Some people live their lives reactively. They are essentially passive, waiting for circumstances to over-take them and then doing what they have to do to get by.
Other people live their live proactively. Deciding what kind of a life they want to have and then making conscious decisions which increase the odds that their chosen life will be realized.
Communities also tend to be either reactive or proactive. Colorado Springs is an example of a pro-active community. That city has decided that it wants its identity and economy to be defined primarily by the military-industrial complex and conservative religious organizations. As a result that city attracts many residents who find work in these sectors of the economy. Colorado Springs doesn’t just sit and wait for their military bases and their religious organizations to grow. They proactively work to make it happen. Just last month 70 representatives from their community traveled to Washington D.C. to meet with the Colorado Congressional Delegation and Department of Defense officials to lobby for the interests of their city. And they are currently in the process of hiring a DC firm at the cost of $100,000 a year to lobby in their behalf on a year-round basis.
Trinidad needs to decide if it wants to be a reactive, or a pro-active community. We have several unique economic opportunities before us if we decide to pro-actively pursue them. Las Animas County was recently identified by the State as the largest Renewable Resource Generation Development Area for both wind and solar energy in Colorado. This represents great promise for the economic future of our city and region. The promise of a growing alternative energy industry in Southeastern Colorado may well be one of the major reasons why Fort Carson has been trying to hard to take advantage of what they've called, "a window of opportunity" to acquire land in the region before wind farms and solar arrays are established.
Many of us who live here take the abundance of natural beauty that surrounds us for granted. But “there’s gold in them there hills!” Not only do we have beautiful mountain country in our area, but also spectacular red rock canyons and prairies. Las Animas County is an incredibly diverse outdoorsman’s paradise unlike any other locale in Colorado. Some of these natural assets are public lands. Others are on private property. But with the right kind of pro-active economic development all of these amazing resources could be developed.
Another promising area is the development of heritage tourism. The region of the Purgatoire River watershed is the cradle of Colorado history, with pre-historic people such as the Folsom Culture and historic tribes like the Jicarilla Apaches, the Ute and the Cheyenne, and the 19th century international trade and cultural exchange that occurred along the Santa Fe Trail and the birth of the cattle industry by such luminaries as Goodnight and Thatcher and Bloom. There are literally thousands of archaeological and historical sites all over our region. And there are also many thousands of curious people who’d pay good money to see them. While many of the attractions are outside of town, Trinidad also has a surprising number of museums and cultural venues for a community of its size. All of this is could become more of an attraction, supporting our food and lodging businesses. But we’d need to pro-actively help that to happen.
I have personal witnessed both the interest of outsiders in our region and willingness of private land owners to welcome them onto their property. Over the past three years I have coordinated painting outings into the historic ranch lands and canyon county in our region with over 60 artists from all over the state. Trinidad has also developed an identity as an “arts community.” Attracted by the affordable housing and studio space, the rich history and culture, and the scenic beauty, nationally recognized artists have found their way to Trinidad. We are now the home of many visual, dramatic, musical and literary artists and arts-organizations. We could pro-actively build upon this by offering incentives to artists who can no longer afford to live and create in places like Santa Fe, by subsidizing studio spaces within our stock of under-occupied downtown buildings.
But there is one big obstacle in the way of the future development of any and all of these promising options for our future. We are in competition with the pro-active vision of Colorado Springs for the future use of the land in Las Animas County. Colorado Springs’ vision of the future involves the growth of military training and in their minds, that requires the acquisition of more land. The real estate around Colorado Springs’ military instillations has become very populated and expensive. But they view us down here in Las Animas County as basically passive regarding our current and future economic development as it relates to our land.
Some might say, “why not have it all? Agriculture, alternative energy, heritage tourism, outdoor recreation, the arts AND militarization? But there are intrinsic conflicts between live-fire, military training and any of the other options. It is pretty obvious that you can’t raise cattle or put up solar arrays and wind-mills, or go out bird-watching, or painting or hiking on land that is exploding with weapons and being buzzed by military aircraft. The military is currently engaged in fighting against wind farms in areas where training is conducted because wind generators represent obstructions to low-altitude flight training and produce false, ghost-radar images. According to the New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/27/business/energy-environment/27radar.html
So we have two cities whose visions of the future depend upon the lands of Las Animas County. Colorado Springs is proactively working with legislators and Pentagon bureaucrats to try and make their vision happen. The people of Trinidad should also become proactive in working to make our vision a reality. As the old saying goes, “Use it or lose it.” We need to start thinking and behaving pro-actively.
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Pinon Canyon is About Patriotism
If the Pentagon’s plan to turn Southeastern Colorado into a vast live-fire range were about economics, it would be a bad idea. But for those of us who live in the targeted region it’s not about economics; it’s about patriotism.
Patriotism is the love we feel for our homeland. It’s the willingness to stand together with our neighbors in defense of the heritage and values of our forefathers and mothers. It’s our appreciation of the unique beauty and history of the landscapes that we call our own. In opposing the expansion of Pinon Canyon we are doing our patriotic duty.
If Pinon Canyon expansion were about economics it would be the most unenlightened self-destructive and unsustainable approach to economic development imaginable. The destruction of agriculture, our most consistent economic sector, the depopulation of our land, the spoiling of our environment and the federalization and removal of private property from our tax-base would all work against the long-term health of our economy. Any short-term financial gains by a few would be more than offset by devastating long-term loses by all.
But it’s not about economics for us. We don’t believe that the military should ever be used as a tool of economic development. Nor should the lands and livelihoods of hard working Las Animas and Otero County residents ever be sacrificed for the sake of a few government contracts.
From the perspective of the Pentagon bureaucrats who hatched the plan to turn our region into a big playground to try out new weapon systems, land is just land. They don’t care, and may not even know that the land is the home of multi-generational ranching families. They may not be aware that the Santa Fe Trail passed through this land and that it’s the cradle of Colorado history. They would probably prefer it if the place was not covered with thousands of historic and prehistoric archaeological sites. It doesn’t matter to them that the red rocks canyons are beautiful; ugly would do just fine as far as they’re concerned. All they want is a big hunk of real estate to create a Department of Defense training and testing range so that defense contractors can try out their wares.
But for the patriots of Southeastern Colorado, all of this does matter. We will never allow our homeland to be invaded and destroyed for the sake of providing a testing ground for the likes of Lockheed-Martin, Raytheon and Boeing.
Patriotism is the love we feel for our homeland. It’s the willingness to stand together with our neighbors in defense of the heritage and values of our forefathers and mothers. It’s our appreciation of the unique beauty and history of the landscapes that we call our own. In opposing the expansion of Pinon Canyon we are doing our patriotic duty.
If Pinon Canyon expansion were about economics it would be the most unenlightened self-destructive and unsustainable approach to economic development imaginable. The destruction of agriculture, our most consistent economic sector, the depopulation of our land, the spoiling of our environment and the federalization and removal of private property from our tax-base would all work against the long-term health of our economy. Any short-term financial gains by a few would be more than offset by devastating long-term loses by all.
But it’s not about economics for us. We don’t believe that the military should ever be used as a tool of economic development. Nor should the lands and livelihoods of hard working Las Animas and Otero County residents ever be sacrificed for the sake of a few government contracts.
From the perspective of the Pentagon bureaucrats who hatched the plan to turn our region into a big playground to try out new weapon systems, land is just land. They don’t care, and may not even know that the land is the home of multi-generational ranching families. They may not be aware that the Santa Fe Trail passed through this land and that it’s the cradle of Colorado history. They would probably prefer it if the place was not covered with thousands of historic and prehistoric archaeological sites. It doesn’t matter to them that the red rocks canyons are beautiful; ugly would do just fine as far as they’re concerned. All they want is a big hunk of real estate to create a Department of Defense training and testing range so that defense contractors can try out their wares.
But for the patriots of Southeastern Colorado, all of this does matter. We will never allow our homeland to be invaded and destroyed for the sake of providing a testing ground for the likes of Lockheed-Martin, Raytheon and Boeing.
Citizen-Input Ignored on Pinon Canyon
Five legislators have decided not to wait for public input or facts-on-the-ground before lobbying Washington bureaucrats for military in Colorado. Senators Mark Udall and Michael Bennet have joined together with Representatives Doug Lamborn, Mike Coffman and Ed Perimutter in urging the Pentagon to expand militarism in the state. In a letter to Secretary of the Army, John McHugh and Army Chief of Staff, General George Casey they advocate for an increased troop build-up at Fort Carson in Colorado Springs. http://markudall.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=604.
Their endorsement of the Army’s proposal to add a Combat Aviation Brigade is premature, coming in advance of a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. The purpose of this forthcoming EIS is two-fold; it is supposed to give these legislators a picture of the environmental and social impacts of the proposal, and it is the public’s opportunity to officially register their opinions and concerns. So it’s disturbing that these five legislators have decided not to wait until the public has had a chance to participate in the EIS process and the potential impacts of this expansion have been studied. Instead they are aggressively promoting this build-up, in advance of the public process.
One of the disturbing implications of the proposal is that it would be used to force the expansion of the Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site where much of the training for the Combat Aviation Brigade would occur. An earlier environmental study titled, Grow The Army stated that unless Pinon Canyon is expanded, increased training at the site, would be sub-standard, excessively expensive. The addition of a Combat Aviation Brigade at Fort Carson/Pinon Canyon was rejected in that EIS, but is now being resurrected.
Increasing the training burden at Pinon Canyon would have the effect of forcing an expansion of the training range. Such an expansion would require the federalization of thousands of acres of state and private lands. Such increased militarization has been opposed by the citizens through resolutions of opposition by every city and county in the region. Opposition to the federalization and militarization of our State has also been expressed through two different bill passed by the Colorado legislature, one of which withdraws the consent of the state for the federal government to acquire land for the expansion of Pinon Canyon, and another which prohibits the sale of state land to the federal government for such a purpose.
And finally, through the efforts of Representatives Salazar and Markey a congressional ban on spending for the expansion of Pinon Canyon has been enacted annually for the last three years.
Army documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act reveal a Pentagon 17-year plan for the phased transform of Southeastern Colorado into a vast, 6.9 million acre, live-fire range for “all U.S. and allied forces.” According to Army documents such a seizure would require the removal of 17,000 citizens from their lands and homes. The addition of the Combat Aviation Brigade would advance that agenda.
These five elected officials should allow the process to move forward. They should wait for the Environmental Impact Statement to be completed. They should give the public a chance to weigh in. Then they should listen to that input and carefully consider their decision to support the Army’s plan. They should not be acting as lobbyists for the military-industrial complex.
Their endorsement of the Army’s proposal to add a Combat Aviation Brigade is premature, coming in advance of a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. The purpose of this forthcoming EIS is two-fold; it is supposed to give these legislators a picture of the environmental and social impacts of the proposal, and it is the public’s opportunity to officially register their opinions and concerns. So it’s disturbing that these five legislators have decided not to wait until the public has had a chance to participate in the EIS process and the potential impacts of this expansion have been studied. Instead they are aggressively promoting this build-up, in advance of the public process.
One of the disturbing implications of the proposal is that it would be used to force the expansion of the Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site where much of the training for the Combat Aviation Brigade would occur. An earlier environmental study titled, Grow The Army stated that unless Pinon Canyon is expanded, increased training at the site, would be sub-standard, excessively expensive. The addition of a Combat Aviation Brigade at Fort Carson/Pinon Canyon was rejected in that EIS, but is now being resurrected.
Increasing the training burden at Pinon Canyon would have the effect of forcing an expansion of the training range. Such an expansion would require the federalization of thousands of acres of state and private lands. Such increased militarization has been opposed by the citizens through resolutions of opposition by every city and county in the region. Opposition to the federalization and militarization of our State has also been expressed through two different bill passed by the Colorado legislature, one of which withdraws the consent of the state for the federal government to acquire land for the expansion of Pinon Canyon, and another which prohibits the sale of state land to the federal government for such a purpose.
And finally, through the efforts of Representatives Salazar and Markey a congressional ban on spending for the expansion of Pinon Canyon has been enacted annually for the last three years.
Army documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act reveal a Pentagon 17-year plan for the phased transform of Southeastern Colorado into a vast, 6.9 million acre, live-fire range for “all U.S. and allied forces.” According to Army documents such a seizure would require the removal of 17,000 citizens from their lands and homes. The addition of the Combat Aviation Brigade would advance that agenda.
These five elected officials should allow the process to move forward. They should wait for the Environmental Impact Statement to be completed. They should give the public a chance to weigh in. Then they should listen to that input and carefully consider their decision to support the Army’s plan. They should not be acting as lobbyists for the military-industrial complex.
Thursday, July 1, 2010
A Pinon Canyon Compromise?
We’ve been asked why we are so unwilling to compromise. Over the past four years the people of Southeastern Colorado have been resolutely united in our opposition to the expansion of the Army's Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site. We are uncompromisingly against the federalization of 6.9 million acres of productive agricultural land in order to turn it into the world's largest life-fire range. We are unyieldingly standing together to prevent the projected dispossession of 17,000 of our neighbors, (the Army's estimate of how many people would be "relocated.") Our mantra has been, "not one more acre!"
And during these years, one politician after another has suggested to us that we should sit down at the table with the military and hammer out a compromise, a win-win solution which would allow the Army expand its Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site without destroying our economy, environment and culture. But we have some pretty good reasons for being unwilling to compromise.
Politicians hate taking sides. They want everyone to like them, and more importantly to vote for them. Whenever they come down decisively on one side of an issue they risk losing votes on the other side of the debate. Politicians prefer the middle ground, imagining that they can keep everybody happy and voting for them. In the case of Pinon Canyon there is an obvious electoral and economic imbalance between the two sides. On one side is a motley crew of dusty, dry-land ranchers, crusty conservationists and historians, and musty, left-over 60s peace advocates. Plus, we live in a sparsely populated part of Colorado and are far from being a powerful voting block. On the other side is the most highly funded agency of the federal government; the Department of Defense, and one of the richest and most influential sectors of the Colorado economy; the defense industry. Together they comprise what former President, Dwight Eisenhower called, "the military-industrial complex." Even for politicians who sympathize with us there's not much to be gained in standing with us against the military. Politically, compromise looks like the clever way to go.
I generally agree with the idea of people sitting down together to work out their differences, but this situation is different. The problem with us sitting down with the Army is that the Army is not a person. It is a huge Washington D.C. bureaucracy. The people who serve in the military have subjected their individual sentiments and opinions to a higher authority and are obliged to obey directives which come down to them from the over-arching command and control structure of the Department of Defense. Soldiers are certainly human beings with individual feelings and opinions. But they have made the ultimate human compromise; to set aside their own thoughts and emotions in obedience to policies and agendas set for them by military planners in the Pentagon. In order to negotiate any real compromise we'd have to be able to "sit down at the table" with a policy-maker who has the ability to exercise judgment and discretion. That is not the role of a soldier.
Ideally the people of the Southeastern Colorado community would sit down together to participate in the formulation of our vision for the future of our region. And this would involve compromise. But "The Army" is not a person, or even a group of people. It is a federal agency without a permanent physical presence in the community or any consistent human expression here. Of course the Army is made up of human beings, but those individual humans represent policies and programs that they have no discretionary power to alter. "Theirs is not to reason why." In the last four years, there have been three different commanding officers at Fort Carson, two different Secretaries of Defense and two different Secretaries of the Army. "The Army" comes into Las Animas County from far away to use the Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site, maybe twice a year, and then leaves. They have no stake in the community beyond this limited use of a resource which happens to be located here. They have no attachment to, or investment in our community. From their perspective the land here is simply an available commodity. And the expansion is not their plan to defend or forsake; it was formulated, perhaps decades ago within the secretive, inaccessible and unassailable inner sanctums of the Pentagon. The military strategists who first dreamed it up are very likely working as civilian contractors and consultants by now. And the people who are currently under orders to advance the plan have no particular axes to grind. They are simply trying to be good soldiers. They didn't create the plan and they have no authority to alter it. Since they are not personally responsible for the creation of the plan and have no authority regarding the implementation of the plan they have no "standing" when it comes to determining the future of our Southeastern Colorado community. In a sense their role is just like a bomber pilot who releases a bomb at prescribed coordinates. It's nothing personal. Just following orders.
There's a big difference between our self-determination with the compromises that we'd have to make to work out our conflicting interests, and a powerful outside interest moving in to try to determine the future of our community. The military personnel who are involved with this issue at Fort Carson have nothing to gain or lose, personally and they have no authority to alter the plan. They are simply following orders.
Besides, we've already experienced the results of "compromise." In the early 80s we resisted the establishment of the current Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site, but ended up compromising. We made a deal with the Army. In exchange for them taking 240,000 acres of Las Animas County, dispossessing multi-generations ranching families, plundering our historical and natural treasures and losing the tax revenue from the land, the Army promised that they never use live fire and that they'd never seek any future expansion. They've broken both of those promises. So much for compromise.
So we are not interested in any more compromises. And we are not very excited by politicians who suggest that we should compromise with the Army. We're looking for politicians who'll do what military men are taught not do; exercise judgment and decide. We're looking for politicians who'll consider, not just the vote-count, but the injustice of a powerful military moving in upon powerless citizens to take their land and their lives. We are looking for politicians who will be uncompromising, willing to stand, shoulder to shoulder with the people that they represent against the power brokers of the military-industrial complex.
And during these years, one politician after another has suggested to us that we should sit down at the table with the military and hammer out a compromise, a win-win solution which would allow the Army expand its Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site without destroying our economy, environment and culture. But we have some pretty good reasons for being unwilling to compromise.
Politicians hate taking sides. They want everyone to like them, and more importantly to vote for them. Whenever they come down decisively on one side of an issue they risk losing votes on the other side of the debate. Politicians prefer the middle ground, imagining that they can keep everybody happy and voting for them. In the case of Pinon Canyon there is an obvious electoral and economic imbalance between the two sides. On one side is a motley crew of dusty, dry-land ranchers, crusty conservationists and historians, and musty, left-over 60s peace advocates. Plus, we live in a sparsely populated part of Colorado and are far from being a powerful voting block. On the other side is the most highly funded agency of the federal government; the Department of Defense, and one of the richest and most influential sectors of the Colorado economy; the defense industry. Together they comprise what former President, Dwight Eisenhower called, "the military-industrial complex." Even for politicians who sympathize with us there's not much to be gained in standing with us against the military. Politically, compromise looks like the clever way to go.
I generally agree with the idea of people sitting down together to work out their differences, but this situation is different. The problem with us sitting down with the Army is that the Army is not a person. It is a huge Washington D.C. bureaucracy. The people who serve in the military have subjected their individual sentiments and opinions to a higher authority and are obliged to obey directives which come down to them from the over-arching command and control structure of the Department of Defense. Soldiers are certainly human beings with individual feelings and opinions. But they have made the ultimate human compromise; to set aside their own thoughts and emotions in obedience to policies and agendas set for them by military planners in the Pentagon. In order to negotiate any real compromise we'd have to be able to "sit down at the table" with a policy-maker who has the ability to exercise judgment and discretion. That is not the role of a soldier.
Ideally the people of the Southeastern Colorado community would sit down together to participate in the formulation of our vision for the future of our region. And this would involve compromise. But "The Army" is not a person, or even a group of people. It is a federal agency without a permanent physical presence in the community or any consistent human expression here. Of course the Army is made up of human beings, but those individual humans represent policies and programs that they have no discretionary power to alter. "Theirs is not to reason why." In the last four years, there have been three different commanding officers at Fort Carson, two different Secretaries of Defense and two different Secretaries of the Army. "The Army" comes into Las Animas County from far away to use the Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site, maybe twice a year, and then leaves. They have no stake in the community beyond this limited use of a resource which happens to be located here. They have no attachment to, or investment in our community. From their perspective the land here is simply an available commodity. And the expansion is not their plan to defend or forsake; it was formulated, perhaps decades ago within the secretive, inaccessible and unassailable inner sanctums of the Pentagon. The military strategists who first dreamed it up are very likely working as civilian contractors and consultants by now. And the people who are currently under orders to advance the plan have no particular axes to grind. They are simply trying to be good soldiers. They didn't create the plan and they have no authority to alter it. Since they are not personally responsible for the creation of the plan and have no authority regarding the implementation of the plan they have no "standing" when it comes to determining the future of our Southeastern Colorado community. In a sense their role is just like a bomber pilot who releases a bomb at prescribed coordinates. It's nothing personal. Just following orders.
There's a big difference between our self-determination with the compromises that we'd have to make to work out our conflicting interests, and a powerful outside interest moving in to try to determine the future of our community. The military personnel who are involved with this issue at Fort Carson have nothing to gain or lose, personally and they have no authority to alter the plan. They are simply following orders.
Besides, we've already experienced the results of "compromise." In the early 80s we resisted the establishment of the current Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site, but ended up compromising. We made a deal with the Army. In exchange for them taking 240,000 acres of Las Animas County, dispossessing multi-generations ranching families, plundering our historical and natural treasures and losing the tax revenue from the land, the Army promised that they never use live fire and that they'd never seek any future expansion. They've broken both of those promises. So much for compromise.
So we are not interested in any more compromises. And we are not very excited by politicians who suggest that we should compromise with the Army. We're looking for politicians who'll do what military men are taught not do; exercise judgment and decide. We're looking for politicians who'll consider, not just the vote-count, but the injustice of a powerful military moving in upon powerless citizens to take their land and their lives. We are looking for politicians who will be uncompromising, willing to stand, shoulder to shoulder with the people that they represent against the power brokers of the military-industrial complex.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
The Army is Thwarted on Pinon Canyon...For Now
The Army is trying to spin the fact that their efforts to expand Pinon Canyon have been thwarted, yet again. Fort Carson officials announced on Jan. 19th that they are backing off "for now" and concentrating on using land they already have. So far, so good. But Col. Robert McLaughlin, the garrison commander at Fort Carson, said the Army may still try to expand Pinon Canyon that expansion is not, "off the table."
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2010/01/ap_army_pinon_expansion_011910/
We've heard this line before; that the Army is not pursuing expansion, "at this time." Or that there is, "currently no plan." They're trying to make it sound like it's their idea to back off, but the reality is that it would be illegal for the Army to try to expand because congress has enacted, for the third year in a row, a ban on spending any funds for that purpose. Thanks to the united efforts of Senators Udall and Bennet, and Representatives Salazar and Markey the Army has no choice but to back off, "for now."But a careful reading of Col. McLaughlin's words makes it clear that they'll be back if and when they can get out from under the year-to-year bans which prevent them from moving forward on expansion. Meanwhile Southeastern Colorado remains under a dark cloud. What is needed is a permanent legislative ban on expansion.
The Army says that it wants to "improve relationships" with landowners around Pinon Canyon. The first step that they need to take in that direction is to reaffirm promises made over the past 30 years that there would be no further expansion of Pinon Canyon and pledge their support for putting that promise into binding legislation. Then, and only then can the Department of the Army hope to win any goodwill in the region.
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2010/01/ap_army_pinon_expansion_011910/
We've heard this line before; that the Army is not pursuing expansion, "at this time." Or that there is, "currently no plan." They're trying to make it sound like it's their idea to back off, but the reality is that it would be illegal for the Army to try to expand because congress has enacted, for the third year in a row, a ban on spending any funds for that purpose. Thanks to the united efforts of Senators Udall and Bennet, and Representatives Salazar and Markey the Army has no choice but to back off, "for now."But a careful reading of Col. McLaughlin's words makes it clear that they'll be back if and when they can get out from under the year-to-year bans which prevent them from moving forward on expansion. Meanwhile Southeastern Colorado remains under a dark cloud. What is needed is a permanent legislative ban on expansion.
The Army says that it wants to "improve relationships" with landowners around Pinon Canyon. The first step that they need to take in that direction is to reaffirm promises made over the past 30 years that there would be no further expansion of Pinon Canyon and pledge their support for putting that promise into binding legislation. Then, and only then can the Department of the Army hope to win any goodwill in the region.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Coffman's Pinon Canyon Apology
Congressman Mike Coffman has done a smart and proper thing. Less than two weeks after questioning gubernatorial candidate, Josh Penry's motives in supporting the property rights of ranchers in Southeastern Colorado in their four-year-long battle with the Army, he has issued an apology. The offending accusations were delivered in a column in the Colorado Statesman on October 23rd. In that piece Coffman accused Penry of voting for HB1317, "on the basis of a political calculation." He went on to impugn Penry's patriotism, suggesting that his vote was cast, "without any regard for the men and women in uniform." What Coffman failed to consider was that he was, by implication questioning the motives of the majority of Colorado legislators. The bill, which blocks the sale of State school sections to the military for expanding the live-fire range at the Pinon Canyon Maneuver site was supported by a large bi-partisan majority in both houses of the statehouse.
Coffman's original editorial was intended as an endorsement of Scott McInnis' position in favor of Pinon Canyon expansion, but it had much broader implications. It brought to light an ideological schism within the Republican party. On one side of the rift are Coffman and McInnis, supporters of the economic interests of the military-industrial complex. On the other side are those like Penry who come down on the side of the property rights of landowners.
Coffman's election-day apology which was also sent to the Colorado Statesman demonstrates good political survival instincts, coming in the context of an angry avalanche of reaction from his fellow Republicans, including military veterans. While Coffman's criticism was aimed at Penry, it was also an implicit indictment of other property-rights Republicans who voted to protect private and state lands from being seized and federalized.
Perhaps Scott McInnis will now follow Coffman's example by apologizing for similar damaging accusations, which have alienated him from many within his own party. And perhaps he will reconsider his position in support of a military take-over of the southeastern corner of our state.
Coffman's original editorial was intended as an endorsement of Scott McInnis' position in favor of Pinon Canyon expansion, but it had much broader implications. It brought to light an ideological schism within the Republican party. On one side of the rift are Coffman and McInnis, supporters of the economic interests of the military-industrial complex. On the other side are those like Penry who come down on the side of the property rights of landowners.
Coffman's election-day apology which was also sent to the Colorado Statesman demonstrates good political survival instincts, coming in the context of an angry avalanche of reaction from his fellow Republicans, including military veterans. While Coffman's criticism was aimed at Penry, it was also an implicit indictment of other property-rights Republicans who voted to protect private and state lands from being seized and federalized.
Perhaps Scott McInnis will now follow Coffman's example by apologizing for similar damaging accusations, which have alienated him from many within his own party. And perhaps he will reconsider his position in support of a military take-over of the southeastern corner of our state.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Pinon Canyon: McInnis Can't Count
It probably looked like a mathematical no-brainer to Scott McInnis, Republican candidate for governor, when he decided to feed Southeastern Colorado to the Pentagon wolves. He figured he was trading a few thousand lost votes in that sparsely populated corner of the state in exchange for millions of votes in El Paso County and along the 1-70 corridor. He calculated that he could subtract a few ranchers from the vast numbers of job seekers up north and he'd come out ahead. But alas, Scott can't count.
He should have done his math a little more carefully. It's not just ranchers in the boondocks who are outraged at the idea of the transferring up to 6.9 million acres of private and state land, the whole southeastern corner of the state, to the federal government. And it's not just Democrats who are appalled at the idea of hardworking, patriotic Americans being forced to defend their homes and lifestyles against an invasion by their own military. And it's not just archaeologists who are against turning the cradle of Colorado History, a region loaded with Native American sites, vestiges of the Santa Fe Trail and the ruins of Hispanic settlers and Pioneer cattlemen, into a vast live-fire range. And it's not just property rights advocates who are up in arms at the prospect of eminent domain ultimately being used to take private property in order to increase the 34% of Colorado currently owned by the federal government by about an additional 10%. And it's not just environmentalists who are opposed to destroying one of the most biologically diverse regions of our state. http://www.denverpost.com/ci_6160060?source=rss.
Nope, he didn't do his math.
Even in military-friendly, Republican El Paso County he may have figured wrong. Buddy Gipson, Chairman of the Governmental Affairs and Public Policy Advisory Board of the Colorado Springs Chamber of Commerce has sided with McInnis's anti-expansion opponent, Josh Penry on the issue, http://www.gazette.com/articles/wednesday-62932-penry-assert.html.
What McInnis failed to calculate is the fact that many Republican primary voters are ideological conservatives who are staunch defenders of private property rights. People who don't see the federalization of Colorado's lands and economy as our salvation. True-blue conservatives who know that wealth is produced, not by an over-dependence upon the federal government by building a diverse economy in the private sector.
Scott needs to go back to grammar school and work on his arithmetic.
He should have done his math a little more carefully. It's not just ranchers in the boondocks who are outraged at the idea of the transferring up to 6.9 million acres of private and state land, the whole southeastern corner of the state, to the federal government. And it's not just Democrats who are appalled at the idea of hardworking, patriotic Americans being forced to defend their homes and lifestyles against an invasion by their own military. And it's not just archaeologists who are against turning the cradle of Colorado History, a region loaded with Native American sites, vestiges of the Santa Fe Trail and the ruins of Hispanic settlers and Pioneer cattlemen, into a vast live-fire range. And it's not just property rights advocates who are up in arms at the prospect of eminent domain ultimately being used to take private property in order to increase the 34% of Colorado currently owned by the federal government by about an additional 10%. And it's not just environmentalists who are opposed to destroying one of the most biologically diverse regions of our state. http://www.denverpost.com/ci_6160060?source=rss.
Nope, he didn't do his math.
Even in military-friendly, Republican El Paso County he may have figured wrong. Buddy Gipson, Chairman of the Governmental Affairs and Public Policy Advisory Board of the Colorado Springs Chamber of Commerce has sided with McInnis's anti-expansion opponent, Josh Penry on the issue, http://www.gazette.com/articles/wednesday-62932-penry-assert.html.
What McInnis failed to calculate is the fact that many Republican primary voters are ideological conservatives who are staunch defenders of private property rights. People who don't see the federalization of Colorado's lands and economy as our salvation. True-blue conservatives who know that wealth is produced, not by an over-dependence upon the federal government by building a diverse economy in the private sector.
Scott needs to go back to grammar school and work on his arithmetic.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
