Colorado has a new Junior Senator designee named Michael Bennet. As the news of this appointment broke, approximately 24 hours before the press conference in which the Governor made the announcement, the airwaves and newspaper blogs where filled with opinions ranging from illogically radical support to equally unthoughtful political doomsday prophesy.
I am in general a supporter of Governor Ritter, though as all politicians that I support he sometimes disappoints me. I am disappointed that since the Governor in his choice of Bennet, has demonstrated his ability to be independent did not appoint a non-Front Range person. As I stated in this post, for the interest of equal geographic (and by extension ideological) representation and political advantage ahead of a re-election campaign, the appointment of a political dark horse from the western slope or hero from the eastern plains would have been pretty practical.
I was prepared however to be disappointed. I realize that my dogged dedication to equal representation, particularly representation for those with whom I disagree is naive in the context of the political realities of an appointment. I further recognize that preventing the undue influence of urban Colorado on rural Colorado is a paranoid concern as a working majority of our leaders in Colorado recognize and celebrate the cultural and economic symbiosis of the various regions of our state. But I was prepared to be disappointed because I just assumed the Governor would have chosen a more predictable appointee. The bench is long with Colorado Democrats. Granted most are Front-Range but Speaker Romanoff, Mayor Hickenlooper, Congressman Perlumutter and former candidate Miles would have all been reasonable, expected and safe choices.
A friend of mine opined,(see paragraph 7) with which I agree, that the national party will take care of Colorado's junior senator. The challenge is how to rally the state party, which seemed to support Romanoff (unofficially), the progressive left who supported Miles (very officially) and build a coalition that not only elects Bennet but also re-elects Ritter in 2010. An interesting criticism on the appointment from the supporters of other people for the post was "he's not the people's choice". There was some objective and valid criticism of his record at Denver Public Schools, and that he's never held elected office, but the majority of critics were upset that he was not "their" choice.
Ok so he wasn't "your" choice. But unless you happen to be Governor Bill Ritter, it wasn't supposed to be your choice. This was an appointment, and it's over. Instead of hand-wringing over whether Bennet can keep the seat for the Democrats, or prematurely condemning him for positions he hasn't taken yet, let's give him the benefit of the doubt. Let's decide if he's a good Senator once he becomes a Senator. Further let's trust the people of the State of Colorado to determine if he should continue to represent us in 2 years. If democrats want to keep this seat, then we must help Mr. Bennet be a great Senator for Colorado, however as Americans, our first priority and first loyalty must be to sending the best representation for Colorado to Washington D.C.
This past election was about change, about a different style of Government. And the driving force behind that mindset was the people. Now without a hint of irony, the people are decrying our Governor for departure from the very business as usual politics we voted against. Would William Bennet have been my choice? No. But to hang the blame of loosing the Senate Seat and Governorship around the necks of Governor Ritter and Senator designee Bennet 2 years before the election is unfair. We have nearly 2 years, and in that time, not for the sake of my party, but for the sake of my State and my Country I intended to give both Our Governor and our full Delegation Including Congressman Lamborn (R CD5) and Congressman Coffman (R CD6) and Senator Bennet, my full support. Remember that fully supporting our leaders means paying attention and questioning them when we disagree. With that in mind, and in the context of the urgency of our nation's struggles, now is the time to rally together to heal our democracy's wounds. Let's give our Governor and our delegation the benefit of the doubt, the tools to work effectively on our behalf, and the ability to make their electoral success or failure a condition of their work.
Let's worry about partisan victories two years away, two years from now. Today let's focus on ensuring Colorado's delegation to Washington has the full support of her people. Let's today put Colorado and America first and worry about our party later.
For no other reason than I had the free time in order to do it, I arrived in Casper Wyoming for the first rehearsal for our holiday concert about an hour early. Usually due to other obligations of work, I arrive exactly on time if not slightly late to those first Thursday evening rehearsals, a constraint I regrettably no longer have. As I was about to make the final turn of the trip, I noticed a Toyota Camry on the side of the road stuck in a hole. Instead of carrying on about my way to arrive early, perhaps have a candy bar, I decided to stop and help. Not only was that the right thing to do, but being stuck on the side of the road is a less than perfect situation with which I am all to familiar. (see the video below)
First I tried to aide the woman by attempting to push the car out of the hole. This effort only resulted in me being covered in mud, head to toe. Finally a guy with a big truck came along, I had no problem crawling under the car to attach a tow strap, as my lone pair of jeans that I had brought for the weekend was already covered in mud, and there was no point in having anyone else sullied with generosity. Without exchanging anything save a few laughs, my anonymous interaction with the women and the guy in the truck came to a successful end as her car emerged from the ditch and we 3 drove away to continue our separate lives.
It would have been easy and in some way righteous of me to believe that my personal challenges were a rationale to just stay out of this situation. What if someone hit my car sitting along a traveled lane, I can't afford the fallout of that. What if the situation got out of control somehow, what if through aide I myself became liable? What if they time it took to help caused me to be late and loose the last scrap of gainful employment I have?
There was not an outcome other than the one that actually happened that I could afford. The risk was high, and aside from the good feeling of doing the right thing, and that my jeans came clean with minimal effort, there was no return on my labor. However there was no good to come of wallowing in self pity, and likewise, as we as a nation enter what will be a time of struggle unknown to the living memory of the majority of the living generations, It is now more important that when we can, we seek to help. Whether by misfortune or design, the pitfalls of others indirectly impact us all. In good times the general largesse of society can easily absorb those effects so that we don't notice them. In times like ours however there is not enough cushion and the difficulties of our neighbors will find a home at our doorstep. As a matter of efficiency and decency, it is in these times that the spirit of volunteerism and personal sacrifice will be the only means by which we can all survive.
In these times the great reason in the phrase "we shall all hang together or we shall assuredly hang separately" bears new relevance. It will be as important for our leaders in national and state capitols to heed this wisdom as it is for all of us as individuals. Providence will provide if we allow for it, and these discrete and silent charities will be the difference that will define our era as either a time of the resurgence of the not only the American, but the Human spirit, or a time of profound tragedy.
The words of Thomas Jefferson may prove inappropriate to wax nostalgic on the fate of a bar, a dive bar no less, but I feel the premiss "that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living" if accepted as a guiding principle on the nature of society and progress, sets the stage on which the evolution of the Catacombs may be mourned, but not criticized
I loved the Catacombs. I loved the Catacombs of 6 years ago, a bar that in many ways had more in common with my parents generation than the watering holes in Boulder that my generation including myself finally removed too. The smoke filled basement full of fun seekers favoring abandon over prudence was as nostalgic of the post local prohibition time of the bars founding as it was the scenes in which me and my fellows learned those behaviors. The thing about the Catacombs that made it king among the few dive bars in our ever elite city was it's irony. The Catacombs was a place for a cheap beer in an expensive town. The Catacombs, was the trashiest bar, in the basement of the nicest hotel in town. And with every bit of irony intended, the Catacombs had the best service per dollar spent.
And as our city of Boulder develops yet another sign of it's awkward growing phase, the reaction in the public is the same as the news that our newspaper is selling it's downtown home. I like many mourn the Catacombs, a place I haven't been in quite sometime, not because I want it in tact should I return but because of what this change is indicative of. The irony of the Catacombs is emblematic of the charm of Boulder, a character that is in fact slowly slipping away. Perhaps I'm "too young" or "haven't been in Boulder long enough" to lay a legitimate claim to a snapshot of the City's past. Perhaps its ridiculous to long for the "Good 'ole Days" of 6 years ago, and certainly only the lens of revisionism gives a clear view to logic of voluntarily returning to those days of hangovers ringing ears and bad habits. But what is sincere, if not misguided is longing for the bar and the Boulder that "I knew", that healthy mix of yuppies, hippies and rednecks that was my paradise while certainly another's hades.
And I must remember that as my haunts and my City have changed, I too have changed and woe be to me to be critical of the former, lest they are critical of the latter for if not by evolution how is one to measure the health of their mind and worth of their days?
It is not my place to decided what the Hotel Boulderado chooses to do with it's dive bar, nor is it my place to decide what a person does with their home, or community does with it's social fabric. Indeed the world belongs to the living generation, and while Jefferson in his letter to Madison was speaking to responsible personal and national debt as an analogy to the proper term of the endurance of the laws of man, I do see a correlation in the angst of the ever changing character of a City.
Shall we preserve the City in amber? And if so who's Elysium shall we choose? Circa 1978?, '84?, '96? I would choose 2002, and like the proponents of every year between 2008 and 1876 would find myself in a lonely and impotent minority scorned by a majority who can't believe anybody would prefer "that time" in Boulder over their own preferred epoch. The natural state of a living being, which a City is, is constant change and evolution. While Jefferson would believe that some of the laws that have caused Boulder to be the City it is today, ought be repealed by sheer virtue that they have exceeded 19 years of age. Perhaps however he would be convinced that as a member of the living generation should I see fit to keep the band of open space, that is my prerogative as the rightful heir to the land that sustains me. I bet he would insist however that my generation seek to renew and amend those laws rather than just inherit them.
indeed the world belongs to the living, and a community is likewise the province of those present. It is appropriate to mourn loss, and to question the value and logic of change. However these passions must be tempered with an acknowledgement that change is a function of a healthy community. There is no requirement to love the new evolution, but the criticism should be on merits, not on principle that change itself is inherently bad. Perhaps the "new" Catacombs may become my new favorite bar, perhaps the City that Boulder will evolve to will be a better, more charming place, but what is certain is that change is inevitable and to fight it is only to be left behind. It is the better part of wisdom to embrace the future to have a hand in shaping it. This Jefferson would say is the responsibility of the living generation, to be stewards of the world we were bequeathed while in equal measure preparing for an unencumbered transfer to the will and desire of those who will inherit the earth from us. But he would warn us that too much energy spent longing for the past is akin to deferring responsibility to the deceased.
CHEERS!
And for the record and incase it wasn't clear somehow, I LOVE THE CATACOMBS!
and frankly Boulder could use a few more dive bars . . .
Today, after several delays, the Boulder County Board of Commissioners finally closed the door on the expansion of the Dawson School. This is a private school in Lafayette that is held in fairly high regard, situated in a rural agriculturally zoned area
When I read this headline seeing the vote of 2-1, I made a few assumptions. It is always fun when you read the article and realize that you assumed TOTALLY WRONG! The assumption that I made was the Commissioners Toor and Pearlman, voted against and Commissioner Domenico voted in favor. I made that assumption because a. Cindy Domenico lives in, and represents that part of the County. b. I generally think that Domenico is the most sensible member of the board (the context being a view that Boulder County's development policies are unsensible) and c. I voted for Cindy Domenico and not for Will Toor (I voted for Ralph Schnelvar). Like all who assume I was righteous in being wrong.
Commissioners Domenico and Pearlman voted no and Toor in the affirmative to my surprise. I was pleased to be wrong for a few reasons. First it's always good to be reminded that it is prudent to get more information before making a rash judgement. Knee-Jerk reactions are frequently my criticism of public officials so it's important to realize that you may be guilty of the same offense. Second it was clear that the boards decision was NOT a knee-jerk reaction. While the length of time it took to arrive at a decision is subject to criticism, there is no denying that whether or not you agree with the outcome it was well vetted.
Since the result itself was evidence that I was prepared to make a knee-jerk judgement, I decided that I should try to actually take a look at the development plans before I rushed to scribing an opinion I would live to regret once supplied with facts.
My search for information led me to another realization . . .
The City of Boulder's website is really good (as compared to other municipal websites). On Boulder's City Council agendas, there is usually a hypelink to the actual information in the council packet. On the county commission agenda online however you are on your own. There is a handy "docket search tool " however when you search the docket number it gives you the title but no text. So Way to go City of Boulder in terms of open records. While I don't mean to accuse Boulder County of not having open records, (I could just go down to the county and get hard copy of the docket), and I'm sure I could probably get the school's plans somewhere online if I tried hard enough, I just was glad to have an opportunity to commend the City of Boulder on its access to information.
What I do know is that the school's plans would without a doubt would be a significant change to the land use in that area. The change from a 49,000 sq. ft facility to 255,000 sq. ft. in a rural area is no small detail. Knowing only that detail, without knowing what the new facilities would look like, how they would be used and how much energy, water, and vehicle access would be required, it's easy to make a knee jerk reaction in support of the commissioner's decision. Of course you can't legislate taste so the issue of what the facilities would look like is a non-starter. Energy efficiency, traffic mitigation and appropriate uses are germane to good land use, and simply put, if your land use philosophy is conservative in general, the burden of benefit would be pretty hard for such a large expansion. It's easy therefore to take a knee-jerk position in defense of the board.
**CORRECTION**
I received the following email from someone who knows something about it,
Greetings, I was just googling info on the Dawson school expansion, noticed your comments and wanted to correct an error: You said, “The change from a 49,000 sq. ft facility to 255,000 sq. ft. in a rural area is no small detail.” Actually the expansion itself is just 49,000 SQFT over several years.
Currently, the buildings add up to a total of just over 200,000 SQFT. The newspaper confused a lot of people when it stated it that way. The additional 49,000 would total 255,000, so it would go from its current 210,000 SQFT to 255,000 SQFT by the year 2012.
Just thought to mention that…… Thanks, Bev
My apologies for having incorrect information.
On the other hand this is Boulder County, infamous for draconian land use regulation and a really easy target for knee-jerk criticism. Also this is a school they said no to, people don't say no to schools in Boulder County, PERIOD. With a long track record of no development, no how, no way. With the context that this issue comes after a huge revision of the school's plans and the matter being tabled four times, it would be easy to take knee-jerk position, critical of Boulder County yet again standing in the way of reasonable progress in pursuit of a conservative land use agenda.
After weighing both sides relying solely on limited physical evidence and anecdotal conjecture, if one still wanted to get more information about this project before joining the Daily Camera blog lynch mob, one would google search "dawson school expansion boulder county" and then find . . .
This is when it gets complicated. If you are in the process of defending yourself in a lawsuit, AND you have an opportunity to discredit an argument against you through a defensible action, at the same time the case is being heard, well . . .
That is not to say I believe the commissioners where making a purely political decision, although if the politics did inform their decision, that would be okay, a. they are politicians, and b. it is in the public's interest which the commissioners are sworn to protect to not loose lawsuits, and not have their decisions overturned by state or federal courts, particularly when the rest of the state has already decided that Boulder County's land use is draconian and decide against the county at every opportunity for political reasons.
So I won't say the decision was political, and I will say that I rather hope that it was at least in part. Even when I disagree I can respect when leaders are principled. I will also offer that if the motive was overtly political the decision would have been made 2 or 3 motions to table ago.
I don't have enough information however to know if I agree or disagree, or to make a knee-jerk critique of the commissioners decision. What I do know is that it was in fact "complicated". What is reaffirmed is that whenever you voluntarily leave the political mean you open yourself to knee-jerk criticism and Boulder County's conservative/protectionist land use philosophies carry the liability of needing constant defense. Frequently Boulder County is right, though it sometimes takes a long time for that to become apparent.
Boulder County, for it's folly is visionary. However this does not mean that it is inappropriate to question how far from the mean we've gone and to recognize the inefficiency that results when one moves too far to the left or the right.
"the people who take a shower before they go to work get bailed out, those who need to take a shower after work get thrown out"
-Leo Gerard
President, United Steelworkers
Once, many years ago, my good friend Leslie remarked on my style with women, she said "you are like a wolf in sheep's clothing but your costume isn't very good you have fangs and claws hanging out". She was offering equal parts jest and friendly advice, but I offer that as a premise to this post in response to a comment on my previous offering, and events since then. My last post was a dance, being on two practical sides of similar ideological issues. I tried to appear rationale as opposed to a hypocritical.
Thanks to courage I oddly found watching Rachel Maddow's show last night, I will now own my hypocrisy. In a segment comparing the hand-wringing over the "Big 3 bailout" to the weekend, cover of night cash injection to citigroup of roughly the same amount, she highlighted a concept that I have flirted with, and am now prepared to marry. The inherent societal inequity between the ease of white collar assistance and the aversion to blue collar aid.
Quietly, while many were watching football, or finishing their shift at their second or third part time job to make ends meet, the Citigroup was offered 20 billion new dollars so that perhaps they would not have to layoff 52,000 employees. In our current climate I have no problem with spending money to keep people employed.
However, citigroup just got 25 billion to buy other failing banks, in which they failed, they also proceeded to spend 400 million for naming rights to the new home of the New York Mets. (I'm a diehard Met's fan, which I realize removes my last shreds of credibility and judgement). Saving 52 thousand jobs is laudable, the money citigroup received comes out of the previously dedicated T.A.R.P. funds, and to their credit citigroup did present a plan that is "workable" in the view of outside objective experts. But with that in mind how can our federal government swoop in to salvage 52 thousand white collar jobs without controversy yet stall at the prospect of saving millions of direct and ancillary jobs with the same price tag? If citigroup like the big 3 is in it's predicament because of mismanagement then clearly management is not the decision making standard. If 52 thousand medium to high paying jobs trump an untold amount of lower wage jobs then clearly maximizing employment salvage is not the trigger.
For myriad reasons people of all walks of life have mused that this is a dangerous time in terms of the direction of the American Republic. To pile on to the paranoia I will submit my greatest fear. I offer that we are taking steps towards feudalism. We are on this path not due to malice but rather by the temptations of good intentions. Here is my case;
1. People are born into an economic class, there is nothing to do about the accident of birth, but what happens thereafter is important. Generally speaking, those born into an economic class, are born into a community that shares that status. They attend schools with their peers, and absent external forces generally stay within their class, as they are only shown opportunities consistent with maintaining their status. In short, with rare exception the wealthy stay wealthy, and the not-wealthy stay that way.
2. Those who do not have wealth make attempts through labor to gain it, those who do have wealth make attempts through policy to protect it.
3. Eventually the cultural cloistering of the have's and have not's creates a gap so large that one class has no means to empathize with what the life and needs of the other class truly are.
That is the societal stage in which this drama unfolded;
1. Congress, as a result of their disconnect with their constituents fails to realize that borrowing 150 billion dollars to put $600 or less into the pockets of taxpayers does not meet the cost benefit analysis test. (Anyone in the mood for cake yet?)
2. A few months later Congress sees fit to spend billions of dollars to bolster individual investment firms, banking institutions and insurance companies.
3. A month later Congress finds the will to authorize the mortgage of our future to the tune of 810 billion dollars in loans, bailouts and pet projects, a double down on the voodoo philosophy of trickle down economics.
While programs take time to work and doing nothing was clearly not a viable option, the actions of our leaders is consistent with the steady march towards feudalism. Wise or foolish, the economic recovery act of 2008 was born of good intentions, however with a population of roughly 300 million people, had we borrowed the combined 960 billion dollars and distributed those funds equally for every man woman and child in our nation, that would have equated to about $3,000 per individual, $6,000 per couple, $12,000 for a family of four. That unlike $600 or less, would have had a real impact on people's monthly overhead, for many that is several months of salary. This alongside aggressive debt restructuring (like we're doing now) would perhaps have returned liquidity to the financial markets using trickle up economics. If people spent the money recklessly it would have stimulated the economy through the demand side. If people used the money to become current on debts that would have stabilized the housing markets and avoided an untold amount of foreclosures while fortifying the balance sheets of lending institutions. Even if they only saved the money, banks would have had enough cash reserves to continue issuing both personal and commercial paper. And at the very least if all else failed, the lowest end of the economic spectrum would have had savings to ride out some unemployment (a lot of which would not have happened anyway).
Our current situation has many causes, not limited to supply side, trickle down economic theory, and lack of financial education for our citizens. We attempted to correct this course by slowing down with half measures like the stimulus package instead of full throttle reverse by at least taking a shot at demand side, rising tides economic policy, and aggressive financial education efforts. I guess "for every action and equal but opposite reaction" never occurred to an administration so opposed to science.
My feudalism fear is about as warranted as the socialism fear which is to say, not at all. As unfortunate and rife with human costs our situation is, it is simply a correction that was inevitable and all we can really do is not panic, not make too many mistakes and see this for what it is, a once in a generation opportunity to address issues of generational poverty, education inequity and climate change through public works projects while it will be politically popular.
That said, now that the election is over it is safe to say I was originally a strong John Edwards supporter. I hope that his current personal foibles don't keep him out of public life for too long as he was absolutely right about "The two Americas". Lyndon Johnson spoke of this in his term as President and our war on poverty is one of the few places in American society where we have made significant negative progress. Lyndon Johnson, at heart a populist, warned of the costs of the rift between the poor and everybody else. John Edwards in his campaign rightly pointed out that now, the rift is between the Very Wealthy and everybody else. It is important to note that I think having wealthy people is a good thing, in fact I aspire to be wealthy myself at some point. I also do not believe that taking from the rich to give to the poor is a good idea. But it is vital to the continuance of the principles on which our nation was founded to have the tools in place where personal responsibility is rewarded with enduring self reliance.
Our founding documents provide for the right to the pursuit of prosperity, but not a guarantee. However if we do not address the issues of generational poverty and education inequity, we find ourselves in violation of our core constitutional obligations. Worse if we continue to pursue the above policies forged in ideological disconnect, and do not bridge the cultural divide between those who lead and those who are led, we will only ensure that the wealthy will gather more wealth at the expense of others instead of in concert with them. If we do not, if only temporarily redirect our focus the most benevolent actions of people of means will only result in long term dependency on the wealthy by the poor. Whether the relationship is based on employment or housing, our current path without caution and re-prioritization will only cause those with means to consolidate tremendous wealth and further bifurcate our society.
Finally to speak to the criticism of my post "The Prius Problem", I'd first say, thanks for the comment and keep them coming! I am a product of conservatory training. My educational background is of the classical training where improvements come from criticism and deconstruction by the instructor. For me this blog is equal parts sharing my views and an educational exercise. You the reader are my instructor, without your comments I cannot know if my thoughts are being conveyed with clarity so I respect and encourage your comments on both the content and the style. In the classical training model it is the obligation of the student to also be self critical and defend their actions.
I will begin with self criticism. My greatest weakness is brevity. I attempt to make connections between opposing arguments, because I am a "big picture" thinker. I realize however that I am not alway efficient with language. A lengthy thought process is no excuse for verbosity. Further, from my experiencing teaching I don't assume prior knowledge. Speaking to prerequisite information can clarify an argument, the liability however is that it can at best be redundant, and at worst appear smug. With the context that I intended to speak to a broad audience on complex issues, by all means offer critical analysis as to where I have added more than is necessary or simply have stated something to prove that I know it.
I strive to present the wisdom of the argument, not the author.
With acknowledgment of my deficiency in brevity, I defend my rhetorical style. I use "big" words. And I will continue to do so. I make bold statements and will continue to do so. I make bold statements because it is not my intention that the reader necessarily agree with me but rather to provoke thought and discussion. Without provoking argument how will I know when I am wrong? My use of vocabulary is not in spite of my modest upbringing but rather in honor of it. My mother, my teachers, and my friends who have been sources of intellectual and personal nurture did not make financial and personal investments in me for me to sound uneducated. I may have come from a humble beginning, but my world view has been shaped by my formative years in the playground of a housing project as much as my language was synthesized in the hallowed halls of our nations finest private institutions of higher learning. I have strong ties to, and my desire to work in public service is a result of, my relationship with working people. I do not believe that even the most common are incapable of understanding my words, and I further disagree that the case of the struggling can be made without the most eloquent of language. Common vernacular is too weak for uncommon challenges.
And finally ahead of this Thanksgiving holiday I would like to share how thankful I am for the great people in my life, and diversity of experiences that have made me whole. I am eternally grateful for the opportunities that have been presented to me, particularly this year, but over the course of my life that have given me a rare understanding of our nation, our society and myself. With the challenges ahead both personal and public, I close this year with a profound sense of good will, a renewed sense of providence, and a reaffirmed belief that we do, for our challenges, live in a time that has the greatest level of opportunity afforded to people in the history of mankind. May you have a joyous holiday season.
Recent Comments