Local Control and Fakery ‘Bans’ – Threat Vs. Threat

(Promoted by Colorado Pols)

Let’s talk threats, but first let’s back up.  Let’s talk about what’s not on the ballot this November:  A statewide fracking ban.  It seems that whatever polling there is, it must show that reasonable Coloradans support local control–We understand the fairness of trusting the directly affected neighborhoods and towns, and elected officials.  Most of the proposed measures extend the same type of authority they have with other development in their midst, around their schools, next to their homes, above their neighborhoods, in their drinking water supplies.  Egads! What to do?

Anti Local-Control Spin: Sunshine, Lollipops or TEOTWAWKI (aka “Statewide Fracking Ban”)

For clarity on that question, we can look to the recent op-ed in the Chieftain, the yellow rag out of Pueblo.  In it two board members of Vital for Colorado (one of the anti-local control group that has the Denver Metro Chamber director among its leadership). From that source, it appears, the answer is to prevaricate, also known as lying, bearing false witness, and a host of other terms.  

Of course there are always clever ways to kinda-sorta get around all that—the wonders of language artfully deployed! Thus we are told not that a fracking ban is looming, but the threat of a statewide fracking ban’ might be!  

‚Äč

And such a threat of this thing that would be bad if it were real, is juxtaposed against a life of wonder and prosperity from the gentle beneficent activity known as "hydraulic fracturing" or more commonly (and somewhat rudely) as "fracking". 

For the sunshine and lollypop part of the fracking story we can also turn to bipartisan bygone pols, and yet another op-ed, this one cosigned by former Governors Roy Romer and Bill Owens:

Fracking isn't a political belief; it's a technology. In Colorado, it's used to open tiny fractures in deep shale formations, which are trapped below a mile or more of solid rock. Fracking lasts just a few days and takes place after a well has been drilled, reinforced with multiple steel and cement barriers, and tested to ensure the water table near the surface is protected. Water, sand and a tiny percentage of chemical additives are injected thousands of feet down the well until there's enough pressure to crack the shale and access the oil and gas trapped inside. Without those cracks, the oil and gas cannot flow into the well.

Fracking was pioneered in the 1940s and has been closely studied, tightly regulated and constantly improved by experts inside and outside the industry. It's been safely used more than a million times across the nation.

None of that presents a realistic impression of what fracking is, nor any historical context behind it.  Horizontal, multistage fracking to get at tight gas and shale oil was not pioneered in the 1940s, nor are well casings always sound, that ‘tiny percentage’ of ‘chemical additives’ represent hundreds of thousands of gallons of substances, along with radioactive and toxic elements in the 'produced water,' some that can have toxicity measured in parts per billion

Fracking, as its being practiced in the Niobrara and similar geologies is closer to 15 years old—with a lot of development of that technology happening right here in western Colorado, a good deal of it when Mr. Owens was governor. So both men likely understand these facts, but it does not sound as reassuring as bullshit happy talk.

 Because when it comes to the other side of the story, the dark side—as it were—to all the happy talk, that's a subject the industry finds objectionable, so be prepared for a growing pile of spin, this latest dump with the names of a couple ex-governors attached. 

Or Maybe Its Local Control vs. a Toxic Future?  

So what happens if one brings up real threats, the ones truly inherent in oil and gas development?  

It seems we are told one of two things: That no one can conclusively link neonatal and infant deaths, tumors, poisoned water, ozone spikes and all the other phenomena that increasingly cluster around oil and gas development, to oil and gas development.

Anyone that even suggests there might be more than just a casual—but a causal—correlation must want humanity to live in a cave.  And/Or we are told to:  > > >  LOOK OVER THERE > > >  JOBS!  

Indeed, according to Vital for Colorado and its various siblings, manifestations, clones and shadows, the choice is stark and frightening: massive manna-from-fracking or a hundred thousand jobs evaporated.  

IOW, which is it Colorado: Do you side with the ‘threat of a fracking ban’ or are you among the reasonable ones that favor the nothing-but-sunshine promise of prosperity?  

Of course this very set up is a lie, and it’s hard to see it any other way.  Whatever one calls it, it is dishonest at its core.  People spreading it ought to know better and be ashamed of themselves.  And if those considering how to best confound Coloradans before exercising their right at the ballot, would instead set out to frame the matter fairly, they might consider real threat vs real threat.  And if one were really to put apples to apples—then the discussion might instead look more like the following:

On the one hand is the threat of some unknown number of local jurisdictions enacting a variety of unknown locally oriented regulations, from setbacks and oil and gas specific traffic planning, to bans on certain activities—like fracking.  This would cost some additional unknown amount of money in some unknown places for the world’s richest industry, true. 

But it’s hard to say by how much.  And how it would impact the 2% of job income in the state that comes from oil and gas, or even the somewhat larger amount that comes from activity tied to that; is much less knowable—almost Rumsfeldian,  the unknown unknowns.  But obviously local control would not chase activity out of the state, like the imagineerings of frackademia might portray.

Then contrast that with what may come to pass without local control, in those same unknown local jurisdictions, the threat mind you, the possibility. The threat inherent from acknowledging, here and now, that significant and increasing problems come with converting residential or other inappropriate places into what are—in all reality—industrial zones.  

Slippery Oilie-Spin: A Lie is a Lie is a Lie – It May Not Work This Time

Let’s assess the threat found in that other side of getting fracked: It’s a dirty business.  It’s industrial, with real and detrimental impacts on people and other resources nearby

There are still confounding issues like induced seismicity (aka frackquakes) and 'frackhits'—where a new frack blows out an older or other adjacent well, often blasting a toxic spew.

There are flowback failures and fiery explosions that rage for days; leaky or ruptured pipelines that spill toxic carcinogens into waterways or flood neighborhoods in crud(e).

Those certainly are the more spectacular (but not invented) failures and fraccidents, so let’s not forget the ‘routine’ spill and release, the ones that happen at least daily, somewhere, in Colorado, at least by the State’s on-the-book count. 

Although it has made it into the dictionary, a term industry has come to loathe‘fracking'  is not the whole of it: spills do not just happen then, or only during drilling and completion, cement eventually leaks, and spills and toxic releases happen over the life of the well, affecting both surface and ground water.  

And even though industry and our regulators rote-repeat that all is OK when fracking a mile or three underground, not all the experts are convinced that there is no risk—and even evidence ofgroundwater communication from the frack below.  Finally, we cannot forget the mundane risks closely associated with this industrial activity:  increased traffic deaths, increased crime in the towns over-run with ‘man camps’  from drugs, prostitution and theft to assault and murder; the sudden transformation of a rural or residential life and landscape for a short term high; the dust, the grime; the diminished quality of life and the loss of property value

So, yeah, local communities have real concerns about threats that demonstrably exist in the oil and gas patch.  And faced with acknowledging the legitimacy of allowing Coloradans and communities directly and daily impacted by this industrial and dangerous activity the ability to make decisions, informed by what are shown to be real threats,  then perhaps lying does seem the better choice.  

“How Best to Fool Coloradans,” it would not shock to find this the title of a memo in certain PR shops and boardrooms: 

Last year, [drilling company created pro-fracking group] CRED spent big money on local television ads, according to FCC filings. This year, the group is paying for an advertising supplement section in The Denver Post called “Energy and Environment” that mimics the appearance of objective news. The section includes articles with headlines such as “Statewide fracking ban could hobble local economies” and “If you watch baseball, you support oil and natural gas.”

And yet all this well-financed blitz of Texas-sized bullshit cannot stave off the industry's basic fear, that people may very well demand the reins of their democracy back—and that would be bad for business. As the Denver Business Journal described the sentiment of yet another anti-local control group–This one with former U.S. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, former Denver Mayor Wellington Webb, and (again) the Denver Metro Chamber director, on its Board: 

But they expect to have an uphill climb convincing the public to oppose the efforts, as fracking bans and local-control initiatives have proven popular by passing in five different Colorado cities so far.

An 'uphill climb' in part because we are still not yet done running down threats that come to citizens lucky enough to have tight gas or shale oil beneath their homes, yards and school athletic fields.  Besides the catastrophes and the day-to-day spills and mishaps, the nuisance, the traffic and hassel, and the fracking deep below–increasingly we learn that the very process itself, even when everything goes right; is toxic and pollutingCopious releases of methane, concentrations of VOCs, the increasing signs of real, significant, and devastating health impacts that cluster around this activity.  

Thus to provide a recap, on one side organizations pitching a fictitious 'threat' of a ‘statewide fracking ban,’ and on the other increasing amounts of real evidence of harm.  So OK then, let’s talk threats.

And we’ll see you in November. 

83 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. mamajama55mamajama55 says:

    Nice work, ct. You pulled together the technical aspects of OG production via fracking, and placed it in context of the current Colorado political climate, and the effects on human beings living with fracking in the neighborhood.

    You only left out one piece: Colorado, too, has its "frackademics": the CU Leeds School of Business has put out  two studies about oil and gas production in Colorado. The  one you cited is actually pretty realistic – 30,000 O&G jobs in CO, or as you said, less than 2% of the total state economy.

    The other is a corporate fantasy: " a study" based on a "conjecture" that fracking will be banned in Colorado. That 110,000 jobs figure Hick likes to toss around? Comes from the second Leeds study. There is no other source, although I have asked Hick's staff to source the figure. No mainstream journalist appears willing to question him about it.

    Jake Jabs, ultra-conservative furniture magnate, just gave $10 million to the Leeds school of business for an "entrepeneurship institute". This may explain why Leeds School of Business has traded academic honesty for corporate whoring.

    That, and Bruce Benson, President of CU, is a multimillionaire oil and gas man from way back.

    The Chieftain is due for an op ed with an opposing point of view. It's always worth a try.

    • ct says:

      I may go back and fix that link, I meant to go to the newer one that the frackers are using.  

    • ruthellaruthella says:

      Doesn't negate your larger points, but Jake Jabs' gift is to CU Denver, not Leeds (CU Boulder).

      • mamajama55mamajama55 says:

        You are correct, ruthella. CU Leeds School of Business is corporate-whoring without help from Jake Jabs. And Hickenlooper and all of the mainstream media are echoing and rebroadcasting the "110,000 jobs" figure, bogus as it is. 

        The 110,000 jobs figure appears to be a very generous interpretation of this table 2 from the first Leeds study, hosted on the webpage of the industry propaganda /lobbying group, Coloradans for Responsible Energy Development (CRED) located on page 7, titled "Oil and Gas Total Economic Impact (Direct, Indirect, Induced) 2012:

         See that 111,476 figure?  That is the 110,000 jobs – but it's bullshit. It's a statistic made up to fit a framework of "economic impact", which has no real world reference. It includes "indirect and induced" jobs – basically anyone who says the words "oil" or "gas" in the course of a day's work. 

        To look at actual oil and gas jobs in 2012, as in real people actually hired, we have to look at another table, table 10 on page 12, copied below:

         

         

         

         

         

         

         

         

        So, 29, 254 Oil and Gas jobs in Colorado in 2012 – more if you include refineries and  7-11 clerks.  Which sensible people don't, because those jobs will exist whether communities allow fracking or not. Fuels will need refining, people will need a place to go to fill the tank and buy a gallon of milk in the middle of the night. 

        When you compare real jobs from the Colorado Bureau of Labor Statistics to some corporate whore's fantasy about "economic impact" 30,000 is 80,000 jobs less than 110,000.  There are no "multipliers" to explain how we go from 30,000 to 110,000. The only explanation is 

        We know Hick likes the Leeds S o B. It was his go-to source for his claim in his State of the State address. that " We can expect robust job growth in virtually every sector of the economy this year."

        The Washington Times, Rev. Sun Myung Moon's legacy whack-job paper, also quoted the second, totally fake Leeds study in its attack on Polis.  This second study is a thought experiment, that, in its executive summary, says that "conjecture suggests" that there will be a statewide fracking ban, and then proceeds to make up statistics for what such a ban would include. 

        Hickenlooper's press secretary will not return my calls nor emails. Apparently, they do not want to own up to this blatant distortion of the truth in pandering to the oil and gas industry's desire for unencumbered profit – and the academics are happy to blow up statistics and to bend the truth, as well. 

         

         

  2. JBJK16 says:

    We'll, sure, when you say it like that.

  3. Duke CoxDuke Cox says:

    Very nicely done, ct.

    No one does it better.

  4. notaskinnycooknotaskinnycook says:

    ct, I'd say that was a good post, but there was nothing good in it. Scary stuff. And there ae some Democratic politicians who ought to be getting fitted for their tails and horns, 'cause they're going to hell for trafficing with the O&G clan. Romer? I thought he was a rancher. Poisoned water is not good for catle. And Salazar? I KNOW he knows better. He had to have seeen the damage as Interior Secretary. Since O&G sells fracking by telling people it will bring jobs and cheapen fuels, maybe the answer is for Dems to throw around some numbers, too: Costs of health care for workers and residents sickened by fracking, cost of clean-ups from "accidents" (aren't accidents things that can't be anticipated?), costs of attempting to restore the environment after all of the 'energy" has been sucked out of the ground. Fight profits with costs. "It harms the environment" vs "30,000 jobs" is bringing a butterknife to a gunfight.

    • ct says:

      I think we have more than a butterknife on this issue.  

      I ended up with a bunch of additional info when I worked up this one, so I have a follow-up envisioned.  

      I want to get at the relationships among these anti-local-control groups, and the notion that the state is the 'goldilocks' of regulation, that more federal and more local control are both 'bad' and will lead to total calamity.  Sounds suspect on its face, and the more I poked around the more so…

  5. reubenesp says:

    You hit the nail on the head ct. The facts speak for themselves. Thanks for putting this piece together. 

    The governor actually said in a recent interview, "it just never comes up into the groundwater"  http://insideenergy.org/2014/05/28/full-interview-colorado-gov-hickenlooper-on-debate-over-local-control-of-fracking/  He's obviously in denial and will be seen as a pathetic pawn of the oil and gas industry industry. He's going to lose a huge amount of credibility on this issue

    A schocking fact that I found just tonight is that EPA allowed direct injection of fracking fluids into fresh water aquifers under Denver, Weld, Adams, Boulder and Larimer counties. http://archive.coloradoan.com/article/G2/20121228/NEWS01/312280037/EPA-allowing-oil-companies-inject-drilling-fracking-waste-into-aquifers-below-Northern-Colorado

    And just tonight Greeley was hit with a 3.7 magnitude earthquake. 

     

    • Charlie3637 says:

      The earthquake is being reported as very rare.  USGS: A small but very rare earthquake northeast of Greeley last evening at 9:35pm MDT. Quake was M3.4 at a depth of 4.8mi.

    • Duke CoxDuke Cox says:

      "it just never comes up into the groundwater"

      It is just this sort of mendacity that has cost industry, and for his collusion with them, Hickenlooper, their credibility. For many years they could contain the lies, puttiing out fires, both figuratively and literally, and buying the silence of the truly affected. But the greed that has driven the oily boys to invade your back yard has tipped the scales.

      The giant cities of the front range have finally become aware of the nightmare endured for decades by the inhabitants of more remote locales. The people of those communities are determined. The blood in their veins is running hot and the steel in their voices is felt by the boys at the Petroleum Club…

      And to all those people, from many of us who have been on this beat for longer than we care to remember…

      At last…welcome to all.

  6. Andrew Carnegie says:

    Local Control?

    "It seems that whatever polling there is, it must show that reasonable Coloradans support local control–We understand the fairness of trusting the directly affected neighborhoods and towns, and elected officials."

    How does that jive with subsidies for your favorite sources of energy that dirve up the price of electricity for farmers?  Do they get local control over that?

    The locals should be able to decide what to pay people, no minimum wages?

    You don't have to pay union wages for public projects?

    If the locals decide it is OK to discriminate that is OK with Club Twitty?

     

     

    • Duke CoxDuke Cox says:

      This subject has your little pea brain all twisted into knots, eh, troll? It is a consequence of your hypocrisy…nothing else.

      Bad form on reusing cts' "booger picker"…you are hearby penalized 500 pts. for plagarism…

      • Curmudgeon says:

        Give him a break, Duke….he's got to be confounded by the idea that people would actually want to have a say in whether poison is injected into the ground around their homes.  

        Freedom is only important to KochSuckers when it makes a profit.  

        • Duke CoxDuke Cox says:

          That he is, who he is, is conclusive proof of his confoundedness…

          he is then even more profoundly stupid to provide us with daily reinforcement of that conclusion..

          Pity the lad…but, not too much.

      • langelomisteriosolangelomisterioso says:

        Can a self-portrait truly be plagiarism?  I thought AC was just presenting us with a picture of the average conservative. I'd also like to hear his definition of "reasonable Coloradans". Would that be those who agree with him, or those who have not yet had their tap water become flammable or been diagnosed with some exotic malady the cause of which no one knows for sure but it can't be fracking?

      • Andrew Carnegie says:

        DC, Still lacking the brain cells to deal with the issues raised?

        Is it a consequences of your genes, upbringing, or the desctruction of the limited capacity you brought to the table by abuse or addition?

        You,CT aka Club Twitt and Cur have it all in common.

        Raise an issue, called on your inconsistency, then yell Troll.

        It really is revealing of your lack of thought.

         

        • Curmudgeon says:

          Having the "Freedom" to inflcit your will upon others is different than having the Freedom to say no to poisoning your land.  I realize you probably don't see the difference. 

          Funny how you righties always go to "So, it'd be okay to discriminate, right??" like it's a goddamn fantasy of yours…..

           

        • ct says:

          You are delusional, believing you raised any issue.  And I addressed the bullshit at its core pf your latest spittle–different powers and authorities exist at different jurisdictions.  So? The point is irrelevant, and certainly does not make extending more local powers of jurisdiction to this issue, hypocritical. Except to an idiot, an auto-tron or a combination of those.  

          Local control just clarifies what authorities local governments, and people they most 'directly represent' in the words of Founding Father Tj, have on this issue. That local govts don't set statewide revenue structure, federal wages, or maintain nuclear weaponry is unimportant to this subject.  I would call it a diversion but I doubt that you understand it as a tactic, just throwing crap according to what some one else thought up for you.  

          All you have done as usual, is barf up someone else’s’ talking point.  Likely you are incapable of anything else, certainly you have never shown it here.

          Thanks for reposting the gif of your doing your work.  Its a helpful image lest anyone forget what you are up to.  

  7. ct says:

    Guess what– There are differences in laws and jurisdictions!  Who knew? Some matters very often fall to local jurisdictions–like, say, zoning of industrial facilities within a local jurisdiction.  Other things do not, like basic human and civil rights.  Iget that with a "98th percentile" IQ it is difficult to grasp.  Sorry you don't even have your typical sub-par crap to post today, Troll.  Hope they still give you your bag of silver.  

    • Andrew Carnegie says:

      CT, If fracking is a health and safety issue, which is the gist of your diary, why is a health and safety a local zoning type issue.  Other health and safety issues have historically been dealt with on a national or state level, think OSHA, MSHA etc.  It would properly be a state or federal issue.

      Try a little honesty.

      The reason the left is trying it on a local basis is you don't have the votes to do it on a statewide or national level.

  8. ct says:

    Here's honesty troll => There is an appropriate place for local, state and federal regulation.  Wow. Head exploded.

    You are truly a dumbass.  And I mean that in its most specific sense.  

  9. Andrew Carnegie says:

    CT.

    Unsafe cars?  Recall limited to cars in Longmont?  Not nationwied.  That would be stupid.

    Unsafe drug?  Recall limited to Boulder? Not nationwide.  That would be stupid.

    Unsafe drilling practice? Prohibited in Louisville? Not nationwide. Why?  

    • mamajama55mamajama55 says:

      Because local communities can decide for themselves if the economic trade-offs are worth the risks. 

      Because we trust Coloradans to become informed and weigh the issues. Your side doesn't trust Coloradans. Why?

      • Andrew Carnegie says:

        MJ

        Nice try.

        The Dems voted down a law that would preclude towns that precluded Fracking from sharing in the revenues associated with it.  There is no trade off, just NIMBY ism.

        Colorado has elected officials who have been informed and the Department of Health has studied the issue.

        Don't you trust the Democtrat Governor?

        Don't you trust the Dem House and Senate?

        Don't you trust the Department of Health?

        Don't you trust Obama and his regulators?

        If you think Coloradoans should weigh in, put it to a statewide vote.

      • MichaelBowmanMichaelBowman says:

        This Colorado dynamic is the poster child of the Princton Study that concluded the United States is no longer a democracy.  Perhaps the troll might explain to us why, just why, that an issue that polls well north of 'majority' in Colorado isn't supported by any Gubernatorial candidate or appears to not be something our legislature is willing to take on?  Could it be that our state government is nothing but a whollly-owned subsidiarty of an industry that only represents 2.25% of our GDP?  The free market is about to speak – the free market of individuals who will exercise their 'choice' at the ballot box. 

         

        • Andrew Carnegie says:

          Are you saying Hick has been bought off?

          Both houses of the State Legislature?

          The Department of Health?

          Have you checked under your bed to see if there are any monsters?

          • Duke CoxDuke Cox says:

            Hick has been bought off?

            I am sure Michael is not implying Frackenlooper has taken bribes. But you can bet your ass he has been "bought off" in the sense that he has "bought" the lies he has been told relentessly be people who are important in his life. Just as you have bought the same lies.

             

            • Duke CoxDuke Cox says:

              …by people…

              • Andrew Carnegie says:

                So you mean they have all come to a different conclusion than you do.  Has the thought occurred to you that maybe they have the come to the correct conclusion, and you did not?

                • Duke CoxDuke Cox says:

                  Yes. That thought has occured to me. That is why I relentlessly follow the news, the environmental movement and its press, the government (all three levels), the industry, and am active locally in helping others learn about and understand the realities of life in the gas patch.

                  After several years of research and interaction with the governments, the industry, and the people…I have come to the conclusion that I am right and they are wrong…as are you…again…

          • ct says:

            You believe that hundreds of thousands of scientists in tens of thousands of peer-reviewed studies and research are part of a plot by AlGore, and you can prove it because the glaciers are expanding in the ocean?  

            • Andrew Carnegie says:

              CT, I know you have not read 97 books in your life and that there are not 100 people who claim to have met your, but about that 97% of scientists agree that global warming is mostly man-made and an iminent threat, that you claim, what is the basis for that?

              • ct says:

                Find the specifics of my claim, whcih is certainly not made in the comment you are responding to, and I'll get back to you.  There are numerous claims made, and many come up with similar results but they look at differnt things.  So rather than play with whatever straw man you believe you are about to cleverly deploy, find me what it is you say I say, as in where I said it and what it was.

          • MichaelBowmanMichaelBowman says:

            Yes. Yes. Yes I'm 6-4, 225 and have been brought back from 'dead' once from an electrocution.  There isn't much that scares me.

        • MichaelBowmanMichaelBowman says:

          …and you might re-read my post, moron.  I said "…any Gubernatorial candidate", which includes the ClownCar ® 

    • Duke CoxDuke Cox says:

      Call your county health department and ask them what they think of your idea….

    • Ralphie says:

      Unsafe restaurants (whether national chain or mom-and-pop) and my local health department will shut them down.  Your point?

      Oh–you don't have anything but what you've been fed.

      • Andrew Carnegie says:

        Local enforcement of national standards.

        If Fracking is unsafe, it should be shut down, unless and until it is made safe.

        If you have the science, show it.

        So far all of the Dem regulators in Colorado and DC have been unimpressed.  You will never have a more favorable audience.

         So far, based on what you have shown them, they are not impressed.

         

  10. mamajama55mamajama55 says:

    Debate between Rep. Polis and COGA spox Schuller on 9 news:

    It's interesting that this is being portrayed as a "war" instead of merely a ballot initiative, which Coloradans will be asked to vote on. One would think that the democratic process is the way to avoid "war".  But then, I'm not an oil and gas executive. 

  11. Andrew Carnegie says:

    So the ordinances are not about banning Fracking?

    Just traffic.

    Put up a few stop signs, a traffic light, problem solved?

    Flaring, too?

    I believe there are already some standards in place on that one.

    CT, you are getting pretty pathetic, but transparently so.

    • Ralphie says:

      The Koch Brothers ought to demand their money back.  You're simply too stupid to argue a point effectively.

      • Andrew Carnegie says:

        Soros, Steyer, Gill, Polis, Stryker et al "ought to demand their money back.  You are simply too stupid to argue a point effectively."

        Ralph, I know you are just an old addict now trying to lead a meaningful life.  You still can.  Your recipes were well received. No need to call names or claim people that disagree with you are paid by others.  You were better than that.  Maybe you still can be.

    • ct says:

      Again you rally ought to stick with posting cartoons.  Those you can at least 'blame' on someone else.  You really have no idea what you are posting on, it shows, it is meaningless to point out how stupid you make yourself look in your ignorance, as that would not stop you from cluttering up the world with more of your crap.  

  12. BlueCat says:

    Uh-oh. I see we're losing control again (I'm guilty too) and giving AC way too much space. He, they or it will be posting like mad as we get into the heart of election season. Should we allow AC to set the agenda every day, every thread? Make us dance to to he/they/its tune? I mean just look at this thread. Is every thread going to look like this between now and the election? I sure hope not.

  13. ct says:

    Thanks everyone.  My diaries get lots of comments these days.  Its troll traffic, but each comment I get and Streyer adds another zero to the check!

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.