How desperate must progressives be to stoop to an appeal to an authority as untrustworthy and ridiculous as Alex Jones? “Headquarters” is a Democrat social media account “followed by” Kamala Harris and others in the Democratic leadership. Alex Jones told the morons who listen to his garbage that he thought the Sandy Hook school shooting was a hoax. Who could be a worse character to use as validation for anti-Trump positions? Tucker Carlson? Daffy Duck? Luigi Mangione? Mr. Ed? Marley’s Ghost?
I have never understood how Jones gained any notoriety at all, except that there are a depressing number of cognitively impaired right-wingers out there. Even in that brief clip he broadcasts his ignorance: Congress doesn’t invoke the 25th Amendment and even raising that (the ever-popular Plan E on the list of Axis “Get Trump!” plots) is signature significance for an idiot.
But I digress. This is your weekly white board for new ethics issues and angle. Fill it up!
Ethics Alarms 
You seem in denial about the mood within the populace which is arising and that expresses frustration and anger about general conditions. And you are definitely in mega-denial about the fact that Trump campaigned on ‘no new wars’ along with declarations about rebuilding the country and the economy. (Because you are a hard-core Neocon). And you seem to begin to look on many of those people (I speak here of the Right-tending) who were described so negatively by the NYTs when Trump first appeared. Stupid, ‘uneducated’, nit sophisticated. Not capable of grasping what you feel you grasp.
It is less what he (Jones) says since it is extremely unlikely that it will happen, but more importantly the sentiment which is rather wide-spread: betrayal, lies, and a new war described as an “escalation trap”.
The Right (as the Times points out today, so obviously) that the coalition of the Right is fracturing. Jones, Owens, Fuentes, Carlson and 50 others show the consequences of bad choices.
And it is OBVIOUSLY going to only gets worse.
1. Jones, Owens, Fuentes, Carlson Hilarious. You might as well have named Harpo, Chico, Groucho and Zeppo. Those four are open and obvious clowns. No one should want their support.
2. Of all campaign promises, now new wars is the dumbest to make but dumber to take seriously. A President is obligated to do what is in the best interests of the nation and to protect our interests and allies. No campaign promise should ever get in the way of that duty. trump has been very successful at preventing wars, ending wars and discouraging other nations from starting wars, and, indeed, taking out Iran is part of teh reason for that. I guess he could have said “Except for Iran—Iran needs to be stopped” but that would not have been wise strategy. A nation that has the reputation of being afraid to use its military power invites foreign mischief: that’s why both the Gazan War and the Ukrainian war started under Democrats.
You like labels because they eliminate the need for facts. I have never been a “neocon,” I just know my history, understand the importance of US power in international affairs, and admire Presidents who don’t govern by polls.
Incidentally, once again you are using every topic to return to your anti-Israel and pro-Anti-Semite obsession. The post has nothing to do with wars.
Jack wrote, “Incidentally, once again you are using every topic to return to your anti-Israel and pro-Anti-Semite obsession. The post has nothing to do with wars.”
Alizia choosing to deflect to one of her go-to rabbit holes, I’m shocked, shocked I say!
TROLLING: verb Posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, to draw attention to themself and for their own amusement.
Doesn’t that defined action sound like a commenting pattern that’s rather familiar?
You’ve been back from “Exile X+1” for all of five minutes and already you’re right back to telling all of us (including our host) how we think. Same song, different day.
You are wrong. No one is in any denial of any size – and certainly not “mega-denial” – that President Trump campaigned on keeping us out of war and trying to improve the economy. We all heard those words from him, so no one is denying anything with regards to that.
But sometimes situations and realities transpire that require a shift in priorities. Iran is just such a situation. The fact that you and 50 others have your knickers in a knot about it is fine. In America, you can dislike what the government is doing and not get taken to a parking lot, buried to your neck in sand, and run over with a tank.
It seems to me your biggest issue might not be that we went to war, but rather that the war was against Iran rather than against the Israeli government, which you see as the prime manipulator of the world chessboard, the prime cause for all that you see wrong with the Trump Administration, and possibly, a greater evil than the leadership in Iran.
Death to American + Death to Israel + ICBMs + Islamist Theocracy = 10s of millions of Americans and Israelis dead not to mention the collateral and radioactive damage.
Tucker, Alex, et.al. are so far from right of center Americans it isn’t even close to a point of discussion.
President Trump is a lot of less than desirable things. What he isn’t is Kamala Harris and the aforementioned insane people you claim represent right of center dissatisfaction.
“Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men? Alizia Tyler knows!”
1. Jones, Owens, Fuentes, Carlson Hilarious. You might as well have named Harpo, Chico, Groucho and Zeppo. Those four are open and obvious clowns. No one should want their support.
Your brush is too broad, and there you make a mistake in your analysis. They are absurd, each them, in some ways, and at times embarrassingly so. But not all the time. They make up the coalition that brought DT into power, and their support is now fracturing away, and this will make a rout, who knows how severe, at midterms.
So, their discourse is confused. But in many areas they (each is different) have valid points that are considerable and even important. And they have large audiences.
2. Of all campaign promises, now new wars is the dumbest to make but dumber to take seriously. A President is obligated to do what is in the best interests of the nation and to protect our interests and allies.
Yes Jack, you said that before and I listened then. And after analysis I believe that you are very, extremely wrong. But you seem to think that your opinion is more than that. It is just one opinion among many.
Now, is it that you want me to shut up and say nothing when this event on-going is of dramatic consequence?! Is that what you want? A large segment of the Right that got Trump elected did so because the promise was to focus on America internally. And all across the Internet (where all discussion occurs) many many people are not in support of the direction of this presidency.
It is NOT in the best interests of the nation to have irresponsibly launched a war that has resulted in an escalation trap. It is a major, determining issue at the present time.
Alizia,
Of course you will disagree with me on this; however, you’re intentionally pushing those lack of respect buttons that you really shouldn’t be pushing.
Choices have consequences, some direct, some indirect.
you’re intentionally pushing those lack of respect buttons that you really shouldn’t be pushing.
Of course I do not agree. I am engaging with people on a blog that all the time has as its focus ethics certainly, but American culture, politics, social issues and of course much else. Instead of trying to denigrate me and my expressions, why not see it positively?
You project onto me content that I simply do not feel is fair or accurate. It is really that simple.
“A President is obligated to do what is in the best interests of the nation and to protect our interests and allies.”
How can that be wrong? That is a legal and Constitutional definition not only of the Presidency but competent national leadership generally. I know you excel at finding wack authorities to appeal to, but I bet even you can’t find one who says that statement is “wrong.”
I did not say it was wrong. I say different things.
”So, their discourse is confused. But in many areas they (each is different) have valid points that are considerable and even important. And they have large audiences.”
Are you talking about the right wing defectors (or are they outcasts?) or Trump? I hear that same type defense used for Trump, often. Which rationale is this? Kings pass, perhaps? “There are worse things”? “I’m on the right side of history?”
I try not to defend indefensible people myself, but have fun with supporting the dregs of pseudo political rant commentary that agree with you.
“They have large audiences” is my favorite. Basically that signals that the defender believes all demagogues are per se worth heeding. Second favorite is that they sometimes have “valid points.” Blind squirrels, and so on. Almost nobody is wrong ALL the time. Not even Alizia.
False assertion. “They have large audiences” means that they have influence, large influence, in our present. And I do not say I think it is all good. And as I say: You can denigrate and dismiss anyone that you want, but you will only gain assent FROM ME if you do do fairly and judiciously. You categorically dismiss Carlson. But he deals on topics that no one else does and in a respectable and helpful way. There. That’s a fair statement. Your dismissals are far too broad. And you do a very similar thing to what the democrat Left does: condemn too quickly, too broadly.
I countered your assertion reasonably , calmly and with zero negative animus.
But he deals on topics that no one else does Right. Like saying that Churchill was the villain of WWII. Great appeal to idiots and bigots is neither useful, important or interesting. At a certain point, water is wet and things fall down, and claims to the contrary no matter how passionate just waste everyone’s time. Carlson is the smartest of the four you mentioned, which just makes his grift worse. The others at least have the excuse of low IQs.
“The others at least have the excuse of low IQs.” Heh!
Priceless!
PWS
No, not like the Churchill example. Like in a hundred different shows of his. You miss entirely the point I am making.
Alizia wrote, “You miss entirely the point I am making.”
Haven’t you figured it out after all this time, your points, whatever the hell they may be, are invisible to normal human eyes when they’re “blurred and muddied by piling on generalities, tangents, cosmic puzzles, dancing angels and navel-gazing exercises” (thanks Jack for that quote).
You’ve listened to a HUNDRED shows by that creep? No wonder you’re so confused.
Seriously, you don’t understand the signature significance thingy. Anyone who would say something so stupid and offensive as the Churchill example, even once, forfeits the privilege of ever being taken seriously by anyone, ever. And anyone who does take such a fool seriously also forfeits that privilege.
I try not to defend indefensible people myself, but have fun with supporting the dregs of pseudo political rant commentary that agree with you.
Blanket condemnations and broad, prejudiced assertions about who and what are “indefensible” are the stuff of hysterical people who cannot, or won’t, calmly examine the various influencers and commentators who are so common today.
So sure, go ahead with your “virtue-signaling” pose, if that is working for you. It does not work for me. And to my own point, I have read many many different works by people who are considered villains. And what I found is that you had to look at the claims made by the mobbish formers of opinions (their too broad condemnations) and see that it is never so easy to broadly condemn. Often it is a destructive activity.
Aliza, I don’t listen to others opinion of what is. There has been a distinct break in the “real world”, which I am fully immersed in, and the digital world where Carlson, Owen’s, etc thrive. I don’t concern myself with the Iran war, not because it doesn’t have impact me, but because I have no personal influence on the situation. Most topics they discuss is intended to incite anger and frustration and fears and isn’t worth my time. It has nothing to do with biases, but I can generally spot an unhinged person when I see them. I watched Carlson and Owens become more unhinged, loud and ranty as the years have gone by. I stand by what I said. I see no need to defend Carlson, etc when they thrive on upsetting people and being obnoxious, much like Howard Stern. If it makes you feel better to call me “hysterical and prejudiced” feel free. Your corner of the universe filled with anger and frustration and judgement has no impact on me for better or worse I value peace over clickbait. I stepped away from it years ago.
Joel wrote: But sometimes situations and realities transpire that require a shift in priorities. Iran is just such a situation. The fact that you and 50 others have your knickers in a knot about it is fine. In America, you can dislike what the government is doing and not get taken to a parking lot, buried to your neck in sand, and run over with a tank.
I understand the logic of your assertion, but I say: Now was definitely not the right time.
And it is not “fifty others” but quite possibly that electoral group needed to win at the mid-terms. That has been my principal point.
It seems to me your biggest issue might not be that we went to war, but rather that the war was against Iran rather than against the Israeli government, which you see as the prime manipulator of the world chessboard, the prime cause for all that you see wrong with the Trump Administration, and possibly, a greater evil than the leadership in Iran.
That is calumny, Joel. And those are your words, not mine.
I think government in general is corrupt, and I think the US is at a point in its history when it cannot act with impunity as it had over many decades. The consequences of an array of bad choices are now manifesting bad outcomes. And I have a strong feeling they will get worse.
Don’t quote you when it comes to me, just quote me! 🙃
You like labels because they eliminate the need for facts. I have never been a “neocon,” I just know my history, understand the importance of US power in international affairs, and admire Presidents who don’t govern by polls.
That is a broad, inaccurate and unfair statement. By definition unethical. Your policy recommendations seem to me to coincide with those of the Neocons. Therefore the label is sufficiently fair and not exaggerated.
There is an argument going around that in a nation that has reached a certain age that internal forces begin to corrupt it and corrode it. And those nations, historically, fail to recognize that the tactics of yesteryear will not and do not work, and in FACT weaken the nation, bringing on more decline, more fast.
These are said by some to be the looming conditions of America today. And for all the promise of Donald Trump, and certain accomplishments, he fits the mold Spengler warned about and predicted would become manifest around the year 2000.
So Jack, is NONE OF THIS VALID AS MATERIAL OF DISCUSSION? Should it be pushed to the side?
“These are said by some” Seriously. Alizia?
Yes Jack. Your eyes didn’t trick you. I wrote: “These are said by some”. I went even more boldly forward and wrote:
”These are said by some to be the looming conditions of America today.”
Questions, Comments? 🙃
Whew! She’s BAAACK!
Do not engage!
You might as well try to negotiate with the IRGC.
Young Bill,
I totally agree. I read the back and forth between Alizia and others. Regrettably, I will not get that time back. I find it interesting that she criticizes Jack’s lack of specificity while many of her assertions have the same specificity you find in fortune cookies and daily newspaper horoscopes. For example, “Jones, Owens, Fuentes, Carlson and 50 others show the consequences of bad choices”. The number 50 is impressive. Is it accurate? No one can tell. No supporting specificity was offered. A number like 46 or 52 or 38 could be impressive and with a hint of accuracy that neat numbers, like 50, do not have. Quite frankly, I could care less what Alizia thinks or says. She impresses me as a zealot who likes the attention she gets from stirring the pot. Consequently, I do not see the utility in engaging in any back and forth with her. Doing so is a fool’s errand.
57!
See my response to Alizia on this thread as of 11 am, EST, today.
11 am, EST = 12 pm EDT. You still on standard time? Well, S and D are next to each other on the keyboard; so, maybe it’s a typo.
Sorry for the nit, I couldn’t resist.
Most people continue to refer to the time in their zones as “Standard Time” regardless of the time of year. (I have the emails setting up appointments and Zoom calls to prove it.)What matters is that there is no confusion regarding Pacific, Mountain, Central or Eastern.
Anyway, it’s moot: Alizia wanted to go with her “Rebutting a troll with facts is bullying” smear. Her time is over.
China has one official time zone known as Beijing Time or China Standard Time (UTC+8). China spans 5 geographic time zones but uses one nationwide.
I distinguish between Daylight Savings Time and Standard Time but perhaps that will be over soon as congress seems to want to make DST permanent.
I took a class in college named, “History of American Technology” and learned in that class that the time zones in the US came about because of the railroad industry!!
So did the ball dropping at 12, now only remembered in Times Square on New Years Eve!
https://coloradosun.com/2026/04/15/power-pathway-elbert-el-paso-puc-transmission-electricity/
This particular power pathway project is a loop to harness wind and solar on the sparsely populated eastern plains of Colorado and move the power to Excel energy’s grid along the I-25 corridor. In the realm of public utilities vs new energy use that is less reliable I wonder if they should still have eminent domain power? Along the same vien, Some data center construction sites have placed NDAs on county commissioners, I understand why they would, to prevent public discussion, but to the community it seems like they are trying to make illegal decisions. All of these eminent domain and property disputes become political very quickly. Unlike the dispute (again) with Iran, this is something nearly everyone has a stake in. Either through land use, resources, traffic, property rights or distribution of resources and cost of utilities.
Jack wrote: Seriously, you don’t understand the signature significance thingy. Anyone who would say something so stupid and offensive as the Churchill example, even once, forfeits the privilege of ever being taken seriously by anyone, ever. And anyone who does take such a fool seriously also forfeits that privilege.
No Jack, you are completely wrong. I understand all sorts of things and one of them is that I see what you are doing to a person who refuses to bend to your bullying tactics of argumentation.
The Democrat Left uses the exact same tactic as you use here to blemish, denigrate and dismiss anyone whose ideas they do not like. It is not you, in the greater context of the intellectual world or in the United States who has ultimate authority to simply pronounce that your opponents are absolutely wrong and therefore to be dismissed!
It is really as simple as that and I am not arguing for or against the man’s opinion or conclusion regarding ultimate responsibility for that war.
If you are satisfied and happy that with your attitude as a bully that you drive away people with different viewpoints than you and reducing those who participate here to a small group of sycophants, then you have obviously got what you want. But I will never bend to such underhanded tactics.
So, in my view, you should and so should your entire readership (that reacts like old señoras to the mildest controversial ideas) just RELAX and allow contrary opinions.
And yes, I make it a point to read very widely, and to read people I do not like or feel affinity to, and it has benefitted me greatly. And I gave certainly watched hours of Carlson, Fuentes and numerous others because I want to know what people are thinking and how they organize their perceptions.
And I will say it again, and I hardly give a damn if you like it or not: Carlson brings on his show and talks with many people with many critical ideas about the US and the world that are valid, interesting and worthy. And he discusses with them those ideas (in his own, weird way). He is unquestionably relevant to the events and concerns of our time.
I’m just confused at this point. You claim (which is absolutely true for me) that I’m not in touch with current political sentiment (I don’t care, they’re all crazy) and Carlson and Owens have a relevant pulse of the nation (which I absolutely doubt, but again I don’t listen to any political commentators) and we should listen to them, but Joe Rogan has a much bigger following.
I’m not in touch with current political sentiment (I don’t care, they’re all crazy)
If that is your perspective, why engage in any related topic?
You’ve erased yourself from the possibility of conversation.
You really pretend not to understand that when someone says, in public, something so completely false, offensive and stupid, it means that they are untrustworthy and unserious, and cannot be used as an authority, an analyst or a good faith conversant? Facts aren’t bullying. I am not “bullying you” (talk about an unethical tactic by progressives), I am attempting to curtail your repetitious nonsense.
You have exactly four hours to send me a retraction, and you will not be able to comment on a post until that is received.
You are also prohibited from any further commentary relating to Israel, Gaza, Iran, or the U.S.foreign policy. Ever. That still leaves you 95% of the blog to rant about.
It is 11 am, EST. The clock starts now.
Generally speaking, Alizia appears to be under the false impression that everyone is supposed to bow to her arrogant superiority complex.
Alizia wrote, “I understand all sorts of things…”
Hogwash!!! I think Alizia has proven the opposite over the years.
It’s my opinion that Alizia understands very little outside of her metaphysical tunnel vision of the world around her. Alizia seems to write like a faux intellectual whos brain is obsessed with metaphysically questioning every raw reality that’s right in front of her face, then she proceeds to write Dunning-Kruger word salads integrated in gish gallop styled trolling comments and complains when people don’t grasp her point, whatever it may be. It’s as if Alizia thinks of herself as some kind of uniquely special contrarian whos intellect is so far above everyone else’s that she is above being questioned because everyone else is too damned stupid to understand her way of thinking.
I think Alizia should find the philosophy professor(s) that triggered her uncontrollable metaphysical obsessions and sue them for everything they’ve got for their indoctrinating malpractice. Alizia could have been a productive member of society, but here we are dealing with an obsessed troll.
I really wonder if this is the only blog site that Alizia actively trolls. Where does she go and what does she do when she’s not trolling here? I’ve got to believe that, as obsessed as Alizia appears to be, there’s got to be more.
Demeter wrote: “Aliza, I don’t listen to others opinion of what is. There has been a distinct break in the “real world”, which I am fully immersed in, and the digital world where Carlson, Owen’s, etc thrive. I don’t concern myself with the Iran war, not because it doesn’t have impact me, but because I have no personal influence on the situation. Most topics they discuss is intended to incite anger and frustration and fears and isn’t worth my time. It has nothing to do with biases, but I can generally spot an unhinged person when I see them. I watched Carlson and Owens become more unhinged, loud and ranty as the years have gone by. I stand by what I said. I see no need to defend Carlson, etc when they thrive on upsetting people and being obnoxious, much like Howard Stern. If it makes you feel better to call me “hysterical and prejudiced” feel free. Your corner of the universe filled with anger and frustration and judgement has no impact on me for better or worse I value peace over clickbait. I stepped away from it years ago.
Your opinions, your orientation, is valid. I would not judge it negatively. But i certainly do have thoughts and comments about it.
I do grasp what you are saying about “digital” and “real” worlds. And I agree that ‘content’ is what is being sold, not necessarily or exclusively strict, rational perspectives. There are degrees however. And though Candace goes far toward the irrational (earning millions in the process), and though Carlson can be compared, Carlson is sufficiently oriented within valid and important areas of concern not to be universally dismissed. And I say the same for Fuentes. But if it will please you, and the general audience, I sm certain I could offer a scathing critique of any one of them. Would that earn me redemption here? 😎
Personally, I think that “unhingement” is quite common today. And I also think the nation America is involved in psycho-political pathologies of consequence. Sickness and derangement appear in many areas frankly. And I include this blog and the people on it. Not so much specifically but generally. Or, put another way, I do not exclude anyone.
I try to avoid personalized attacks. You might well share “hysteria” within the general context of a people, and a nation, in the grip of social psychosis (deranged war-mongering, useless invasions and abductions being one example: symptoms that can be carefully and rationally talked about). I only speak in the most general terms. How can I possibly know you? I just respond to what you wrote.
”Upsetting people” is an interesting observation. However, there are people with very valid and considerable viewpoints who believe there are many good reasons to be upset. I guess it all depends on how one sees things.
Demeter wrote: and Carlson and Owens have a relevant pulse of the nation (which I absolutely doubt, but again I don’t listen to any political commentators) and we should listen to them, but Joe Rogan has a much bigger following.
If you do not listen to them, on what do you base your doubt? Try this as a simple experiment: Look up on YouTube Tucker’s vlog on What is destroying rural America” (12 minutes or so) and tell me: Anything genuine and important there? Anything at all? (Obviously, I believe there is).
You said you wanted the majority opinion. Sorry to burst your echo chamber, but the majority do not listen to political commentators or are like me and tune in occasionally when it’s quite serious or ridiculous. They simply spend their time in reality. You know… working, cleaning, mowing, grocery shopping, with family. I used to listen to Owens and Carlson, I truly liked them both before they got ranty. I witnessed their slide into partisan politics and rigidity. Besides that, you personally attacked my character. If I want to know about a topic, I try to go to a factual source, not just the recycled opinions from others. I suppose I’d like you to entertain this option and hop out of the echo chamber you’ve gotten immersed in.
Alizia declined my offer. Too bad, but I won’t allow someone to call me a “bully” for explaining that quoting with favor a Nazi apologist is not considered legitimate commentary here. So she’s gone. Too bad: Alizia occasionally had some interesting comments. It was only about .8% of what she posted, true, but still….
I honestly think she was trying to get banned today. I fully expect some kind of Ethics Alarms and/or Jack Marshall delusional smear to be posted on some other website where her trolling comments are still tolerated.
I’ve listened to Candace and Tucker in the past, and previously liked at least some of what they broadcast.
However, the Moon hoax broadcast by Owens and the WWII/Churchill interview by Carlson are, as Jack mentions, signature significance items. No rational person could endorse such positions.
While I enjoy reading counterfactuals, I don’t advance them as gospel. It’s good to play what if on occasion, but these are more than that — they are a total denial of the facts and history.
Hitler and Mussolini had big audiences, they were major influencers of their era. That doesn’t make them good people or folks we should aspire to emulate, nor does it make their policies worthy. For that matter, I believe Stalin also had big audiences, as does Xi in China today.
Alizia, I actually live not too far from Sidney, NE. What he didn’t say is Sterling, CO and Haxtun and several other communities are nearby. No doubt the closure of Cabella’s headquarters devastated them, but I was there about 3 years ago and there is still a store there. Here are a few other items devastating to rural areas. 1. Lack of rural healthcare. 2. (At least in the west) water 3. Consolidation. Same as Cabella’s and Bass Pro for whatever reason. 4. Lack of involvement (apathy).
Another nearby town, population approximately 6,000 had a private prison facility close and the same thing happened. It also lost most of Main Street when Wal-Mart was built in a town 30 miles away. It just lost its only Ford dealership because they wouldn’t build a new updated facility. The restaurant closed because the water was too high in nitrates, the auto paint shop closed because they could not get help. The gas station can’t reopen because EPA regulations require massive renovations to the fuel storage. People move because there’s no pediatrician. Rural communities are as diverse as cities. There’s all kinds of reasons they’re struggling or thriving. Currently my area has seen a revival, and I hope Sidney recovers, but there’s a larger community up there to support them. Not like Crowley county whose landowners sold their water decades ago to speculators and now it’s owned by Colorado Springs. What Tucker pointed out is quite real but it’s nothing I didn’t already know. I live it. It’s the old analogy of putting all your eggs in one basket. Most rural areas only have the one. Whether it’s a steel mill, coal, company headquarters or a prison or university or agriculture. One closure is devastating, always no matter what the reason is.
This comment is a response to Demeter regarding the Colorado Public Utilities Commission on its actions overruling the county commissions.
And, by the way, kudos for daring to post a new and interesting topic interrupting the Alizia Tyler Memorial Open Forum this weekend.
————
So one instantly notes that this came from Colorado, a state whose state government has exhibited, shall we say, less than spectacular judgment on several occasions during the last few years.
The article doesn’t go into all the hearings and negotiations between the two counties and Xcel Energy, but I am left with the impression that Elbert County, at least, mainly wanted some modifications to the power pathway to make it less obtrusive. I think that is a legitimate governmental oversight concern. We don’t locate, say, a sewage processing facility next to the county offices or next to a major hotel.
At the same time, state law is there to ensure that overall state concerns are not thwarted by a single obstreperous county or city. Just as the state of Colorado has learned, much to its chagrin, that it cannot unilaterally ignore the federal constitution.
Anyway, it’s an interesting local concern, but also one that has broader implications in our trying to balance climate concerns, ‘renewable’ energy, the broad economy, and quality of life.
Technocrats in general tend towards the monomaniacal. It’s up to generalists or the general public to keep them on a leash.
All valid points, it feels like a constant David and Goliath situation where property rights continue to lose. I post these items mostly because this is a diverse group and people need to know what’s going on. Without property rights, what rights to we have really? It’s not just happening in Colorado.