Weekend Open Thread

"You see what power is–holding someone else's fear in your hand and showing it to them."

–Amy Tan

49 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. mamajama55mamajama55 says:

    Anyway….I thought Maher's take on the psychology of the most vicious commenters was telling. Westword used to have a commenter "fishingblues", but he was too mean for them.

  2. DavidThi808DavidThi808 says:

    Vey interesting article. The richer you are, the more likely you are to be a selfish dick - http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/business/jan-june13/makingsense_06-21.html

  3. DavidThi808DavidThi808 says:

    California signs state's first fracking rules

    The bill from Sen. Fran Pavley, D-Agoura Hills, requires drillers to disclose the chemicals used and acquire permits before they use hydraulic fracturing.

    • mamajama55mamajama55 says:

      Davidt808, so I'm trying to get up to speed on fracking law and regs in Colorado, preparatory to writing a diary about ithe flooding/frackiing situation. What's your understanding of what fracking regs are in Colorado?

      I understand that Hick negotiated a law requiring disclosure of fracking chemicals on fracfocus.org . Here, for example, are the locations of frack wells in Boulder county. Here are the regulations in Colorado. I haven't read them yet, hoping for a layman's summary. Would Polis' staff help with that?

      With four confirmed spills into floodwaters, and hundreds of damages, floating tanks, or  pipe breakages which may be oil, gas,or "condensate", which is a mixture of water and gas or chemicals, is Colorado doing anything comparable to California?

      Is California's geology comparable to Colorado's? As in, do they have the equivalent of a floodplain rich in oil and gas, used for agriculture?

       

      • Duke CoxDuke Cox says:

        Mama condensate was called “casing head gas” by the old timers. It is so potent you can run a vehicle with it…though not as efficiently as gasoline.

      • Duke CoxDuke Cox says:

        Oh…and I recommend you do a little more research before you go saying things like “a law requiring disclosure of fracking chemicals”.
        I suggest a conversation with Benita Phillips, a registered nurse and president of Western Colorado Congress of Mesa County. Use der google..
        or simply pick the brains of our two resident oil and gas experts, Club Twitty and ardy3 …no offense to other “well” informed people.

        • mamajama55mamajama55 says:

          Who is ardy3?

           

           

        • mamajama55mamajama55 says:

          Twitty, are you going to write a diary on the fracking /flooding thing? I'm trying to write it, but it's tough to sort through the industry bs on one hand, and the environmentalist angst on the other. Then there's the human tragedy. I have lots of links collected, which I can post, but I just don't know enough yet. in fact, nobody knows enough yet.

          There is now plenty of media attention on Colorado's flooding, probably fracking and other toxic crap leaks, but nobody knows yet what's actually in the water. That would be my basic take on a fracking/flooding diary.

          Please leave some brains out for me to pick, or better yet, tell me that you're going to write this thing. Thanks. mj55

  4. MADCO says:

    There is no actual disclosure requirement in Colorado. No clean up or accountability requirement neither – it's case by case.  But look at Parachute creek for the past several months.  No one is responsible.

    • Gray in Mountains says:

      be fair MADCO, wasn't Williams fined like $350 or some equally substantial amount?

      • MADCO says:

        Prove they actually paid it and I'll moderate.

        Just like the the break fail leak spill that occurred in Adams county last Spring (summer?). The "fine" was satisified by demonstrating the remediation expense was at least as much as the so called fine.

        As soon as wells and storage tanks are upstream from me, I'm moving.  I don't even like the golf courses that are upstream from here.   

  5. Diogenesdemar says:

    Yep . . .

    (. . . and, anyway, I’m feeling marvelously non-political today . . .)

  6. mamajama55mamajama55 says:

    This is what small government looks like:

    If Ronnie Reagan had gotten his wish, to limit government to the size that it could be strangled in a bathtub, we would have what Somalia has now:

     

    The gang with the most guns wins. From  The Guardian, a history of Somalia in pictures:

     

     

    Power base of Al Shabab:

    http://www.aljazeera.com/news/africa/2011/12/2011121253357803224.html

     

    Latest attack from Al Shabab:

    http://www.aljazeera.com/news/africa/2013/09/2013921174856564470.html

     

    Here’s what government by religious fundamentalists looks like:

    http://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia/2013/09/201392275531903214.html

    • fishingblues says:

      Forget religion, your contention that smaller government would lead us to conditions likeSomalia is ludicrous at best.  And you have the nerve to consider your blather substantive.  Jazus! (Just an expression of exasperation, not a religious pronouncement.)

      • roccoprahn says:

        What's "smaller Government"?

        FYI, under Reagan and both the Bushes size of government swelled. The deficit exploded, the debt increased to unfathomable record highs, and the actual amount of…………gasp!…………government employees increased to record numbers.

        Under Presidents Clinton and Obama, the numbers of all those indicators fell, in the case of President Obama, the number of employees of the Federal Government before the sequestration began were at lows not seen since President Carter's Administration.

        That anybody doesn't know this is a testament to the ability of really wealthy and powerfull conserve groups to perpetuate the myth of "conservative small government" and the really obvious lack of desire of people like this new troll to be informed……….at all.

        Under redleg presidents, redleg Congresses, government grows. Under Democratic Presidents, it slows and shrinks. But……….under Democratic Administrations, the regular guy does do better. Under redleg administrations, only the really well off get healthy.   

        I'm not one that believes that smaller government for the sake of smaller government is good. Those numbers of government employees laid off represent real breathing human beings. They become unemployed, no longer spend at the store or pay income taxes, contribute into the economy. The unemployment numbers at under 7.6% aren't naturally a good indicator. When the factories that made the US "The Arsenal of Democracy" return, not likely I'll add, the unemployment numbers will drop dramatically.

        So, again, what's "smaller government"?

        Instead of just venting your less than informed and poor timing blather and hate, give me something that will show me you're not just another goober. I could respect that. Right now, you're just the parody goober.

        Get it done.

        • BlueCat says:

          Please don't feed the troll.

        • fishingblues says:

          Well rocco, I guess it depends on which liar you believe and how one defines government size.  You seem to want to define it as number of workers.  I would be more inclined to define it as spending and debt.  There are many reasons why spending, workers and debt, go up with different presidents.  Some spending actually produces results.  The definition of "results" also is subject to interpretation.   

          I will say this:  as a Libertarian I'm not impresed with either party.  I have previously  stated who my favorite presidents were – 2 dems and 2 GOP.  I would have loved to have seen Ron Paul get the nod. 

          For the record here, I will state the two worst presidents in the last 100 years – Obama and Carter (in that order).  History will prove that out.  Just as history will prove Reagan and Kennedy as the two best.     

          • ClubTwitty says:

            GW leaves Obama (and Carter) in the dust as far as being the worse.  Presdided over the destruction of trillions of dollars in wealth, started two wars (but finished none)…

            Libertarianism is fantasy for adolescent minds.  It has no link with reality. 

            • fishingblues says:

              twit:  GW wasn't great and likely not even good.  The destruction of wealth began when Clinton, Frank, Dodd and the brain trust in the Democratic party decided to lower underwriting standards,because, they figured, it was a "right" to own a home.  Many poor people are poor for one very good reason.  They are not very responsible with money.  Add in a natural downward swing in the economic cycle and a recipe for disaster was imminent.  (You might also add in the lust for profit and incompetence  of the banks buying and selling subprime paper.

              As to Libertarianism – it is the ONLY salvation for a country otherwise headed for doom and destruction.  

              Tell me twit, do you believe the country can survive its course (Dem or GOP)? 

            • Duke CoxDuke Cox says:

              There was that one guy who might qualify, CT.

              His name was Jeremiah Johnston, the subject of a book called "Crow Killer".  Robert Redford starred in an incorrectly named movie about him. He lived alone in the woods for many years, killing Crow indians and eating their livers…hence his more appropriate appelation of "Liver-eating Johnston".

              But, even he probably came to town once in a while for chewing tobacco.

  7. ClubTwitty says:

    Hey!  Look who I found a picture of! 

  8. dwyer says:

    There is an article worth reading by David Kopel in the Denver Post, today.

    He outlines strategy for reversing gun control legislation in the 2014 Colorado legislative session.

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account


You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.