Climate change, a terrible bill, the Union Soldier, and more...
Hello my friend. Stay awhile and listen. (Diablo [video game] reference)
I’m sorry.
The last few weeks have been extremely busy at the Colorado State Capitol (some of which I talk about below), so please forgive me not sticking to my schedule. Hopefully you’ll find something worthwhile below.
Nuclear! Climate Change!
A few years back, I wrote an opinion piece on Medium regarding my stance on climate change. Effectively, I don’t have one. I’m not a scientist, I'm not an expert on emissions, I’ve never worked in the energy industry.
That being said, I know that smog exists. I know that many in China wear masks because of the air quality. I know that fossil fuels are finite. I know that the energy industry employs thousands.
I also know that Americans - and Coloradans - are very concerned about the environment and climate change.
Democrats have cornered the market on “solutions” to climate change - almost exclusively proposing wind and solar as the answer to the ills of oil, gas, and coal. The truth is, though, that Democrats are relatively weak on the topic.
When I say weak, I mean they’re all over the goddam map and don’t have a coherent message. It was overshadowed by other news, but the Democratic National Committee is actually now in favor of nuclear energy (a reversal over the last 50 or so years).
But, if you take a look at the stances of the Democratic candidates for President in 2020, the field is anything but clear as to the direction of their party. Some of the more moderate candidates (see: Hickenlooper, Bennet) are in favor of expanding nuclear while the plurality of the field seemed to be against expansion of nuclear while maintaining current reactors. The more progressive wing (see: Sanders, Warren) are against nuclear and in favor of phasing out current reactors. Meanwhile, the President and Vice President of the United States is under the “unclear” category.
As I mentioned in my last email, nuclear energy is getting pretty cool.
Conclusion: The GOP has an amazing opportunity to not only embrace nuclear, but deploy it where they can, showing that Republicans can bring forth solutions to protect our environment. This potential also exists with hydropower and apparently carbon capture technologies, which I admittedly haven’t read enough about.
If you have a moment, check out Colorado State Senator Ray Scott’s (R-Grand Junction) recent op-ed on energy and the environment in the Denver Post. I had the pleasure of working with the Senator on the piece and I think it sets a great tone for the GOP moving forward.
If you disagree, pound sand. (Just kidding)
Worst bill ever?
It’s close. I’ve seen lots of bad legislation come through the Colorado General Assembly in my 4 sessions here at the Capitol, but State Senator Kerry Donovan’s (D-Vail) bill to create a Digital Communications Division and Commission may be at (or near) the top of the list.
Simply, this commission is tasked with tackling things like “intentional disinformation” and “fake news.” Wondering what the definition of “fake news” is? I am too. The bill provides no clarity on the subject.
The commission/division/overlords would also be able to charge an annual fee to “digital communications platforms” - which if not paid, would result in $5,000/day fines and a misdemeanor.
“…Donovan’s bill is worse than the usual; it is a shocking assault on our liberties.”
- Ari Armstrong in an op-ed (conservative)
“Donovan should withdraw her support of the bill, and state lawmakers should spend not a single minute more considering it.”
- Quentin Young in an op-ed (liberal)
Anyways, the bill isn’t yet scheduled for its committee hearing, so keep an eye on it. Nobody wants the government trying to figure out what is and is not “fake news.” Hopefully this bill doesn’t even make it to the floor.
The Union Solider
I’ve rehashed this issue time and time again on my Twitter timeline, but here’s a brief explanation for the Civil War monument that used to be in front of the Colorado State Capitol. This is something I’m quite passionate about, and maybe you’ll see why with this timeline.
Long story short: There was a statue/monument of a Union Civil War soldier on the west side of the Colorado State Capitol. It was torn down in the middle of the night last year, and many progressives have used that as an opportunity to keep it down, stating that is glorified the actions conducted during the Sand Creek Massacre.
My stance is simple: The statue was never meant to honor anything about the Indian Wars. It was to simply be for those who died during the Civil War, from Colorado, for the Union. They added plaques in the 1920s that went beyond that original intent. Change the plaques, not the statue. Find another prominent place on the Capitol grounds for a Sand Creek memorial.
Here’s the timeline, if you care:
1905: Colorado General Assembly allocates $15,000 for a memorial on the State Capitol grounds to “to the memory of the Colorado soldiers that fell in the Civil War.”
1907: Colorado General Assembly allocates additional funds to build the memorial.
1909: Monument is unveiled to the public in a ceremony.
1920s: Colorado General Assembly has plaques added underneath the memorial with a commission to identify that the plaques say (this is the controversial aspect of the memorial).
These plaques went beyond simply listing those who fell in the Civil War, also listing battles of the Indian Wars from the same period of time, including “Sand Creek,” which is contemporaneously recognized as a massacre and not any sort of legitimate military engagement. For the record, that is completely correct. This was a massacre, should be recognized as such, and we certainly should do all we can to teach that dark moment in our history.
It’s worth also noting that Sand Creek was controversial “back then” as well. Via the “Report of the Joint committee on the conduct of the war at the second session Thirty-eighth Congress” in 1865:
“Wearing the uniform of the United States, which should be the emblem of justice and humanity; holding the important position of commander of a military district, and therefore having the honor of the government to that extent in his keeping, he deliberately planned and executed a foul and dastardly massacre which would have disgraced the veriest savage among those who were the victims of his cruelty…he surprised and murdered, in cold blood, the unsuspecting men, women, and children on Sand creek, who had every reason to believe they were under the protection of the United States authorities, and then returned to Denver and boasted of the brave deed he and the men under his command had performed.”
1999: Colorado General Assembly adds another plaque, correctly identifying the Sand Creek incident as a “massacre” and not a “battle or engagement.” This was done with bipartisan support in collaboration with tribal leadership.
2020: The status is pulled down in the middle of the night. Governor Polis vows to have it reinstalled (he didn’t - he may not have had the authority to).
The Capitol Advisory Committee votes to send the toppled statue to History Colorado for a temporary (maybe) display. Committee then decides to recommend permanently replacing the statue with a monument to the Sand Creek Massacre.
Here’s where things get weird.
Kathryn Redhorse, the Executive Director of the Colorado Commission of Indian Affairs, said that “...after the Sand Creek massacre occurred, members of the military did parade…the dismembered bodies of those who were killed...and that parade concluded on the westside steps of the Capitol."
This has been one of the primary arguments for replacing the soldier with the Sand Creek monument - because that’s where the bodies were brought.
I pushed against this in this tweet thread. Redhorse was incorrect.
How do I know?
The Sand Creek Massacre occurred in 1864.
The Colorado State Capitol opened in 1894.
Yes, 30 years later. There was no westside steps.
2021: I’ve been too busy with more pressing issues to invest as much time into this as I would have liked, but this now is heading to the Capitol Development Committee for consideration on March 18th.
Governor Spencer Cox Speaks the Truth
“There’s more to being a conservative than just ‘owning the libs. I believe in a Republican Party and a conservatism that is about opportunity for everyone. We don’t do that with these fake controversies, these false choices we keep presenting people.”
- Utah Governor Spencer Cox
He’s right, you know. Read more about Cox’s comments here. How much money will it take to import some of these amazing Utah GOP leaders to Colorado?
TTM Autographs
One of my newest (rediscovered) hobbies has been collecting autographs through the mail. From politicians to sports players, I’ve been sending hundreds of these requests. It’s a lot of fun to get them back. In fact, I got back Peyton Manning just yesterday.
If you have a sports hero you’d like an autograph of, please let me know. Happy to help you get Into the fun hobby.
A Riddle to Close
What can be seen with the naked eye, is weightless, and if you put it in a barrel, the barrel becomes lighter (less heavy)?