Tipton's 'anti-environment' stance hurts state's economy
Rep. Scott Tipton voted no on the recent Colorado Outdoor Recreation and Economy Act — about the designation of certain wilderness areas, recreation management areas, and conservation areas in the state of Colorado. Tipton is failing to lead on public land and wilderness protection, even though outdoor recreation is a huge economic boon to our state’s economy.
His recent vote joins a long list of past anti-environment stances. According to Wikipedia, “he rejects the scientific consensus on climate change. He argues that climate change is driven by natural climate cycles. He opposes the Paris Agreement, the international agreement which mitigates greenhouse gas emissions. He opposes federal regulation of greenhouse gas emissions. He voted in favor of legislation that would make it easier to sell federal public lands. In 2010, while serving in the state Legislature, Tipton voted against legislation to compel Xcel Energy to convert three coal powered plants to natural gas power plants. He also voted against legislation to require electricity utilities to use more renewable energy.”
Tipton’s pro-pollution agenda is locking our nation’s greenhouse gas emissions into an upward trajectory, increasing the likelihood of future wildfire devastation, drought damaged crops, and compromised winter tourism. Colorado’s economy is at risk.
JO ANN KOPKE
What's up with Kathleen Parker?
Kathleen Parker’s column in Tuesday’s Sentinel (“High crimes and misnomers”) – misleadingly obviates relevant facts that Trump’s defenders would prefer be ignored.
First, all four law professors who testified at Wednesday’s House Judiciary Committee hearing made the case for impeaching Trump. Even Republican witness Jonathan Alter conceded that – if there were adequate direct evidence that Trump personally ordered the Ukraine scheme to cheat in the 2020 election – he should be impeached (LA Times, “The Trump impeachment hearings haven’t connected the dots. Democrats should extend them”, Dec. 9; https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2019-12-09/opinion-trump-impeachment-hearings-democrats).
Second, while Alter opined that – when compared to previous impeachments --the evidence thus far presented was not yet “adequate” to justify Trump’s impeachment (https://www.rev.com/blog/house-judiciary-committee-impeachment-hearing-transcript-day-1; at 04:15), 500+ other law professors concur that the direct, indirect, and circumstantial evidence already adduced and/or publicly reported is more than sufficient (Forbes, “More Than Five Hundred Law Professors Write A Letter Favoring Impeachment”, Dec. 9; https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaeltnietzel/2019/12/09/more-than-five-hundred-law-professors-write-a-letter-favoring-impeachment-what-effects-will-it-have/#7e1a351c37d9).
Third, Parker also ignored the fact that any purported paucity of evidence as to Trump’s personal complicity is entirely attributable to his illegal orders that twelve fact-witnesses with first-hand knowledge of relevant events disregard lawful subpoenas (Politicus, “Trump Personally Blocked 12 Witnesses From Testifying At Impeachment”, Dec. 9; https://www.politicususa.com/2019/12/09/trump-block-impeachment-witnesses.html).
Consequently, Alter, Parker and sensible Sentinel readers can reasonably infer that those witnesses would offer only more incriminating – not genuinely exonerating – evidence.
Fourth, Parker also ignores the insidiousness of Trump’s attempted extortion of Ukraine’s President. On page 3 of the July 25 call transcript (https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Unclassified09.2019.pdf), Zelensky “guaranteed” that “all the investigations” Trump wanted (of Crowdstrike, Burisma, and the Bidens) would “be done openly and candidly”. But that’s not what Trump really wanted. Rather, Giuliani et al., insisted on Zelensky’s public announcement of such investigations – and even drafted a scripted for his use in the aborted interview with CNN’s Fareed Zakaria (The Intercept, Trump Pressed Ukraine’s President to Act Out a Fake News Script, Live on CNN”, Oct. 23; https://theintercept.com/2019/10/23/trump-bill-taylor-ukraine-president-cnn/).
Finally, Parker admits what Republicans’ counsel Stephen Castor dubiously refused to concede – that “the only reason Trump was concerned about corruption was because Joe Biden was his likely opponent in the 2020 election” (NYT, “Impeachment Briefing”, Dec. 9; https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/09/us/politics/impeachment-briefing-what-happened-today.html). Therefore, it was never necessary to “assume any damaging findings about Joe Biden”. Rather, the “something of value” to Trump’s 2020 re-election campaign was video-tape of Ukraine’ President announcing “investigations” into Biden that it could use in fraudulent campaign ads – the quid pro quo.
Better coverage of Senate race requested
I’ve read a few articles now on the subject of Democrats looking to unseat Cory Gardner, and not one of them has mentioned any of the candidates but Andrew Romanoff and John Hickenlooper by name. Reporter Charles Ashby does manage to let us know, in your Sentinel article of 12-4-19, that “the other five are women.”
I happen to know about one candidate: Trish Zornio, a scientist.
Did you know that Trish Zornio has been running longer than either Hickenlooper or Romanoff?
Did you know that Trish Zornio has over 100,000 twitter followers?
Did you know that Trish Zornio has visited every county in Colorado, many of them twice, and is committed to a grassroots campaign?
I’m sure readers, such as myself, would appreciate it if you would consider actually naming ALL the candidates. Better still, how about a profile of each and a link to their sites?
Democrat, Republican, or independent, almost everyone agrees that our typical way of doing politics isn’t working for most of us. There couldn’t be anything more typical than a race between three highly-funded establishment politicians who all come from the exact same demographic. Trish Zornio is a young scientist with real experience in hospitals, where the realities of all these health care debates play out. This is exactly the kind of candidate people say they would vote for if only their voices weren’t drowned out by big money and the same old interests.
That’s where the press come in. Please do the right thing and help give the people of Colorado a real choice for this important Senate race.
It's chic to complain about oil and gas operations
In Sundays paper was an article on adopting rules on harmful emission. For 60 years back that I can remember, the oil and gas operations and the guidelines for operating have improved to reasonable expected economical levels. Some people are rule-crazy. As time has gone by, the government has allowed itself to have 1 rule made, and 20 rules to govern that rule. People buy a home in an oil or gas production area and then keep complain and want the oil industry to move away. Because it's popular to be concerned about health and others, those articles sound good to get publicity and your name in the news. What about all at the people who burn trash and leaves at night in their back yards? Look into that and complain about that.