Coyote Gulch

Wednesday, August 30, 2006

Internet neutrality

Coyote Gulch was howling with the MoveOn kids today over at U.S. Senator Ken Salazar's office on 15th St. We were there delivering a passel of signatures in an attempt to help convince him to vote for Internet Neutruality. The senator was not there.

The guy that got to speak with us told us that their office has been hearing a good deal from both sides .

Coyote Gulch linked to Tim Berners-Lee back on June 21st. He is the only person alive that can say, "When I invented the World Wide Web," and not be stretching the truth. He is arguing for Internet Neutrality.
"2008 pres"
6:21:00 PM

Energy policy
The Cherry Creek News is running the speech given by Richard Lugar on energy policy at the Richard G. Lugar-Purdue University Summit on Energy Security, at Purdue University. From the article, "U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Dick Lugar calls for dramatic and immediate action to address U.S. energy vulnerability. 'Neither American oil companies, nor American car companies have shown an inclination to dramatically transform their businesses in ways that will achieve the degree of change we need to address a national security emergency,' Lugar says in the address. 'Most importantly, the federal government is not treating energy vulnerability as a crisis, despite an increase in energy related proposals.'"
"2008 pres"
6:52:31 AM

Legal Marijuana?
TalkLeft: "On Monday, I wrote over at 5280.com about a DEA officer who reportedly was attempting to raise money to campaign against the legalization of marijuana initiative that will be on the Colorado ballot in November...Today, the DEA responded to the report it intends to campaign against the measure and says it's not true."
"denver 2006"
6:44:38 AM

Referendum I
Al Knight dissects Referendum I in his column in yesterday's Denver Post. Of course Mr. Knight is in opposition to the referendum. He writes, "A column in this space in late May complained that the proponents of Referendum I, the Domestic Partnership Act, were mischaracterizing the act. Now, three months later, that complaint is, if anything, more urgent. The domestic partnership supporters have, give them credit, succeeded in getting major news media outlets to describe the act as though it does little more than grant 'basic legal rights' to domestic partners, rights such as 'hospital visitation, end-of-life decisions and inheritance of property.' It is also emphasized that the act "would not allow gay marriage.' This description, no matter how many times it is repeated, is fundamentally inaccurate. The language of the act itself says that the intent of the legislation is to provide qualified same-sex couples all of the 'benefits, protections, and responsibilities afforded by Colorado law to spouses.' It would provide those same benefits, 'whether they derive from statute, administrative or court rule, policy, common law, or any other source of civil law.'[...]

"The domestic partnership act's true purpose can be found elsewhere. It would allow same-sex partners the benefits now granted married couples. Importantly, it would also make it difficult for the state (when challenged, as it surely will be) to offer a rational basis for why it granted these benefits while withholding the right to marry. States that have recently succeeded in defending bans on same-sex marriage also bar domestic partnerships and civil unions. The act would also virtually rewrite the state's adoption laws. Not only would same-sex couples be able to adopt as a couple, partners would be able to qualify for what are called step- parent adoptions. That is, they would be able to adopt their partner's child. In all cases, the state would be required to issue new birth certificates listing the names of the two parents, presumably eliminating prior categorical distinctions like 'mother' and 'father.'[...]

"Under terms of the act, the legislature is empowered to pass such legislation as is necessary to implement its terms. The lawmakers will be free to interpret the fuzzy features of the act any way they wish. For example, the act says that a child-placement agency may be free to place a child with a same-sex couple but need not do so if that agency objects 'to such placement on the basis of religious beliefs.' Someone, the legislature or a court, will have to decide what constitutes a valid 'religious belief.' Finally, there is the issue of whether this act, once enacted, can like an ordinary law be simply repealed in the future. Because it grants financial benefits that arguably amount to a 'property interest,' it would be difficult to alter, let alone repeal. In earlier cases on education and welfare, courts held that financial benefits, once granted, can't be withheld without elaborate due process safeguards."
"denver 2006"
6:22:13 AM

Beauprez for governor?
The Rocky Mountain News is wondering if Bob Beauprez is trying to distance himself from Governor Owens. From the article, "The conventional wisdom is that Republican gubernatorial candidate Bob Beauprez would jump at having Gov. Bill Owens help warm up the executive office for him. But Beauprez's comments this month to a Loveland newspaper have some political observers scratching their heads over whether he's giving the cold shoulder to the man some say is Colorado's best- liked Republican officeholder."

Meanwhile the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel editorial staff reports that Beauprez may have forgotten that oil and gas drilling in watersheds is not welcome in the rainy side of Colorado. From the article, "GOP gubernatorial candidate Bob Beauprez didn't come right out and say that he supported natural gas development in the Grand Junction and Palisade municipal watersheds while appearing in Breckenridge with Democratic gubernatorial candidate Bill Ritter before a meeting of the Colorado Water Congress last week. But he might as well have said as much. Beauprez said the limits of technological progress should dictate the degree to which municipal watersheds and other environmentally sensitive areas of the state can accommodate natural gas rigs and other forms of domestic energy development...

"We'd find Beauprez's stated respect for science just a bit more believable were it not for the fact that the GOP gubernatorial hopeful has evinced very little concern - if any concern at all - that the person he has selected as his gubernatorial running mate is firmly on record in favor of teaching the biblical story of creation in tandem with the theory of evolution in Colorado's public school system. Now, there is no attempt here to impugn the Book of Genesis. The belief system that the universe was created in six days little more than 6,000 years ago can be characterized in a variety of ways and called a lot of things. But it can't be called science. Ideally, Mesa County Commissioner Janet Rowland's private faith ought not to be part of this editorial or Beauprez's campaign for governor. But Rowland has made it so by ingratiating herself to an important GOP constituency group through her unabashed and widely publicized support for creationism in the classroom. All of September and October remain before Coloradans go to the polls to elect a new governor. During that time period, it would behoove the Beauprez camp to carefully consider just how empty his pieties about the importance of science actually sound. If he doesn't bring it up again, perhaps no one else will either."

Thanks to Colorado Confidential for the link.
"denver 2006"
6:02:25 AM

Immigration
The Rocky Mountain News is running an article about the U.S. Senate Budget Committee hearing in Aurora today. They write, "As contentious as illegal immigration has become, most everyone likely will agree on one thing when a congressional hearing takes place in Aurora today: The immigration system is broken. Deciding how to fix it, however, is another matter. Even discussing how to change immigration laws has been difficult. More than 400 bills on the topic were introduced in Congress this year, and both houses passed major reform bills. But lawmakers have not yet taken the next step: bringing both sides to the table to hammer out compromises that could become law. Today's field hearing of the U.S. Senate Budget Committee in Aurora is not likely to bring lawmakers closer to a compromise. Instead, Colorado Sen. Wayne Allard asked for the hearing in hopes of shedding light on the effects of proposed legislation on federal, state and local governments."

Meanwhile immigrant activists are planning another march, according to the Rocky Mountain News. From the article, "Local activists are planning what is likely to be another massive march and rally to push for compassionate treatment of the country's immigrants. The plan is to march Sept. 30, said Ricardo Martinez of the Denver activist group Padres Unidos, which was heavily involved in the large but peaceful May 1 and March 25 downtown Denver rallies. But organizer Jennifer Herrera said the details are still being decided and could change...

"The march is part of a wave of national events starting Labor Day intended to pressure Congress to pass immigration reform that gives illegal immigrants a path toward legalization, Martinez said. Herrera said local organizers are still deciding on which message the local demonstration should take and which groups to align with."
"2008 pres"
5:41:52 AM

Good Samaritan bill?

New West: "Currently, there are four bills in front of Congress that address 'Good Samaritan' legislation: one introduced by Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., and supported by the Bush administration; another by Senators Ken Salazar, D-Colo., and Wayne Allard, R-Colo., and two more, (sometimes considered one) by Rep. Mark Udall, D-Colo. Inhofe's bill has attracted the most attention, because of its support by the Bush administration. Environmentalists' opinions about the bill are mixed. Many are glad to see the legislation, but feel this one, and the Salazar-Allard version, are too lenient with liability waivers.

"According to the environmental group Earthworks, formerly the Mineral Policy Center, these two bills waive up to eight environmental laws - too many for some environmentalists to support - and don't provide any baseline criteria that defines what is meant by 'cleaned up'. The other issue with the bills, some say, is that they provide no funding source."
"colorado water"
5:27:14 AM

Ritter or Beauprez for governor?

Colorado Media Matters looks at Bob Beauprez's support for Referendum A (in 2003) and chastises the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel for omitting Beauprez's support of the Referendum from their coverage.

From the article, "Summary: A Grand Junction Daily Sentinel article about an August 25 Colorado Water Congress meeting reported that Republican gubernatorial candidate Bob Beauprez 'told the Congress that he would not let one area of the state -- specifically the Front Range -- seize the rest of the state's water resources.' But it failed to note Beauprez's support of Referendum A in 2003, a proposal that could have had precisely that result."
"denver 2006"
5:19:11 AM

e-mail John: