ritual sacrifices in new church buildings full of think tanks and symposiums attended by enviro high priests and their legal staffs. They sanctify their objectives in fervent reliance on metaphysical constructs much like those held in traditional religions.
These modern gnostic practitioners, possessors of true knowledge—not the stuff most people hold as commonly true—lead the Church of Environmentalism. Most hold high office in the adjunct Church of Social Justice, as well as the Perpetual Church of Totalitarian Light, the Church for Reconstructed Sexuality, the Church for Cultural Equivocation, the Church for Economic Liberation from Capital, the Church for Recreational Mental Adjustment Through Chemistry, the Church for Aliens Spawned Earthly Life, as well as numerous smaller ad hoc conclaves. Go fishing with one of these worms and you’ll tip over the whole can.
Due to the fluid notions of deterministic causation that all these churches share, symposiums begun under the auspices of one church usually develop into general sessions for the advancement of all related modalities. Practitioners find this a real benefit—like getting something for nothing—except in these cases it’s getting nothing for nothing. But that’s okay, inside their klatches they remain a cheerful bunch who practice abundant love and happiness among each other.
Non-initiated skeptics only see the prickly shell that new age cults present to outsiders. This shell protects insider believers from the intrusion of information that could lead to schisms and defections from the ranks. An unfortunate side effect of their self-referential domain is a growing disconnection from reality feedback that, over time, might help them improve the efficacy of their belief systems. But this begs a larger question, already answered through their modifications to many of the informing constructs that normally lead to provable objective knowledge.
In the long run, and not withstanding the fervency of environmentalists’ beliefs, their willful dodges will play out and the rules that govern the universe will hold sway. In the short run, Katy bar the door because this party is just getting started. Again.
But let’s not lose sight of the forest for the trees. It is the enforcement of beliefs through intimidation, coercion and legal compunction to achieve pre-ordained secular outcomes that offends far more than the substance of their conclusions. A conservative might have no problem arriving at some point in the Left’s universe of acceptable ends, provided they got there from substantiated, proven evidence.
Ironically, while professing unfathomable degrees of faith in their objectives, on the issues the Left have claimed dominion over they grant no faith to mankind. They do not allow people to voluntarily make up their own minds. And this is quite odd for a group of people who call themselves humanist.
Critics painted me as a defender of the old guard. Ha! The only things I defended in this election cycle were competence, sound management, realistic thinking, and the rule of law. Tragically, these bedrock principles did not win today in the Elbert County Republican Party primary. Well, the principles still exist, and it appears I will have plenty more opportunities to defend them in the future.
Come November, commissioner choices will be between agenda driven liberals and, um, agenda driven liberals. I’m sure this prospect has the New-Plains democrats, populists, and leftists, dancing in their switch grass patches tonight, however, consequences for the county will be grim.
We’ll see ubiquitous zoning and higher taxes. We’ll see environmentalism and its basket of unfounded mythologies unleashed in a flurry of ersatz relevancy as they consume the public discourse. We’ll experience these mythologies fail in an expensive protracted drama full of denial and blame. We’ll see none of these agenda progenitors take responsibility when their no-growth, anti-industrial, country-in-county ideas further impoverish Elbert County. We’ll see the few of us who use their 1st Am. right to dissent from these prevailing insanities called more names, if that’s even possible at this point.
I never wrote for the sake of the old guard. I wrote for the sake of limited sound government. A voting minority of Elbert County voted for bigger more intrusive government. They made a big mistake, and the county government they’ve chosen for all of us will make us pay dearly for it. That’s what unbridled government does to people and these people are all about the unbridling of government power.
The left has won. You’re not going to like these new-strange bedfellows when they start implementing their plans for you.
“A rising mass movement attracts and holds a following not by its doctrines and promises but by the refuge it offers from the anxieties, barrenness and meaninglessness of an individual existence. It cures the poignantly frustrated not by conferring on them an absolute truth or by remedying the difficulties and abuses which made their lives miserable, but by freeing them from their ineffectual selves—and it does this by enfolding and absorbing them into a closely knit and exultant corporate whole.
It is obvious, therefore, that, in order to succeed, a mass movement must develop at the earliest moment a compact corporate organization and a capacity to absorb and integrate all comers. It is futile to judge the viability of a new movement by the truth of its doctrine and the feasibility of its promises. What has to be judged is its corporate organization for quick and total absorption of the frustrated. Where new creeds vie with each other for the allegiance of the populace, the one which comes with the most perfected collective framework wins…..[T]he chief passion of the frustrated is “to belong,” and that there cannot be too much cementing and binding to satisfy this passion.”
Eric Hoffer, The True Believer, Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements
“the most perfected collective framework wins”
These words were published in 1951 and I think are as true now as they were 60 years ago.
Context, however, changed substantially in those years. [Read more…]
Parade & GOP Exhibit Booth: Volunteers are needed to serve at the Elbert County Republican Booth Friday, Saturday and Sunday (June 1st, 2nd & 3rd 2012) at the Elizabeth Stampede. Our booth is in Casey Jones Park, Elizabeth. We should be located along the main walkway near the entrance of the arena. We will be handing out Republican literature, water and candy for the kids. Families are very welcome, this is a great opportunity to reach our community with our conservative values. [Read more…]
Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc.
To resolve this dispute, we now turn to the language of the [Open Meetings Law] OML and our case law construing it.
D. The OML Applies to Meetings that are Part of the Policy-Making Process
Based on our reading of the statute as a whole and our case law construing it, we hold that a meeting must be part of the policy-making process to be subject to the requirements of the OML. A meeting is part of the policy-making process if it concerns a matter related to the policy-making function of the local public body holding or attending the meeting. If, as a threshold matter, a meeting is part of the policy-making process, then the requirements of the OML must be met. If not, nothing in the OML prevents some or all members of a local governing body from attending a meeting, even if public notice has not been given.
Black’s Law Dictionary, 7th Ed.
1. Broadly, principles and standards regarded by the legislature or by the courts as being of fundamental concern to the state and the whole of society. 2. More narrowly, the principle that a person should not be allowed to do anything that would tend to injure the public at large.
Notwithstanding the heroic image promulgated by the band of New-Plains brothers and sisters currently harassing the Board of County Commissioners, this tribe in no way represents the interests of the whole of society or of the public at large in Elbert County. They claim to, but they’ve never been elected, never achieved a plurality of votes in Elbert County. Most of them don’t have the substance to admit their true political philosophy by presenting themselves to the public at large in a political party that accords their agenda. These self-anointed inquisitors occupy their meeting seats at the BOCC with intent to find any grounds whatsoever — factual, legal, interpretive, procedural — to excuse speaking their truth to power to bring down the ruling conservative candidates.
Theirs is a non-stop political campaign that shoehorns reality by any means possible into their ongoing narrative.
A firm hand for a “nation of dodos”
6 January 2012
“I refuse to take ‘No’ for an answer,” said President Obama this week as he claimed new powers for himself in making recess appointments while Congress wasn’t legally in recess. The chief executive’s power grab in naming appointees to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the National Labor Relations Board has been depicted by administration supporters as one forced upon a reluctant Obama by Republican intransigence. But this isn’t the first example of the president’s increasing tendency to govern with executive-branch powers. He has already explained that “where Congress is not willing to act, we’re going to go ahead and do it ourselves.” On a variety of issues, from immigration to the environment to labor law, that’s just what he’s been doing—and he may try it even more boldly should he win reelection. This “go it alone” philosophy reflects an authoritarian trend emerging on the political left since the conservative triumph in the 2010 elections.
The president and his coterie could have responded to the 2010 elections by conceding the widespread public hostility to excessive government spending and regulation. That’s what the more clued-in Clintonites did after their 1994 midterm defeats. But unlike Clinton, who came from the party’s moderate wing and hailed from the rural South, the highly urban progressive rump that is Obama’s true base of support has little appreciation for suburban or rural Democrats. In fact, some liberals even celebrated the 2010 demise of the Blue Dog and Plains States Democrats, concluding that the purged party could embrace a purer version of the liberal agenda. So instead of appealing to the middle, the White House has pressed ahead with Keynesian spending and a progressive regulatory agenda.
Much of the administration’s approach has to do with a change in the nature of liberal politics. Today’s progressives cannot be viewed primarily as pragmatic Truman- or Clinton-style majoritarians. Rather, they resemble the medieval clerical class. Their goal is governmental control over everything from what sort of climate science is permissible to how we choose to live our lives. Many of today’s progressives can be as dogmatic in their beliefs as the most strident evangelical minister or mullah. Like Al Gore declaring the debate over climate change closed, despite the Climategate e-mails and widespread skepticism, the clerisy takes its beliefs as based on absolute truth. Critics lie beyond the pale.
The problem for the clerisy lies in political reality. The country’s largely suburban and increasingly Southern electorate does not see big government as its friend or wise liberal mandarins as the source of its salvation. This sets up a potential political crisis between those who know what’s good and a presumptively ignorant majority. Obama is burdened, says Joe Klein of Time, by governing a “nation of dodos” that is “too dumb to thrive,” as the title of his story puts it, without the guidance of our president. But if the people are too deluded to cooperate, elements in the progressive tradition have a solution: European-style governance by a largely unelected bureaucratic class.
The tension between self-government and “good” government has existed since the origins of modern liberalism. Thinkers such as Herbert Croly and Randolph Bourne staked a claim to a priestly wisdom far greater than that possessed by the ordinary mortal. As Croly explained, “any increase in centralized power and responsibility . . . is injurious to certain aspects of traditional American democracy. But the fault in that case lies with the democratic tradition” and the fact that “the average American individual is morally and intellectually inadequate to a serious and consistent conception of his responsibilities as a democrat.”
During the first two years of the Obama administration, the progressives persuaded themselves that favorable demographics and the consequences of the George W. Bush years would assure the consent of the electorate. They drew parallels with how growing urbanization and Herbert Hoover’s legacy worked for FDR in the 1930s. But FDR enhanced his majority in his first midterm election in 1934; the current progressive agenda, by contrast, was roundly thrashed in 2010. Obama may compare himself to Roosevelt and even to Lincoln, but the electorate does not appear to share this assessment.
After the 2010 thrashing, progressives seemed uninterested in moderating their agenda. Left-wing standard bearers Katrina vanden Heuvel of The Nation and Robert Borosage of the Institute for Policy Studies went so far as to argue that Obama should bypass Congress whenever necessary and govern using his executive authority over the government’s regulatory agencies. This autocratic agenda of enhanced executive authority has strong support with people close to White House, such as John Podesta of the Center for American Progress, a left-liberal think tank. “The U.S. Constitution and the laws of our nation grant the president significant authority to make and implement policy,” Podesta has written. “These authorities can be used to ensure positive progress on many of the key issues facing the country.”
Podesta has proposed what amounts to a national, more ideological variant of what in Obama’s home state is known as “The Chicago Way.” Under that system, John Kass of the Chicago Tribune explains, “citizens, even Republicans, are expected to take what big government gives them. If the political boss suggests that you purchase some expensive wrought-iron fence to decorate your corporate headquarters, and the guy selling insurance to the wrought-iron boys is the boss’ little brother, you write the check.” But the American clerisy isn’t merely a bunch of corrupt politicians and bureaucratic lifers, and the United States isn’t one-party Chicago. The clerisy are more like an ideological vanguard, one based largely in academe and the media as well as part of the high-tech community.
Their authoritarian progressivism—at odds with the democratic, pluralistic traditions within liberalism—tends to evoke science, however contested, to justify its authority. The progressives themselves are, in Daniel Bell’s telling phrase, “the priests of the machine.” Their views are fairly uniform and can be seen in “progressive legal theory,” which displaces the seeming plain meaning of the Constitution with constructions derived from the perceived needs of a changing political environment. Belief in affirmative action, environmental justice, health-care reform, and redistribution from the middle class to the poor all find foundation there. More important still is a radical environmental agenda fervently committed to the idea that climate change has a human origin—a kind of secular notion of original sin. But these ideas are not widely shared by most people. The clerisy may see in Obama “reason incarnate,” as George Packer of The New Yorker put it, but the majority of the population remains more concerned about long-term unemployment and a struggling economy than about rising sea levels or the need to maintain racial quotas.
Despite the president’s clear political weaknesses—his job-approval ratings remain below 50 percent—he retains a reasonable shot at reelection. In the coming months, he will likely avoid pushing too hard on such things as overregulating business, particularly on the environmental front, which would undermine the nascent recovery and stir too much opposition from corporate donors. American voters may also be less than enthusiastic about the Republican alternatives topping the ticket. And one should never underestimate the power of even a less-than-popular president. Obama can count on a strong chorus of support from the media and many of the top high-tech firms, which have enjoyed lavish subsidies and government loans for “green” projects.
If Obama does win, 2013 could possibly bring something approaching a constitutional crisis. With the House and perhaps the Senate in Republican hands, Obama’s clerisy may be tempted to use the full range of executive power. The logic for running the country from the executive has been laid out already. Republican control of just the House, argues Chicago congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr., has made America ungovernable. Obama, he said during the fight over the debt limit, needed to bypass the Constitution because, as in 1861, the South (in this case, the Southern Republicans) was “in a state of rebellion” against lawful authority. Beverley Perdue, the Democratic governor of North Carolina, concurred: she wanted to have elections suspended for a stretch. (Perdue’s office later insisted this was a joke, but most jokes aren’t told deadpan or punctuated with “I really hope someone can agree with me on that.” Also: Nobody laughed.)
The Left’s growing support for a soft authoritarianism is reminiscent of the 1930s, when many on both right and left looked favorably at either Stalin’s Soviet experiment or its fascist and National Socialist rivals. Tom Friedman of the New York Times recently praised Chinese-style authoritarianism for advancing the green agenda. The “reasonably enlightened group” running China, he asserted, was superior to our messy democracy in such things as subsidizing green industry. Steven Rattner, the investment banker and former Obama car czar, dismisses the problems posed by China’s economic and environmental foibles and declares himself “staunchly optimistic” about the future of that country’s Communist Party dictatorship. And it’s not just the gentry liberals identifying China as their model: labor leader Andy Stern, formerly the president of the Service Employees International Union and a close ally of the White House, celebrates Chinese authoritarianism and says that our capitalistic pluralism is headed for “the trash heap of history.” The Chinese, Stern argues, get things done.
A victorious Obama administration could embrace a soft version of the Chinese model. The mechanisms of control already exist. The bureaucratic apparatus, the array of policy czars and regulatory enforcers commissioned by the executive branch, has grown dramatically under Obama. Their ability to control and prosecute people for violations relating to issues like labor and the environment—once largely the province of states and localities—can be further enhanced. In the post-election environment, the president, using agencies like the EPA, could successfully strangle whole industries—notably the burgeoning oil and natural gas sector—and drag whole regions into recession. The newly announced EPA rules on extremely small levels of mercury and other toxins, for example, will sharply raise electricity rates in much of the country, particularly in the industrial heartland; greenhouse-gas policy, including, perhaps, an administratively imposed “cap and trade,” would greatly impact entrepreneurs and new investors forced to purchase credits from existing polluters. On a host of social issues, the new progressive regime could employ the Justice Department to impose national rulings well out of sync with local sentiments. Expansions of affirmative action, gay rights, and abortion rights could become mandated from Washington even in areas, such as the South, where such views are anathema.
This future can already been seen in fiscally challenged California. The state should be leading a recovery, not lagging behind the rest of the country. But in a place where Obama-style progressives rule without effective opposition, the clerisy has already enacted a score of regulatory mandates that are chasing businesses, particularly in manufacturing, out of the state. It has also passed land-use policies designed to enforce density, in effect eliminating the dream of single-family homes for all but the very rich in much of the state.
A nightmare scenario would be a constitutional crisis pitting a relentless executive power against a disgruntled, alienated opposition lacking strong, intelligent leadership. Over time, the new authoritarians would elicit even more opposition from the “dodos” who make up the majority of Americans residing in the great landmass outside the coastal strips and Chicago. The legacy of the Obama years—once so breathlessly associated with hope and reconciliation—may instead be growing pessimism and polarization.
Fred Siegel, a contributing editor of City Journal, is scholar in residence at St. Francis College in Brooklyn. Joel Kotkin is a contributing editor of City Journal and the Distinguished Presidential Fellow in Urban Futures at Chapman University.
The Circus is back in town. Or maybe it never left. The names remain the same, the form of the cause evolves slightly, but the theme persists. Shut down growth. Keep the country in the county. Save us.
Locally it started with the Preble’s Meadow Jumping Mouse, a creature near and dear to our hearts that was uniquely threatened by evil developer bulldozers. We awoke to find one day that this rodent species owns a whole basket of usurped property rights. Based on this novel discovery, hundreds of green and left warriors combined with sympathetic government regulators to form the Circus and bring into existence, by mere presumption, thousands of pages of growth-stopping regulations. They empowered the federal Environmental Protection Agency and all subordinate levels of government to save that mouse, and by their curious chain of cause and effect, us too. The economic clout now wielded on behalf of that mouse makes it one of the most powerful rodents in the history of the universe, probably second only to Mickey. And we were not saved.
The Circus rested for a bit and recharged its batteries. Then along came an evil developer intent on bringing commerce to the eastern plains of Colorado with a broad vision for a super highway complete with utility corridors and railroad tracks. Imagine the environmental impacts–pretty much the worst things possible–the smog all that transportation would cause, the ancient trees to be felled, the noise, the light. Don’t go toward the light! Imagine the poor mice that would have to be relocated and provided similar habitat—if it could even be found—outside of the right of way. The damages would surely be irreparable. The Circus shifted into high gear and put the pedal to the metal. They rented busses to carry occupants to the State capitol. They saturated planning and commissioner meetings. They filled the internet with a relentless onslaught of do or die hyperbolic predictions about the end of the world that this road would precipitate. The end of the world was serious stuff. No one wanted that. The laws were passed, the court cases came in. The Circus rested. And still we were not saved.
One day an evil developer came along, intent on bringing water commerce to the eastern plains of Colorado with a broad vision for long distance water transportation to quench the thirst of citizens in a sub-development in Colorado Springs. The Circus double clutched their well-oiled machine and slipped it into gear. Hundreds of loud clamorers filled auditoriums, government meetings and state house offices with a new flag of presumed entitlement, “our water.” The fact that not a drop of it actually belonged to them gave them no pause. “Our water” was not actually “their water” but the mob has never been one to quibble about details like legal property rights. They were all about momentum, sound bites and the persuasion of pure force. Demonstrators and occupyers don’t wait for the subtleties of legal technicalities, unless of course a legal technicality can be found to put wind into their sails, that’s another matter. The evil developer was persuaded to recede into the tapestry of the world, and the Circus rested once again. And still we were not saved.
Then along came the evil energy developers, intent on bringing commerce to the eastern plains of Colorado with a broad vision of energy independence from the beneficial use of dormant oil and gas supplies lying ten thousand feet down in the ground. The Circus kicked their machine into overdrive. To save us once again, the green and left warriors sallied forth and wrote hundreds of pages of zoning laws incorporating every growth stopping agency and device ever conceived by statist man. They employed lawyers to tune their language so those laws could only be challenged—never repealed—by endless years of impossibly expensive litigation.
The Roman government gave bread and circuses to the people to distract them from the messy details of their oppressive governors. Today’s Circus combines the clamoring class of green and leftist warriors with a sympathetic regulatory class of unelected bureaucrats, to form the government itself. Gone are those halcyon times when the mob could be placated by mere food and entertainment. Perhaps conditioned by reality TV, the mob now insists on being part of the action. They want a hand in actually creating the government fascism that will turn around and oppress them. So long as they can applaud a victory, it matters not that the beast they create intends to dine on them.
For all their efforts put in to save our quality of life, our environment, and our property values, you’d think real estate around here would be getting more expensive.
The Jews have their Talmud, the Muslims their Hadiths, exhaustive rules of religious law and taboo to define every nuance of permissible human action. Secular Americans have City, County, State and Federal regulations in a great fascist web waiting to entrap citizens, pending the whim of an invisible unelected bureaucratic shaman somewhere who may notice a non-compliant act, and who then brings down the wrath of government upon the citizen, er, applicant.
The applause is always deafening.