Why is Polis falsely labeled "Libertarian", sloppy science reporting by the Sun, and a diversion program in JeffCo
How did Governor Polis arrive at his friendly press label of "Libertarian" or "Conservative"?
I don't know if you've ever seen, but I have noted more than once in articles written about Gov Polis that he's called (in order of frequency) Libertarian-leaning, Libertarian, or (and I can't hardly type this through my laughter) Conservative.
Yeah.
It's getting less common now among reporters that live and work in Colorado, but it's still floating around out there among a few and among national reporters. Hell, they've even hinted at it when Polis goes on Fox.
Did you ever wonder how he came by this? Some of it has to be skillful public relations. He is a canny politician and hires people that know how to sell him.
Some of it, however, is structural to how this state runs.
You see, the Assembly, our legislature, chooses to set up multiple, unelected boards across this state with broad policy-making authority. For example, the Public Utilities Commission negotiates what is acceptable for Xcel Energy to do and what it isn't with regard to Colorado utilities customers. Each of the three members is appointed.
The way that this works is Polis appoints his lefty, environmentalist cronies to these boards knowing exactly what kind of decisions they'll make. Then he can wash his hands of the decisions they make in the press.
I.e. he gets the policy he wants and fewer consequences. To see an example, give the op ed below a look.
There's one more detail here that's noteworthy. Quoting from near the end of the op ed:
"By law no more than two of the three commissioners can be from the same party. Current Commissioners Eric Blank and Megan Gilman are Democrats from Boulder and Edwards, respectively. The last Republican to serve as a commissioner was attorney Wendy Moser, appointed to a two-year term in 2017. Technically, Plant is unaffiliated, replacing John Gavan who is also unaffiliated. Philosophically, Plant is also a Boulder Democrat, having represented the area in the state legislature. More importantly, Plant is a devoted follower of Colorado’s eco-left group think."
Polis repeatedly does this too. He either ignores the wording and/or spirit of the law that outlines the party and geographic makeup of the board (in another egregious example he appointed a friend of his, a lifelong Democrat, as an Independent because the dude had switched a little bit prior to nomination).
So much for a Colorado for all and so much for Polis' being anything other than Progressive in Libertarian's clothing.
https://pagetwo.completecolorado.com/2023/01/18/polis-puc-appointee-bad-news-colorado-ratepayers/
Sloppy governmental reports and reporters who swallow them whole.
To quote the op ed linked first at bottom:
"In recent coverage of the report [NOAA's Billion Dollar Event report], Colorado Sun environmental reporter Michael Booth writes that: 'NOAA researchers tallied 18 separate billion-dollar-plus weather and climate disasters in 2022, the third largest count in 43 years of inflation-adjusted record keeping, and the third-costliest year.' This is government-made junk science, and the Sun is amplifying and enabling it."
So that you could also see Mr. Booth's article for yourself, I linked it below the op ed.
I will leave it to you to read up the specifics of what Mr. Scharf takes exception to in Mr. Booth's article, but I agree strongly with Mr. Sharf and can quickly abstract it below for you.
**Quick note, a lot of the claims made by Mr. Sharf are based on data analysis by a CU researcher who took a hard look at NOAA's report and data and wrote about it. I included some relevant links to this researcher's blog below.
Let me illustrate the issue with an analogy.
Pretend that I had a baseball card collection, something I've kept since I was a boy.
The year I turned 15, we had a roof leak and 10 cards were damaged. Each card was worth $12 at the time, so my total loss was $120.
I still kept my remaining cards on into adulthood, and didn't suffer any more damage. When I bought my first house, however, I learned my lesson and decided to keep my cards in a safer spot: the basement.
Unfortunately, there was a burst pipe that first Winter and 6 cards got damaged. Since the cards were by now older and worth more, each card had appreciated to be worth $24 each. My loss this time was $144 total.
Do you see the pattern? I lost more the second time around but not because the number of cards damaged was greater. I lost more because the value of the cards had gone up.
There is more to it, of course, but that is the essence of what Mr. Sharf (and the CU researcher) are talking about. We do indeed have more billion dollar disasters now, but NOAA (despite claiming that they correctly adjusted for inflation) did not account for things like population shifts and appreciation of property. E.g. it might look like Florida's worse off now but a substantial portion of that is likely because more people live there (more houses to blow down) and the property is worth more.
NOAA's report is sloppy science and Mr. Booth uncritically swallows it whole.
Another example of why you should actively be looking for things that run counter to what you believe, things that run counter to the narrative around you (or that you want to push).
I wish our media understood that better and held to that principle.
https://pagetwo.completecolorado.com/2023/01/19/sharf-the-colorado-sun-repeats-a-billion-dollars-worth-of-bad-science/
https://coloradosun.com/2023/01/11/climate-disasters-billion-dollars-record-drought-noaa/
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2012/01/bad-economics-at-noaa.html
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2012/01/follow-up-noaa-to-redo-its-billion.html
Diverting low level vehicle offenders in JeffCo, what about the harm they could do to the community?
Let me try to give you a sense of the logic (and to be as fair as someone with doubts about this can be--if you want a perspective from someone who supports this read the full article linked below) behind diversion programs.
1. Someone who has some form of life problem breaks a minor rule.
Let's say that someone is on disability and had a hard month financially. They missed their car insurance payment and thus their insurance was canceled. They fully intend to sign back up and pay for insurance, but it may have to wait a couple weeks for the next disability payment. Meantime, they're driving around to get groceries and get pulled over. With no insurance they get a ticket.
2. This someone cannot meet the consequences of this punishment and they choose to not face the problem directly.
To return to the example above, if this person doesn't have money for insurance, they sure don't have it for insurance AND a ticket. So, they don't go to court. Now there's a warrant and bigger penalties that accrue.
3. The escalating fines and consequences pile up and what was originally a small infraction now puts this person in jeopardy of losing their vehicle and possibly their freedom (i.e. jail), in addition to all the other consequences of having bills that you don't pay (bad credit, etc.).
Wouldn't it be better to find people like this and figure out a better way to handle the situation? After all, this person is not intentionally thumbing their nose at the justice system, and they're not a criminal. They are down on their luck.
I don't disagree. I think that non-violent, and non-repeating offenders should have some opportunity to make things right and to do so in a way that respects the need for justice, the intent of the law, and the fact that sometimes bad circumstances pile up on decent people.
I say this because it not only feels morally decent, but also because I would like our justice system to have the ability to focus more time on those that are violent or repeat offenders instead of constantly swatting away at gnats.
That being said, the devil is (as he always is) in the details. I wondered some things while reading this article and while thinking about this topic.
1. Where are the sob stories in this article about the people that get hit by someone with no insurance? Where is the consideration for them or for the threat (yes, it is a threat) that people driving around with no insurance present? Low level does not always mean no impact and you can cause harm whether you intend to or not. That's why we have these laws.
2. I would have loved more details here. E.g. I would like to know more about the safeguards in place. What are the boundaries for entry into this program: i.e. If someone is a repeat offender, can they get in the program over and over? What are the rules if people get in the program? What are the consequences if they break those rules?
3. What part does personal responsibility play in this program? Rather than turning my example above into a straw man, what I'll say is that, regardless of the situation, there is always the element of choice. We may not have the ability to choose all that happens to us, but we always have a choice in our response. If I had no insurance and didn't want consequences for that, I'd think long and hard about every trip I made in that car and what alternatives I had. If I had a legal consequence, I'd do my damndest to go stand tall. Go to court, explain your situation and hope for the best.
I hope it works out well in JeffCo (the county profiled in the article for their new diversion program). I do honestly want those that merit it to have a softer second chance. I just don't want those that don't being in the mix too.
https://coloradosun.com/2023/01/20/pathways-diversion-program/