<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
    xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
    xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
    xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/">
<channel>
    <title>From our Congressman</title>
    <category>From our Congressman</category>
    <link>https://www.durangoherald.com/section/columnists-from-our-congressman/feed/</link>
    <atom:link href="https://www.durangoherald.com/section/columnists-from-our-congressman/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <description>Stay informed with the latest breaking news, local stories, sports, business, weather, and community events from Durango, Southwest Colorado, and the Four Corners region.</description>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Jul 2026 11:03:06 -0600</lastBuildDate>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <ttl>30</ttl>
    <item>
        <link>https://www.durangoherald.com/articles/columnists/i-need-your-feedback-to-perfect-our-lands-bill/</link>
        <title>I need your feedback to perfect our lands bill</title>
        <description>Towering mountains, vast forests, archaeological sites from hundreds of years ago, and North America’s tallest sand dunes are a quick drive or hike from many of our backyards. With unparalleled views and recreation opportunities in our district, we are incredibly...</description>
        <pubDate>Mon, 29 Jul 2019 05:33:19 -0600</pubDate>
        <guid isPermaLink="false">8EC3FA3A-4934-57BC-E053-0100007F958F</guid>
        <content:encoded><![CDATA[Colorado’s Third Congressional District is home to some of the country’s most beautiful landscapes and open spaces. Towering mountains, vast forests, archaeological sites from hundreds of years ago, and North America’s tallest sand dunes are a quick drive or hike from many of our backyards. With unparalleled views and recreation opportunities in our district, we are incredibly fortunate to call this district home. For all who enjoy spending time outdoors or utilize public lands for grazing, agriculture or responsible energy development, we recognize that mismanaging or failing to protect and preserve these spaces would have devastating impacts on our way of life. Responsible, multiple-use management of public lands requires a delicate balance of interests and needs of all the stakeholders that use public lands. Earlier this week, I announced a draft of a Third Congressional District public lands package that seeks to balance our district’s interests. Public land designations – whether they be wilderness additions, boundary adjustments or decisions about recreation access – must reflect feedback from the individuals whom the designations would impact the most. By releasing a draft discussion of the Colorado Recreation Enhancement and Conservation Act (Colorado REC Act), I hope to gather feedback that can be incorporated to make it a strong and balanced package. The Colorado REC Act, as drafted now, adds land to the National Wilderness Preservation System, releases land that has been studied for its wilderness characteristics and has been found to be unsuitable, provides further protections for archaeological resources and enhances recreation opportunities. Specifically, it would add over 70,000 acres of new wilderness in the San Juan Mountains and Sangre de Cristo Mountains, areas that have minimal impact from human development and contain fragile ecosystems not found anywhere else in the state or nation. The draft also releases acreage from seven Wilderness Study Areas that have been assessed by federal land managers and determined to be unsuitable for inclusion as wilderness. A WSA can only be released through an Act of Congress, and in order to protect the integrity of the National Preservation System and allow land managers to effectively manage public lands, guard against wildfires and protect private property and water rights. I believe it is important that land that is not suitable for a wilderness designation be released. Lastly, the Colorado REC Act would further Colorado’s proud history of preserving our rich and vibrant culture and value of outdoor recreation. Earlier this Congress, I introduced the Yucca House National Monument Boundary Revision Act, a bill that would accommodate a 160-acre donation of private land to the Yucca House National Monument near Cortez. This bill is included in the REC Act package. Additionally, the Colorado REC Act includes a title to formalize the boundary of the Curecanti National Recreation Area to preserve and enhance access and recognize the draw that this area is for many in our state and the West. The Colorado REC Act discussion draft is just that – a discussion draft. Throughout the month of August, I am seeking feedback on the text that can be incorporated to make the bill a strong, balanced public lands package for the Third Congressional District of Colorado. If you are interested in viewing the proposal, please visit my website at tipton.house.gov/Colorado-REC-Act. I welcome you to share any feedback, concerns or suggestions you have with me and my team. Scott Tipton, R-Cortez, represents Colorado’s 3rd District in the U.S. House of Representatives. Contact a member of Rep. Tipton’s staff in Durango at (970) 259-1490 or online at tipton.house.gov.]]></content:encoded>
    </item>
    <item>
        <link>https://www.durangoherald.com/articles/columnists/ive-been-quite-busy-in-congress-so-far-this-year/</link>
        <title>I’ve been quite busy in Congress so far this year</title>
        <description>As the representative of Colorado’s largest congressional district, there are no shortages of issues facing our communities, and here are a few that I have been focused on thus far. First and foremost, I have continued to work on behalf...</description>
        <pubDate>Mon, 22 Jul 2019 11:33:14 -0600</pubDate>
        <guid isPermaLink="false">8DF74B10-D3B2-689A-E053-0100007FC1EA</guid>
        <content:encoded><![CDATA[Half of the year has gone by, and it’s been an especially busy start to the legislative year in Washington. As the representative of Colorado’s largest congressional district, there are no shortages of issues facing our communities, and here are a few that I have been focused on thus far. First and foremost, I have continued to work on behalf of the more than 50,000 veterans living in Colorado’s Third Congressional District. It’s critical to ensure that those who served receive the care they deserve. I have introduced several bills to help veterans, including the Veterans Reimbursement for Emergency Ambulance Services Act, the Dental Care for Low-Income Veterans Act, and the Private Cemeteries Honoring Veterans of Next of Kin Act. I also reintroduced a resolution expressing the importance of the USS Pueblo, a U.S. Naval ship which has been moored in a North Korean river and used as a propaganda tool for over 50 years. It’s incredibly important to honor the crew who were held captive for 11 months and to send the Pueblo home. I hope the North Koreans view this as a unique opportunity to show a measure of goodwill as the U.S. and North Korea continue to discuss denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. In line with serving veterans is the need to ensure our military readiness remains high so that we may continue to enjoy the many blessings this country has to offer. This year, I joined with the Colorado delegation in asking that the Department of Defense reestablish Colorado as the headquarters for the U.S. Space Command. Colorado has been a long-time leader in the aerospace and military industries and moving the headquarters to Colorado will ensure that the state continues that role. I have also introduced legislation that protects the DoD’s sole High-Altitude Aviation Training Site, in Gypsum, and was glad to have an amendment included in this year’s National Defense Authorization Act that had broad bipartisan support. This site offers world-class training for rotor-wing aviators before they go to combat zones, and it is critical to protect the facility and training to ensure military readiness. Another issue that must continue to be addressed, specifically for rural communities, is better planning and building out of high-speed internet infrastructure. Broadband isn’t just a luxury in the 21st Century, it is a necessity. Unfortunately, many families, students and businesses in rural areas still don’t have the same access to high-speed internet as their urban counterparts. A recent study by the FCC showed that in Colorado, Denver County is the only county where residents have 100 percent access to high-speed broadband. For residents in other areas, there is a huge disparity. In Conejos County, for instance, less than 10 percent of residents in rural areas have access. To address this, I have introduced the RURAL Broadband Act. This bill would help ensure federal funds supporting broadband build-out are going to areas where there is currently no broadband access. In some cases, we have seen duplicative investments in rural broadband infrastructure, which limits the reach of federal resources. It is important to make sure bureaucracy doesn’t stand in the way of bringing internet to the communities that need it most. Anyone who lives in or has visited Colorado knows the value of our public lands. As a lifelong resident of Colorado, I share this sentiment and was especially proud to vote in support of the Natural Resources Management Act, which was signed into law earlier this year. This bill permanently reauthorized the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which has greatly improved access public lands in Colorado, like the Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park. The bill also included bills I introduced, the Fowler and Boskoff Peaks Designation Act which renamed two mountains after Charlie Fowler and Christine Boskoff, two extraordinary mountaineers, and the Every Kid Outdoors Act, which will extend free access to public lands to 4th grade students across the country. Lastly, there is still a strikingly high number of lives that continue to be taken because of prescription and illegal drug overdoses. I recently held a town hall meeting in Custer County to hear from the residents there on how the federal government can better help law enforcement and community health care facilities. From curbing drug flows at the southern border to ensuring our medical professionals have adequate resources, there are plenty of opportunities for Congress to continue working on behalf of victims of opioid overdose and I will continue to ensure the best solutions are put forward. Looking past the political noise in Washington is never easy, but I continue to focus on behalf of Colorado’s Third Congressional District. I look forward to visiting with communities across the district in the August district work period and bringing their concerns back to Washington as we look forward to the second half of 2019. As always, I value input on the many issues facing our country. For the latest updates and to give your input, please visit my website at Tipton. House.gov. Congressman Scott Tipton represents Colorado’s Third District. He serves on the House Committee on Financial Services, is the executive vice chairman of the Congressional Western Caucus and co-chairman of the Congressional Small Business Caucus.]]></content:encoded>
    </item>
    <item>
        <link>https://www.durangoherald.com/articles/columnists/fighting-fire-with-law/</link>
        <title>Fighting fire with law</title>
        <description>Rep. Scott Tiptondu1-i-syn While everybody acknowledges that the frequency and severity of wildfires have increased over the past decade, many in Washington still have been reluctant to make meaningful policy changes to how we maintain forests. Since first coming to...</description>
        <pubDate>Mon, 13 Aug 2018 07:03:27 -0600</pubDate>
        <guid isPermaLink="false">7341877C-4664-4F01-E053-0100007F688E</guid>
        <media:content url="https://imengine.public.prod.dur.navigacloud.com/?uuid=BF3F936B-B1C0-4914-A785-6552B53CC1DC&#038;function=thumbnail&#038;type=preview&#038;source=false&#038;width=600&#038;height=400" medium="image" type="image/jpeg" />
        <media:thumbnail url="https://imengine.public.prod.dur.navigacloud.com/?uuid=BF3F936B-B1C0-4914-A785-6552B53CC1DC&#038;function=thumbnail&#038;type=preview&#038;source=false&#038;width=600&#038;height=400" />
        <content:encoded><![CDATA[Rep. Scott Tiptondu1-i-syn Wildfires have already had a devastating impact on Colorado and our district this year, destroying thousands of acres and hundreds of homes. While everybody acknowledges that the frequency and severity of wildfires have increased over the past decade, many in Washington still have been reluctant to make meaningful policy changes to how we maintain forests. Since first coming to Washington, I have worked on the House Committee on Natural Resources to change the way we approach forest health and wildfire prevention. The answer to reducing the frequency and severity of wildfire is multifaceted, but the crux of the problem is in the federal government’s response to these disasters and its overall forest management strategy. Up until now, rather than proactively managing federal forests, the U.S. Forest Service’s priority has been on fire suppression. This is largely the result of the way in which the federal government treats wildfires from a budgetary perspective. In recent years, USFS’s spending on fire suppression has gone from 15 percent of its overall budget, to a whopping 55 percent. In 2017, the USFS spent over $2 billion on wildfire suppression, making 2017 the most expensive year on record. While the USFS continues to neglect forest health to focus on fighting fires, nearly 60 million acres of forest are now at high risk of going up in flames. By spending more and more of its budget annually on suppression, the USFS has been forced to divert funds from land management accounts. This practice, otherwise known as “fire borrowing,” has prevented the USFS from carrying out important forest management activities, resulting in overgrown forests where trees compete for limited water and nutrients, leaving them weak and more susceptible to insect and disease infestation. All the while, dead material and unnaturally thick undergrowth has built up, creating a fuel load that burns unnaturally hot and fast when ignited. To reverse this trend, we must stop being reactive to wildfires and focus greater resources on proactive forest management. Congress included important wildfire funding reforms in the 2018 Omnibus Bill that will allow the USFS to stop fire-borrowing and use more of its budget on active forest management. Under the new structure, $2.25 billion in new budget authority will be available to the USFS and the Department of the Interior for wildfire response beginning in 2020. This means that if firefighting costs exceed $1.01 billion in any given year, the USFS and Department of the Interior will no longer need to borrow from critical land management accounts to fight catastrophic fires. Instead, they will be able to tap into the new budget authority, similar to how other natural disasters are treated. The money available will increase by $100 million each year until 2027. It is also important that our federal land management agencies implement fuels reduction methods that efficiently eliminate dead and downed timber and unnaturally dense growth that are known to spark wildfires. This can be done in a variety of ways to identify priority hazardous fuels reduction projects and foster private-public partnerships. When we look for solutions to solve any problem facing our lands, we must always consider input from the affected communities and those who have a boots-on-the-ground view of the situation. For that reason, I pushed a provision in the Resilient Federal Forests Act, which passed the House last year, to allow governors to work with impacted county governments and Native American tribes to designate high-risk areas and develop emergency hazardous fuels reduction projects for these endangered areas. Ranchers across the West also play a key role in the fight against wildfires. When ranchers pay a fee to the Department of Interior to allow their livestock to graze on public land, they create a public-private partnership that is mutually beneficial for the ranchers and land management agencies. When done properly, livestock grazing helps to decrease the overgrowth of foliage on public lands that, when ignited, can lead to fast moving fires. Wildfires are naturally occurring and will forever be a part of life in the West. Fixing the way the federal government funds wildfire suppression and using all of the tools available to coordinate active forest management will vastly improve forest health and help prevent the frequency and severity of wildfires in the future. Congressman Scott R. Tipton of Cortez represents Colorado’s Third District.]]></content:encoded>
    </item>
    <item>
        <link>https://www.durangoherald.com/articles/columnists/phillips-wolf-restoration-keeping-every-cog-and-wheel-2/</link>
        <title>Phillips: Wolf restoration – Keeping every cog and wheel</title>
        <description>Keeping every cog and wheel</description>
        <pubDate>Sat, 07 Apr 2018 05:05:02 -0600</pubDate>
        <guid isPermaLink="false">6931C4D7-5DD6-1D8D-E053-0100007FB1A4</guid>
        <media:content url="https://imengine.public.prod.dur.navigacloud.com/?uuid=0B50E895-D5A5-4FE9-8C3C-1965E146142D&#038;function=thumbnail&#038;type=preview&#038;source=false&#038;width=600&#038;height=400" medium="image" type="image/jpeg" />
        <media:thumbnail url="https://imengine.public.prod.dur.navigacloud.com/?uuid=0B50E895-D5A5-4FE9-8C3C-1965E146142D&#038;function=thumbnail&#038;type=preview&#038;source=false&#038;width=600&#038;height=400" />
        <content:encoded><![CDATA[Keeping every cog and wheel I spoke in Carbondale and Aspen recently about restoring the gray wolf to the public wildlands of western Colorado. Some have claimed that my presentations were misleading. They were not. I stuck to reliable facts and concluded with an important truth: Coexisting with wolves is a straightforward affair. This is hard for some to accept. The centuries-old myth that the wolves are marauding beasts that exercise their predatory desires at will is powerful and widely believed. But the myth is as wrong as it is strong. When considering wolf restoration, five issues deserve attention: human safety, depredations on livestock, predation on native prey, ecological consequences and natural recolonization. Wolves pose an infinitesimal threat to humans. Wolves are shy and retiring around people and avoid them. Encounters between the two are rare and overwhelmingly not threatening. If wolves are restored to western Colorado, some will kill livestock, but not many. Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho support about 6 million cattle and 1 million sheep. On average, 117 and 235, respectively, are killed annually by the state’s 1,500 wolves. Considering just Montana, the state supports about 2 million cattle and 450,000 sheep. On average, 50 and 65, respectively, are killed annually by about 500 wolves. The western half of Colorado supports about 500,000 cattle and 175,000 sheep. If wolves were restored and depredated on livestock as they do in Montana, 99.99 percent of the cattle and 99.97 percent of the sheep would not be involved in depredations. Some depredations go undetected, and in very specific situations, wolves can modestly inhibit weight gain by livestock. Compensation payments for wolf problems could be adjusted upward to account for both. Ranchers have always been challenged to promote the survival of livestock and proper weight gain before slaughtering for profit. For nearly all of them, wolves would not add to the challenge. Montana, Wyoming and Idaho support robust deer and elk populations and abundant hunting opportunities. The approximately 1,500 wolves that live there have not diminished those opportunities. Colorado Parks and Wildlife estimates that the state supports over 700,000 deer and elk after hunters have annually killed an average of about 85,000 of them. A wolf can maintain good health by consuming an average of 10 pounds of food per day. Consequently, 250 wolves could be expected to annually consume the equivalent of 2,500 adult elk and 7,500 deer. This represents less than 2 percent of the state’s elk and deer population that exists after hunters have killed their fill. While wolves might impact hunting opportunities in some specific areas, a wolf population in western Colorado would not disrupt existing abundant hunting opportunities. Wolves could actually benefit hunters by making game more wary and a greater challenge to kill. Wolves could also help curb the spread of diseases, like chronic wasting disease, that compromise the health of game herds and someday may threaten humans. Notably, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends against consuming the meat of elk and deer that harbor the disease. Re-establishing the wolf is a step toward restoring an important part of Colorado’s natural balance, which is a useful term for describing the ecological consequences of wolves. Reliable studies indicate that when wolves are common enough for long enough their predatory activities can stimulate a trophic cascade that promotes ecosystem health. Natural balance also refers to the presence of all native species as originally arranged by nature. There is wisdom in this arrangement. While fully understanding this wisdom may be difficult, it is wrongheaded to deny it. It is also wrongheaded to deny the importance of each species to it. As the father of wildlife management, Aldo Leopold, opined: “To keep every cog and wheel is the first precaution of intelligent tinkering.” Restoring the wolf to the public wildlands of western Colorado represents intelligent tinkering. Some claim that wolves are naturally recolonizing western Colorado. They are not. The distance from northwestern Wyoming is too great and there are simply far too many mortality hazards along the way for natural recolonization. Wolves that wander into Colorado are fully protected under the Endangered Species Act. Consequently, most management actions for resolving wolf-related conflicts would be prohibited. If wolves were reintroduced, however, the federal law could be relaxed and management acts employed to resolve problems. Reintroduced wolves are easier to live with than naturally occurring ones. Facts like those above support the claim that coexisting with wolves in western Colorado would be a straightforward affair. All that is lacking is a willingness to accommodate the species. Mike Phillips is a member of the Science Advisory Team of the Rocky Mountain Wolf Project based in Denver. Reach him at mike.phillips@retranches.com.]]></content:encoded>
    </item>
    <item>
        <link>https://www.durangoherald.com/articles/columnists/mcknight-honoring-bears-ears-and-our-public-lands-commitment-2/</link>
        <title>McKnight: Honoring Bears Ears and our public lands commitment</title>
        <description>Clint McKnight The deadline for comments is April 11, and comments can be submitted to: blm_ut_monticello_monuments@blm.gov. Late last month, I attended the Bears Ears public scoping meetings held in Monticello and Bluff, and wanted to offer a few personal observations...</description>
        <pubDate>Sat, 07 Apr 2018 05:04:19 -0600</pubDate>
        <guid isPermaLink="false">6931C4D7-5DD3-1D8D-E053-0100007FB1A4</guid>
        <media:content url="https://imengine.public.prod.dur.navigacloud.com/?uuid=85439F72-E899-4C26-85DC-F15912BCB7AB&#038;function=thumbnail&#038;type=preview&#038;source=false&#038;width=600&#038;height=400" medium="image" type="image/jpeg" />
        <media:thumbnail url="https://imengine.public.prod.dur.navigacloud.com/?uuid=85439F72-E899-4C26-85DC-F15912BCB7AB&#038;function=thumbnail&#038;type=preview&#038;source=false&#038;width=600&#038;height=400" />
        <content:encoded><![CDATA[Clint McKnight As the court cases to determine the legality of downsizing Bears Ears National Monument continue, the Bureau of Land Management is still accepting comments on the Resource Management Plans being hastily developed. The deadline for comments is April 11, and comments can be submitted to: blm_ut_monticello_monuments@blm.gov. Late last month, I attended the Bears Ears public scoping meetings held in Monticello and Bluff, and wanted to offer a few personal observations for what they may be worth. The planning process is in the first of several stages, and there will be additional opportunities to comment on proposed alternatives and to contest decisions as the process plays out. BLM expects to complete this usually lengthy process within a year! The management plan/Environmental Impact Statement developed for the original Bears Ears monument remains in effect until this new one is completed. We were told that BLM anticipates the primary resource issue for the Shash Jáa Unit will be Cultural Resources, and for the Indian Creek Unit, Recreation. When I asked BLM Project Lead Tyler Ashcroft what role public scoping feedback would play in developing management alternatives, he assured me that public input would be the determining factor. While public lands advocates were shamelessly shut out of the decision to eviscerate Bears Ears and Grand Staircase/Escalante, I’m encouraged to believe that at this point our input can have a positive effect. Most of the BLM employees we spoke with were helpful and interested in our views on issues such as limiting developed recreation facilities and motorized travel, less so on the matter of grazing damage to ecologically-sensitive areas and tribal interests, The Cultural Resources Specialist denied that the five tribes, whose cooperation led to Bears Ears National Monument in the first place, were betrayed when their agreement with the U.S. government was broken by President Trump’s executive order. “There was no official agreement,” said the BLM staff person, “just a proclamation.” I assured him that the distinction was meaningless to native people with whom I spoke about Bears Ears. Accordingly, there were very few Native Americans at either meeting. Lots of ranchers in Blanding, and conservationists in Bluff. The atmosphere at each was easy and sociable, at least among the separate demographics. BLM was wise to hold the meetings in an informal open house format. Currently, there are no oil and gas leases or mineral leases within either of the units or the original Bears Ears boundary. All current interest in mineral development appears to be on lands east of the original monument boundary. Hopefully, the state of Utah will want to exchange out their lands within the units, and even within the original boundary, for lands with more mineral potential to the east. There’s no avoiding the fact that shrinking Bears Ears National Monument into tiny, non-contiguous parcels is devastating to the essential wild qualities of this region – a quiet soundscape with plentiful opportunity for spiritual contemplation, vast, thrilling viewsheds of open space and wild horizons and the priceless dark skies that reveal not only the stars but the stars between the stars, and other celestial phenomena seldom seen in our blinded-by-the-light society. It’s easy to be discouraged by the greedy, short-sighted people at the top of the public resources decision-making process. But I remain hopeful that actively participating in the Bears Ears management planning process can contribute to ecological and cultural justice. I plan to stay informed and involved every step of the way. Because that’s how we honor our values and our commitment to public lands. That’s how we honor Bears Ears. Clint McKnight of Durango is a former national park ranger, current bookseller and illustrator. Reach him at cmck3240@gmail.com and mcknightink.com.]]></content:encoded>
    </item>
    <item>
        <link>https://www.durangoherald.com/articles/columnists/williams-can-the-forest-service-reform-its-abusive-culture-2/</link>
        <title>Williams: Can the Forest Service reform its abusive culture?</title>
        <description>Lorena Williams For women like myself, a Forest Service employee and firefighter going on 14 seasons, the exposé told me nothing new: Female firefighters have been raped, assaulted and harassed in great numbers for many years, and for the most...</description>
        <pubDate>Thu, 05 Apr 2018 05:03:19 -0600</pubDate>
        <guid isPermaLink="false">690CA066-403F-2377-E053-0100007FC737</guid>
        <media:content url="https://imengine.public.prod.dur.navigacloud.com/?uuid=FC845DA4-726B-4595-984E-071128241B8E&#038;function=thumbnail&#038;type=preview&#038;source=false&#038;width=600&#038;height=400" medium="image" type="image/jpeg" />
        <media:thumbnail url="https://imengine.public.prod.dur.navigacloud.com/?uuid=FC845DA4-726B-4595-984E-071128241B8E&#038;function=thumbnail&#038;type=preview&#038;source=false&#038;width=600&#038;height=400" />
        <content:encoded><![CDATA[Lorena Williams When the Public Broadcasting Service’s NewsHour aired an investigation titled “Rape, Harassment and Retaliation in the U.S. Forest Service” in March, reactions inside the agency ran the gamut. Many managers said they were uncertain about the future of the agency. Others felt they could no longer do their jobs because they feared accusations of harassment. Targets of harassment — both women and men — celebrated. For his part, Forest Service Chief Tony Tooke resigned days later, after acknowledging that he was also being investigated for sexual misconduct. For women like myself, a Forest Service employee and firefighter going on 14 seasons, the exposé told me nothing new: Female firefighters have been raped, assaulted and harassed in great numbers for many years, and for the most part, the perpetrators face little or no consequences. It is the victims who are most often retaliated against. After reporting an offense, they are advised to keep the incident(s) quiet, and subsequently are often pushed out of fire crews and even out of the agency altogether. What the PBS investigation did was shine a light on firefighting culture. Victims, perpetrators, enablers, first-year rookies, middle managers, forest supervisors, regional and national employees — all have found ourselves exposed to the nation, mostly in a compromised and ugly position. “It is such a hostile environment,” said journalist Judy Woodruff, discussing the PBS investigation. “Why do these women go into the Forest Service in the first place?” I am one of these women, and here is my answer: The culture of firefighting is not an inherently “hostile environment.” For every coworker that has excluded me from the “boys’ club,” 10 others have made me feel welcome and safe in a professional work environment. I have faith in these good people to change a culture that has historically enabled sexual assault and retaliation. If we do not act as harbingers of change, we are by default complicit in the problem. The victims interviewed for the PBS investigation are just a fraction of those who remain fearfully silent or have moved on from the agency. I have little doubt of their credibility. I have never been assaulted, fortunately, but I have experienced and also witnessed harassment and discrimination. In my view, it stems from the perspective that women are, and should remain, outsiders in the industry. I was told three years ago during a friendly conversation with a male coworker that I was only hired because I was female. It wasn’t true, but it illustrated what I fear most about this transition in our field: Women are often seen as intruders, as tokens who were only hired to meet some kind of quota. We are treated as pariahs in our professional fields, regarded as little more than sexual-harassment cases waiting to happen. This sentiment — that working with women is playing with fire — has been hinted at by many of my colleagues throughout the years. Male firefighters at all levels feel hamstrung, suddenly censored, in what is a naturally high-risk, adrenaline-filled career that at times warrants aggressive command presence. In expressing their concerns, however, some male firefighters imply that simply maintaining an appropriate workplace environment is so difficult and out of the ordinary that it cannot possibly be done. And so, they say, they fear for their jobs. It’s true that certain aspects of this job inherently challenge political correctness. We work in the woods, sleep on the ground, relate to each other through bathroom humor, teasing and goading. Spending an entire summer, day and night, with the same people means that professionalism inevitably slips into casual camaraderie. This is how we cope, how we bond and thrive. This gray area, where our professional lives become personal, is both rewarding and dangerous — prime territory for interpersonal chaos. But firefighter culture has to try to enter the 21st century; it can no longer hide fearfully behind patriarchal tradition. Times have changed, and fire culture needs to catch up. Fortunately, change is happening, albeit slowly. For every supervisor like the one who hazed me 17 years ago, dozens since have shown respect and professionalism. The pressure is now on these good supervisors to act as pathfinders who will guide us into a new era, rather than behave like rabbits frozen in a spotlight. This is especially true for fire management officers, captains, superintendents and other program managers who are the creators of crew culture. They must use their influence to make it clear that women are welcome in the agency and that there is no room for sexual harassment, assault or discrimination. That said, it is the responsibility of all firefighters to stop enabling problems by ignoring them. If we lead with this ethic in mind, others will follow. It may be hard to do the right thing — to protect those in need and drive out firefighters not worthy of the title — but aren’t we strong enough to handle it? Lorena Williams is a contributor to Writers on the Range, the opinion service of High Country News (hcn.org). She is a writer and wildland firefighter based out of Durango.]]></content:encoded>
    </item>
    <item>
        <link>https://www.durangoherald.com/articles/columnists/brooks-who-is-the-most-influential-human-being-on-earth-2/</link>
        <title>Brooks: Who is the most influential human being on earth?</title>
        <description>David Brooks Putin has established himself as one pole in the great global debate of the era, the debate between authoritarianism and democracy. He has a coherent strategy to promote his authoritarian side of that debate. He’s able to humiliate...</description>
        <pubDate>Wed, 04 Apr 2018 05:03:55 -0600</pubDate>
        <guid isPermaLink="false">68F5F5D1-6293-66A7-E053-0100007F8954</guid>
        <media:content url="https://imengine.public.prod.dur.navigacloud.com/?uuid=F046678C-6C46-4C76-90E9-DF115BFC4394&#038;function=thumbnail&#038;type=preview&#038;source=false&#038;width=600&#038;height=400" medium="image" type="image/jpeg" />
        <media:thumbnail url="https://imengine.public.prod.dur.navigacloud.com/?uuid=F046678C-6C46-4C76-90E9-DF115BFC4394&#038;function=thumbnail&#038;type=preview&#038;source=false&#038;width=600&#038;height=400" />
        <content:encoded><![CDATA[David Brooks Who is the most influential human being on the planet? My vote goes to Vladimir Putin. Putin has established himself as one pole in the great global debate of the era, the debate between authoritarianism and democracy. He has a coherent strategy to promote his authoritarian side of that debate. He’s able to humiliate and disrupt his democratic rivals at will and get away with it. He’s become a cultural hero to populist conservatives everywhere – in France, Italy, the Philippines and the Oval Office. People are always saying that Putin is merely good at playing a weak hand. Everybody expects him to ultimately falter because Russia’s economy is so creaky. But his hand isn’t that weak. That’s because his power base is not economic; it’s cultural and ideological. As Christopher Caldwell writes in Imprimis, Putin’s international prestige starts with the story he tells. He came to power, by his telling, after Western reformers nearly destroyed his country. Teams of American economists thought that if you privatized property correctly, the law and order and social cohesion would take care of themselves. Social catastrophe followed. Russia’s average life expectancy fell below that of Bangladesh. The government went bankrupt. Members of the old communist nomenklatura plundered the nation’s resources. Successive American administrations humiliated Russia on the world stage. Putin came in and restored stability. Russian life expectancy is now 71 years, a historic high. The economy came back. Russia is a world power again, able, just last week, to flout the combined diplomatic assault of a raft of Western nations. After Putin’s 17 years in power, his domestic approval ratings hover above 80 percent. Moreover, in the years ahead, Putinist authoritarians will have several key advantages in the war of ideas. In the first place, liberal democracy is built on the idea that power should be dispersed across a system of relationships and institutions. Putin stands for the idea that authority should be centralized, with one leader at the top and iron lines of authority flowing downward. He stands for the idea that liberal democracy descends into chaos when there is no social trust, that it is a fraud that allows the well-connected to plunder everyone else. In times of anxiety and distrust, it’s much easier to argue for clear centralized authority than dispersed, amorphous authority. Second, liberal democracy’s ultimate loyalty is to an abstraction – to a constitution, a creed and a set of democratic norms. We in the democratic camp are always alarmed when we see a Putin or a Donald Trump or a Xi Jinping trashing norms to amass personal power. But authoritarianism’s ultimate loyalty is to a person. The man himself. As M. Steven Fish put it in The Journal of Democracy, “Putin is not merely Russia’s best-known, most powerful politician; he is its only politician.” Neither Putin’s followers, nor Trump’s, nor Xi Jinping’s are bothered by the trampling of norms, so long as there’s a person in charge willing to take the mantle of command. In times of anxiety and distrust, it’s much easier to rally people around a person than an abstraction. Third, liberal democracy is built on a faith, a faith in the capacities of individual citizens. Faith, as you know, is confidence in things hoped for and evidence of things not seen. We democrats put faith in the idea that people know best how to run their own lives and that these individual choices can be woven into a common fabric. Putinism, like Trumpism, is based on a cynicism. It’s based on the idea that one should have no illusions, be wise to the ways of the world. People are, as Machiavelli put it, ungrateful and deceitful, timid of danger and avid for profit. Rivalry is inevitable. Everything is partisan. Anybody or any institution that claims to be objective and above the fray is a liar. In this world, everything is public relations, and the more shameless the charade the better because people will believe whatever is in their interest to believe. In times of anxiety and distrust, it’s much easier to sell cynicism than idealism. Finally, liberal democracy is built on the idea that people who are nothing like you are still worthy of respect and attention, that politics is about striking compromises with people you can barely stand to be in the same room with. Putinism is based on the idea that people who are unlike you are sowing cultural chaos; they are undermining your way of life. Putin is continually railing against gays, Muslims, atheists, the “infertile and genderless” West. In times of anxiety and distrust, it’s a lot easier to sell us/them distinctions than tolerance for cultural diversity. In short, never underestimate this man or his cause. All over the world political regimes are adjusting, becoming either a little more authoritarian or a little more democratic. Right now, the momentum is clearly in the authoritarian direction. That’s in part because that side has a brilliant and reckless figure at its head. It’s also because when you pause to ask who is the global leader of the liberal democratic camp, you come up with no name at all. David Brooks is a columnist for The New York Times. Reach him c/o The New York Times, Editorial Department, 620 8th Ave., New York, NY 10018. © 2018 New York Times News Service]]></content:encoded>
    </item>
    <item>
        <link>https://www.durangoherald.com/articles/columnists/tipton-caring-for-every-veteran-suffering-from-agent-orange-exposure/</link>
        <title>Tipton: Caring for every veteran suffering from agent orange exposure</title>
        <description>Rep. Scott Tipton Throughout the course of the Vietnam War, the United States military sprayed 18-20 million gallons of herbicides. Agent Orange was the most common herbicide used, with 11-12 million gallons sprayed throughout the entirety of the war to...</description>
        <pubDate>Tue, 03 Apr 2018 05:03:16 -0600</pubDate>
        <guid isPermaLink="false">68E59078-75BA-3685-E053-0100007FC506</guid>
        <media:content url="https://imengine.public.prod.dur.navigacloud.com/?uuid=5F17B4DA-8AEA-43C0-BE1C-ECEB1A77A87E&#038;function=thumbnail&#038;type=preview&#038;source=false&#038;width=600&#038;height=400" medium="image" type="image/jpeg" />
        <media:thumbnail url="https://imengine.public.prod.dur.navigacloud.com/?uuid=5F17B4DA-8AEA-43C0-BE1C-ECEB1A77A87E&#038;function=thumbnail&#038;type=preview&#038;source=false&#038;width=600&#038;height=400" />
        <content:encoded><![CDATA[Rep. Scott Tipton We are fortunate to have a large population of veterans living in Colorado’s 3rd Congressional District, many of whom served in the Vietnam War. During this brutal war, many of these brave Coloradans fell victim to a terror they could have never foreseen: a toxic herbicide called Agent Orange. Throughout the course of the Vietnam War, the United States military sprayed 18-20 million gallons of herbicides. Agent Orange was the most common herbicide used, with 11-12 million gallons sprayed throughout the entirety of the war to eliminate foliage and crops that hid and fed the Viet Cong troops. While Agent Orange served its intended purpose, there were unintended consequences that would impact the lives of millions for decades to come. A few years after the war, scientists discovered that a chemical in Agent Orange called dioxin is extremely lethal to humans. By the time of their discovery, the courageous soldiers who served during the Vietnam War were potentially exposed to this dangerous chemical. Upon their return home, many of the Vietnam veterans who were exposed to Agent Orange began to develop serious health problems, like cancer, as well as psychological and neurological disorders. But the harmful effects did not just stop with that generation, because dioxin does not only affect the individual exposed. Dioxin can also alter DNA, which is why many children of Vietnam veterans are born with severe deformities or birth defects like spina bifida. In response to the vast number of veterans and their families suffering from Agent Orange exposure, President George H. W. Bush signed the Agent Orange Act into law in 1991, which mandated that diseases associated with Agent Orange be treated as the result of wartime service. However, in my time serving Colorado’s 3rd Congressional District, I have heard too many cases of Coloradan Vietnam-era veterans who are suffering from Agent Orange exposure but have still not received the care that is owed to them. It is relatively unknown that many veterans who were exposed to Agent Orange during the Vietnam War actually served in Thailand. Even though these individuals show symptoms of exposure, they still do not immediately qualify for the Department of Veterans Affairs’ Agent Orange treatment benefits, all because they did not serve in recognized locations or careers during their service in Thailand. Current protocols dictate that in order to receive these benefits, veterans must first go through an appeals process that takes five to seven years on average. During that drawn-out period, their ailments often become drastically worse due to lack of treatment. Since 2011, my office has worked on one hundred cases for Vietnam veterans who were stationed in Thailand during the war. Most of their cases started in the early 2000’s and remained open for years. This is inexcusable, which is why I am supporting an important piece of legislation that would give veterans who served in Thailand during the Vietnam War the opportunity to prove their exposure to herbicide agents like Agent Orange and not languish in a lengthy bureaucratic process while their conditions worsen. Nothing is more disheartening than hearing the stories of the Vietnam veterans who have been denied or made to wait years for the Agent Orange exposure treatment they need. I will continue to work to ensure Colorado’s Vietnam veterans have access to the care they have earned. If you or someone you know is having an issue receiving their benefits, please do not hesitate to reach out to me or a member of my staff. We can be reached in Grand Junction at (970) 241-2499. Congressman Scott R. Tipton (R-Cortez) represents Colorado’s 3rd District. He serves on the House Committee on Financial Services and the House Committee on Natural Resources. He is Vice Chairman of the Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations. Tipton is the Executive Vice Chairman of the Congressional Western Caucus and Co-chairman of the Congressional Small Business Caucus.]]></content:encoded>
    </item>
    <item>
        <link>https://www.durangoherald.com/articles/columnists/progress-site-team-committed-to-active-engagement/</link>
        <title>Progress: Site team committed to active engagement</title>
        <description>Christina Progress The federal and state agencies at the site – Environmental Protection Agency, the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management – will continue to solicit and value input...</description>
        <pubDate>Sat, 31 Mar 2018 06:03:06 -0600</pubDate>
        <guid isPermaLink="false">68A5A552-C50D-739E-E053-0100007F17C5</guid>
        <media:content url="https://imengine.public.prod.dur.navigacloud.com/?uuid=78C3DBF9-0598-4D5B-8118-2A9BFB538E68&#038;function=thumbnail&#038;type=preview&#038;source=false&#038;width=600&#038;height=400" medium="image" type="image/jpeg" />
        <media:thumbnail url="https://imengine.public.prod.dur.navigacloud.com/?uuid=78C3DBF9-0598-4D5B-8118-2A9BFB538E68&#038;function=thumbnail&#038;type=preview&#038;source=false&#038;width=600&#038;height=400" />
        <content:encoded><![CDATA[Christina Progress As we look to starting work at Bonita Peak Mining District Superfund site this year, the Bonita Peak site team would like to thank all those who are providing meaningful input and contributing to our work to identify and address contamination concerns. The federal and state agencies at the site – Environmental Protection Agency, the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management – will continue to solicit and value input from all interested parties throughout the cleanup process. Specifically, as the Citizens Superfund Workgroup completes the development of its “citizen goals” for the site, we would like to thank all those that have participated over the last six months. We look forward to receiving their goals and recommendations, and we appreciate the Animas River Community Forum, Animas River Stakeholders Group, Animas Watershed Partnership and Trout Unlimited for organizing the series of Workgroup meetings. Although not all the Workgroup recommendations can be implemented immediately, the site team will take them into account as work continues. Currently, the site team is investigating the nature and extent of contamination in the mining district through the remedial investigation. EPA is also thoroughly assessing risks posed by that contamination to human health and the environment. When those investigations are completed, the site team will use the data gathered, as well as the input from the Workgroup, the Silverton/San Juan County Planning Group and other interested parties, to develop risk management strategies for the district. This iterative process will begin this year. The site team is committed to active and meaningful engagement with all interested parties, and we will consider all local input and recommendations as we plan ongoing outreach activities at the site. In May 2017, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt established a task force to identify strategies to improve the Superfund program. On Dec. 5, 2017, EPA released a list of Superfund sites that are targeted for immediate and intense attention. The Bonita Peak Mining District is included on this list as a site that will benefit from Administrator Pruitt’s direct engagement. Christina Progess is EPA project manager for the Bonita Peak Mining District Site Team.]]></content:encoded>
    </item>
    <item>
        <link>https://www.durangoherald.com/articles/columnists/platt-methane-rule-protects-our-health-environment-economy-2/</link>
        <title>Platt: Methane rule protects our health, environment, economy</title>
        <description>Corinne Platt As the current mayor and longtime resident of Ophir, I have seen the benefits implementation of Colorado’s strong state-wide methane safeguards have had at the local and state level. In fact, since Colorado’s methane rule went into effect,...</description>
        <pubDate>Sat, 31 Mar 2018 05:04:31 -0600</pubDate>
        <guid isPermaLink="false">68A5A552-C50B-739E-E053-0100007F17C5</guid>
        <media:content url="https://imengine.public.prod.dur.navigacloud.com/?uuid=34425087-56CF-4578-8B1C-88C483479BF0&#038;function=thumbnail&#038;type=preview&#038;source=false&#038;width=600&#038;height=400" medium="image" type="image/jpeg" />
        <media:thumbnail url="https://imengine.public.prod.dur.navigacloud.com/?uuid=34425087-56CF-4578-8B1C-88C483479BF0&#038;function=thumbnail&#038;type=preview&#038;source=false&#038;width=600&#038;height=400" />
        <content:encoded><![CDATA[Corinne Platt Proposals under the Trump administration to repeal the Bureau of Land Management’s common-sense 2016 Methane and Waste Prevention Rule – regulating the leaking, venting and flaring of methane from oil and gas wells on public lands – will have devastating impacts on the health and environment of communities dependent on responsible development practices. As the current mayor and longtime resident of Ophir, I have seen the benefits implementation of Colorado’s strong state-wide methane safeguards have had at the local and state level. In fact, since Colorado’s methane rule went into effect, leakage rates have been reduced by 75 percent and seven out of 10 producers said that the benefits outweigh the costs, as they are able to sell methane that would have otherwise been wasted. Developers and communities intricately linked to public lands across the country could benefit from implementation of the methane waste rule. Why then, is the administration ignoring American interests? Oil and gas companies waste $330 million worth of natural gas each year due to unregulated leaking, venting and flaring from wells on public lands. This waste shortchanges taxpayers by millions of dollars because royalties aren’t collected from oil and gas companies venting and flaring methane. In addition, the public is forced to unnecessarily bear the health and environmental impacts from the very potent greenhouse gases emitted by methane waste. In Ophir, we value close access to public lands and clean air. However, our proximity to the Four Corners – a methane hotspot – threatens the clean air our kids need to breathe. This pollution can be captured and sold if the 2016 Methane Waste Prevention Rule were to be implemented. In fact, according to the “2017 State of the Rockies Conservation in the West Poll,” 81 percent of Westerners, and specifically 83 percent of Coloradans, support requiring oil and gas companies operating on public lands to prevent methane gas leaks and reduce the need to burn off excess natural gas. Secretary Zinke’s actions to dismantle the methane waste rule not only ignores the public’s overwhelming support for safeguards limiting methane waste, but his proposed rule flies in the face of common-sense natural resource and public lands management. According to BLM’s own analysis, the latest proposal to replace the 2016 rule would actually reduce natural gas supply from federal lands and would cost Americans more than $1 billion in wasted natural gas and pollution – this is simply unacceptable. And instead of allowing residents of my community and those across the West to weigh in by hosting public meetings, Secretary Zinke is choosing to ignore what families, business owners, and even what oil and gas companies want. The residents of and visitors to Ophir and other Western communities deserve their fair share of royalties from captured methane and clean air to breathe. Secretary Zinke and the BLM need to listen to Americans and implement the common-sense 2016 Methane and Waste Prevention Rule rather than harmfully remove critical methane emission safeguards. Corinne Platt is the current mayor of Ophir. She has lived and recreated in Ophir and Telluride for more than 20 years, where she pursues her passions for writing and finding solutions to environmental issues in the West.]]></content:encoded>
    </item>
    <item>
        <link>https://www.durangoherald.com/articles/columnists/mallory-afp-deepens-engagement-educates-on-local-issues-2/</link>
        <title>Mallory: AFP deepens engagement, educates on local issues</title>
        <description>Jesse Mallory With offices in Fort Collins, the Denver Tech Center, Downtown Denver, Colorado Springs, and now Grand Junction and Durango, we are expanding our engagement with local communities to ensure that people’s rights are protected at all levels of...</description>
        <pubDate>Sat, 31 Mar 2018 05:03:38 -0600</pubDate>
        <guid isPermaLink="false">68A5A552-C4FF-739E-E053-0100007F17C5</guid>
        <media:content url="https://imengine.public.prod.dur.navigacloud.com/?uuid=6FB2ADD3-D8FC-4E9B-88DD-130B6A47ECBD&#038;function=thumbnail&#038;type=preview&#038;source=false&#038;width=600&#038;height=400" medium="image" type="image/jpeg" />
        <media:thumbnail url="https://imengine.public.prod.dur.navigacloud.com/?uuid=6FB2ADD3-D8FC-4E9B-88DD-130B6A47ECBD&#038;function=thumbnail&#038;type=preview&#038;source=false&#038;width=600&#038;height=400" />
        <content:encoded><![CDATA[Jesse Mallory We at the Colorado chapter of Americans for Prosperity are committed to removing barriers to opportunity. With offices in Fort Collins, the Denver Tech Center, Downtown Denver, Colorado Springs, and now Grand Junction and Durango, we are expanding our engagement with local communities to ensure that people’s rights are protected at all levels of government. Unfortunately, our efforts are frequently mischaracterized by the press, as in a recent story in these pages (Herald, Feb. 19) that suggested we were ending our efforts against La Plata County’s proposed land-use codes. This, in turn, led to speculation that we were retreating from this local community to focus on purely state and national issues. Nothing could be further from the truth. With local offices, local staff and local volunteers, Americans for Prosperity continues to engage and rally our activists on local issues throughout Colorado, including the issue of property rights in La Plata County. Last fall, the La Plata County Planning Department proposed new land-use codes that would stifle the freedom of property owners. The heavy-handed regulations included new restrictions on building architecture and outdoor lighting, as well as a new permit requirement for private events of more than 24 people. But this isn’t just what we think. The proposal riled the community – and rightfully so. Two hundred county residents signed our organization’s petition against the land-use codes, and more than a thousand people attended a public forum where they overwhelmingly denounced the codes as government overreach and an infringement on property rights. As a result of the outcry, La Plata County has put the codes on hold to address residents’ concerns. This hard-won victory does not mean that Americans for Prosperity is dropping out of the fight. On the contrary, we will continue to engage on the issue of land-use codes, and rally our activists against any incursion against property rights in La Plata County and elsewhere in Colorado. We also pushed back on land-use restrictions in Lakewood, where city officials proposed limiting residential growth to 1 percent annually and requiring city council approval for projects of 40 units or more. Americans for Prosperity launched a grassroots initiative to inform residents about how the proposal would drive up the cost of living and kill job growth. Just like we are educating citizens regarding the threat to their property rights in La Plata County and Lakewood, we mobilized citizens against a threat to educational opportunity in Douglas County. Americans for Prosperity activists knocked on 18,000 doors and made more than 40,000 phone calls to educate residents on the importance of preserving the program and increasing the educational options available to students. On local threats to property rights, educational freedom and more, Americans for Prosperity will keep up the fight. We will continue to deepen our engagement with local communities and educate residents on issues that affect them. By opening a new office in Durango, we are sending a very clear message: Americans for Prosperity is here to stay – and we are just getting started. Jesse Mallory is the Colorado state director of Americans for Prosperity, online at americansforprosperity.org.]]></content:encoded>
    </item>
    <item>
        <link>https://www.durangoherald.com/articles/columnists/higgs-homelessness-a-problem-that-belongs-to-all-of-us/</link>
        <title>Higgs: Homelessness – A problem that belongs to all of us</title>
        <description>A problem that belongs to all of us</description>
        <pubDate>Sat, 31 Mar 2018 05:03:27 -0600</pubDate>
        <guid isPermaLink="false">68A5A552-C4FE-739E-E053-0100007F17C5</guid>
        <media:content url="https://imengine.public.prod.dur.navigacloud.com/?uuid=8646C940-D99F-45AE-A7C9-F7E535332B93&#038;function=thumbnail&#038;type=preview&#038;source=false&#038;width=600&#038;height=400" medium="image" type="image/jpeg" />
        <media:thumbnail url="https://imengine.public.prod.dur.navigacloud.com/?uuid=8646C940-D99F-45AE-A7C9-F7E535332B93&#038;function=thumbnail&#038;type=preview&#038;source=false&#038;width=600&#038;height=400" />
        <content:encoded><![CDATA[A problem that belongs to all of us According to the code of ethics for health educators, “we have an obligation to act on the basis of what we know.” As an advocate who works with the homeless, and a graduate student studying the social and cultural factors that influence health in our region, I feel compelled to join the conversation that’s been going on in the Herald’s pages throughout this year on homelessness. Much of the reporting that has been published locally, and certainly many of the comments, discusses homelessness as a problem that Durango is faced with, as if men, women and children have invaded this town. Homelessness is not a problem to be eliminated. It is a problem that belongs to us. Homelessness cannot be solved through just one method or by just one actor alone. Heck, just about anyone in any line of work, either in the private sector or the public, would acknowledge that complex problems require collaboration. If we aren’t united as a community in our goal, then we will have no impact. As we argue publicly about whether to keep a camp for the homeless open, whether to fund permanent housing and whether or not the homeless population is comprised of menaces and freeloaders, have we considered the emotions and beliefs that are driving both sides? My personal opinion, based on years of work and study, is that people who come without homes to Durango from surrounding areas aren’t outsiders invading our community and looking for free help. They are members of our broader community. We share this land with them. What occurs in the border towns, in outlying rural areas and reservation lands should inform our policy and shape our funding priorities. What occurs there? This isn’t breaking news. High rates of poverty, domestic violence, joblessness, trauma and bad health outcomes have persisted there for generations. These are factors driving homelessness. As a community with more resources than anywhere else in the area, we have some responsibility to address the underlying causes. My frustration toward others who don’t share my same view of the problem is, however, senseless. As educators, health officials and journalists, we haven’t fulfilled our obligation to step up to educate the public about what we know. How many people who have written comments on the Herald’s articles have carefully considered the root causes of homelessness? Who among us has spoken or reported about the history of poverty, of inter-generational trauma, of racism and inequality, of the lack of access to medical or mental health treatment, as driving forces of the perpetuation of homelessness? The complexity of health and income disparities that persist throughout the rural Southwest must be discussed by us as a community, and much more often. Before I see interviews of town residents expressing their personal views about homelessness on the front page of the paper, I want to see reporting that carefully examines the problem. Debbie Higgs is a Reiki Master, therapeutic yoga teacher and advocate serving the homeless. She is also a Masters in Public Health candidate examining issues related to poverty and access to health care in the Four Corners. Reach her at dwilliamshiggs@gmail.com.]]></content:encoded>
    </item>
    <item>
        <link>https://www.durangoherald.com/articles/columnists/romanoff-making-it-harder-to-get-guns-and-easier-to-get-care-2/</link>
        <title>Romanoff: Making it harder to get guns and easier to get care</title>
        <description>Andrew Romanoff When it comes to improving mental health care, however, you can find common ground. Nine candidates shared a stage last week at Mental Health Colorado’s first-ever gubernatorial forum. The consensus: We ought to make it harder for people...</description>
        <pubDate>Fri, 30 Mar 2018 05:03:29 -0600</pubDate>
        <guid isPermaLink="false">68938291-A38B-372B-E053-0100007FC66C</guid>
        <media:content url="https://imengine.public.prod.dur.navigacloud.com/?uuid=60A32702-4A81-4BBA-ABD3-23D8698DD1EC&#038;function=thumbnail&#038;type=preview&#038;source=false&#038;width=600&#038;height=400" medium="image" type="image/jpeg" />
        <media:thumbnail url="https://imengine.public.prod.dur.navigacloud.com/?uuid=60A32702-4A81-4BBA-ABD3-23D8698DD1EC&#038;function=thumbnail&#038;type=preview&#038;source=false&#038;width=600&#038;height=400" />
        <content:encoded><![CDATA[Andrew Romanoff DENVER – Put six Republicans and three Democrats on the same stage, and you might not expect them to agree on anything. When it comes to improving mental health care, however, you can find common ground. Nine candidates shared a stage last week at Mental Health Colorado’s first-ever gubernatorial forum. The consensus: We ought to make it harder for people who pose a danger to themselves or others to get guns, and easier for them to get treatment. Those are two of the top priorities we’re urging the legislature to address this year. The first is called an extreme risk protection order; it would allow law enforcement officers to remove weapons from the homes of individuals at risk of suicide or violence. Five states have already enacted such laws, and the approach seems to be working. No law can prevent every tragedy, but studies show that restricting access to firearms in these circumstances – even temporarily – reduces the likelihood of harm. The laws require a court order and appropriate regard for due process rights. With those provisions in place, the extreme risk protection order has earned the support of the National Rifle Association, among other organizations. Every gubernatorial candidate at our forum signed on, and we’re asking the General Assembly to follow suit. Mental Health Colorado is working with members of both parties to introduce and pass legislation this month. To be clear, most people with mental illness are not violent; they are far more likely to be victims of crime than perpetrators. But for those at risk of suicide, a gun represents the most lethal means. Suicides account for more than two-thirds of gun deaths in America, and an even higher share in Colorado. More than 1,000 Coloradans die by suicide each year – a death toll this proposal can decrease. Just as critical is access to treatment. Each year, an estimated 35,000 Coloradans experience a mental health crisis that makes them gravely disabled or places them in imminent danger. That’s a conservative figure, based on the number of people who are subjected to involuntary holds. Under current law, those holds can last for up to 72 hours. Once that time is up, roughly 10 percent of these individuals are certified for involuntary treatment. But most don’t meet that standard, and many never get treatment. For some, the cycle of crisis simply repeats itself. That’s why we’re asking the legislature to step in. Instead of waiting for more Coloradans to fall through the cracks, we ought to help them get care. Our proposal would establish care coordination teams, providing assistance in housing, employment and treatment. The state already supplies such assistance to individuals who leave Colorado’s mental health institutes through the transition specialist program. But the vast majority of Coloradans, even those with severe mental illness, are not institutionalized – and don’t need to be. Colorado’s own experience, as well as that of other states, shows that proper treatment and support improve outcomes and lower the demand on hospitals, emergency rooms and the criminal justice system. Turning our jails and prisons into warehouses for people with mental health or substance-use disorders is the most expensive and least therapeutic decision we can make. The bottom line: It’s far cheaper, more effective and, ultimately, more humane to treat mental illness than to ignore it or to criminalize it. That’s a conclusion with which every gubernatorial candidate – and, we hope, a majority of our elected officials – can agree. Andrew Romanoff is the president and CEO of Mental Health Colorado, online at mentalhealthcolorado.org. He served as the speaker of the Colorado House of Representatives from 2005-2008.]]></content:encoded>
    </item>
    <item>
        <link>https://www.durangoherald.com/articles/columnists/saeger-coloradans-want-public-lands-protected/</link>
        <title>Saeger: Coloradans want public lands protected</title>
        <description>Chris Saeger As the White House and Department of the Interior continue to shrink, modify or undermine protections for public lands and national monuments, Congressman Scott Tipton could be a deciding vote in whether Colorado’s Canyons of the Ancients stays...</description>
        <pubDate>Tue, 27 Mar 2018 05:03:16 -0600</pubDate>
        <guid isPermaLink="false">68598F68-FCBA-06BB-E053-0100007F02D9</guid>
        <media:content url="https://imengine.public.prod.dur.navigacloud.com/?uuid=E89465CE-BDEA-4740-A436-A21D9109683E&#038;function=thumbnail&#038;type=preview&#038;source=false&#038;width=600&#038;height=400" medium="image" type="image/jpeg" />
        <media:thumbnail url="https://imengine.public.prod.dur.navigacloud.com/?uuid=E89465CE-BDEA-4740-A436-A21D9109683E&#038;function=thumbnail&#038;type=preview&#038;source=false&#038;width=600&#038;height=400" />
        <content:encoded><![CDATA[Chris Saeger The long-running push by politicians in Washington D.C. to privatize public lands and scale back national monuments is now coming to head, as a sympathetic White House starts to endorse and implement anti-public lands efforts that could lead to the irresponsible development and eventual elimination of the Canyons of the Ancients in Colorado. As the White House and Department of the Interior continue to shrink, modify or undermine protections for public lands and national monuments, Congressman Scott Tipton could be a deciding vote in whether Colorado’s Canyons of the Ancients stays protected or is opened up to industry. President Donald Trump has already eliminated protections for millions of acres of Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monuments in Utah. Now Congress is considering legislation to codify that decision (H.R. 4532) and to broaden the powers of the executive branch of government to lift protections for even more acres of public land with even less accountability (H.R. 3990). Congressman Tipton sits on the House Natural Resources Committee, and accordingly has the opportunity to stop legislation that threatens Colorado’s public lands and national monuments — including Canyons of the Ancients — from making its way onto the House floor, if he indeed chooses to do so. His constituents certainly want him to: A January poll by the Global Strategy Group found that Rep. Tipton’s constituents are opposed to President Trump’s recent anti-public lands actions, by a 19 point margin, including 52 percent who are “strongly opposed.” Rep. Tipton’s track record on public lands and national monuments — including a committeev ote in favor of H.R. 3990, which would weaken the executive branch’s ability to designate national monuments — suggests that he could ultimately vote in favor of scaling back protections for public lands across the American West, including in Colorado. In July 2016, Rep. Tipton voted to block the president from using the Antiquities Act to designate new national monuments. He also voted for an amendment to block the presidential declaration of new national monuments in certain counties of Arizona, California, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, Oregon and Utah. Notably, Rep. Tipton was silent on the administration’s drastic reduction of Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante national monuments. Coloradans, who Rep. Tipton represents, want and expect public lands to maintain public access, provide world-class recreation and tourism opportunities that support businesses and jobs, support healthy, thriving communities and be protected for the next generation – a mix only possible when our government and industry strikes the right balance between energy development and conservation. Colorado’s public lands are supposed to be managed for multiple uses, including outdoor recreation, which generates $28 billion in consumer spending every year and supports 229,000 jobs. Yet the oil and gas industry has the system rigged in its favor, and under the Trump Administration, development is being prioritized above every other use of our public lands, including outdoor recreation. This Administration’s efforts to eliminate common sense protections for hiking trails, big game herds and drinking water, in the misguided pursuit of “energy dominance,” is a grave threat to Colorado’s public lands, economy and natural heritage. Any additional votes by Rep. Tipton for the anti-public lands bills currently under consideration in Congress would be a vote to upend that balance. The congressman should listen to his constituents and pledge to protect Colorado’s — and the West’s — beautiful public lands from further development and mining, so that his children and grandchildren can hunt, fish and hike on the same lands that he has been able to. Chris Saeger is the Executive Director of the Western Values Project, a Montana-based watchdog group taking a government accountability approach to public lands issues.]]></content:encoded>
    </item>
    <item>
        <link>https://www.durangoherald.com/articles/columnists/jollon-gun-violence-a-public-health-issue/</link>
        <title>Jollon: Gun violence – a public health issue</title>
        <description>A public health issue</description>
        <pubDate>Sat, 24 Mar 2018 05:05:09 -0600</pubDate>
        <guid isPermaLink="false">68191C88-0BFC-43A1-E053-0100007F70A4</guid>
        <media:content url="https://imengine.public.prod.dur.navigacloud.com/?uuid=B3742D0E-0815-4E30-82FD-CDD3CB345782&#038;function=thumbnail&#038;type=preview&#038;source=false&#038;width=600&#038;height=400" medium="image" type="image/jpeg" />
        <media:thumbnail url="https://imengine.public.prod.dur.navigacloud.com/?uuid=B3742D0E-0815-4E30-82FD-CDD3CB345782&#038;function=thumbnail&#038;type=preview&#038;source=false&#038;width=600&#038;height=400" />
        <content:encoded><![CDATA[A public health issue According to the Colorado Health Information Dataset, 781 people died from gunshot wounds in Colorado in 2016, more than died from motor vehicle accidents. Of those killed with guns, 605 died by suicide. In La Plata County during the same time period, all eight firearm deaths were by suicide. This data indicate that further research into suicide prevention efforts and promotion of gun safety measures is needed in our state and region. San Juan Basin Public Health facilitates suicide prevention efforts that are led by invested community partners through our State Innovation Model grant funding. Workgroup members in this community-based, collective impact model may choose to work on gun safety measures that make sense for our community. SJBPH also participates in the statewide Gun Shop Project; a program and research project that connects firearm owners, gun shop and range owners and public health departments to work together to promote safe gun storage and facilitate difficult conversations about how to talk to friends and family about storing guns during times of stress or crisis to prevent suicide attempts. Gun-related deaths and injuries are a public health issue because it impacts both the quality and length of lives across the country. When a common item causes preventable injuries or deaths, research and funding on improving safety often follow. For example, since 1925, there has been a 90 percent decrease in motor vehicle deaths because of a public health response; research suggested using evidence-based prevention tactics such as graduated licenses, speed limits, safer road design and seat belts. A public health approach to reducing gun violence includes: researching gun-related deaths and injuries, identifying risk factors associated with gun violence, identifying protective factors associated with reducing gun violence, then developing, implementing and evaluating communitywide interventions designed to reduce risk factors and increase resilience. Without reliable data on the causes and effects of gun violence, public health entities cannot create evidence-based prevention strategies to reduce gun violence in our communities. Gun violence may have different root causes, as well as varied interventions and prevention techniques, across regions and populations. Allowing public health entities to research and implement violence prevention programs at the state and local levels may therefore result in more tailored and effective programming, designed with community input and participation. Unfortunately, the research needed to guide the direction of future policies to reduce gun deaths and injuries does not exist. In 1996, the Dickey Amendment was introduced into the federal spending bill; it mandated that “none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.” While not an explicit ban on the CDC’s research on gun violence, the amendment resulted in an immediate reduction of funding for research on gun-related deaths and injuries and little to no subsequent public health research. Organizations such as the American Public Health Association, the American Medical Association, and, most recently, the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment have advocated for removing this prohibition on research funding. Historically, public health research and recommendations have led to the creation of programs to address a wide variety of issues, including motor vehicle safety, tobacco use, clean water standards, immunizations and nutrition. An evidence-based, research-informed approach to reducing gun violence in our communities is possible only if public health professionals are funded to research the root causes of violence, effective interventions, and prevention strategies. If you would like more information about SJBPH suicide prevention efforts in La Plata County, please contact Dr. Laura Warner, director of Health Promotion, at lwarner@sjbpublichealth.org. For more information about the Gun Shop Project or about suicide prevention efforts in Archuleta County, please contact Kristin D. Pulatie, director of Assessment and Planning, at kpulatie@sjbpublichealth.org. Liane Jollon is executive director of San Juan Basin Public Health. Reach her at ljollon@sjbpublichealth.org.]]></content:encoded>
    </item>
    <item>
        <link>https://www.durangoherald.com/articles/columnists/chase-and-ruddell-independent-committee-helps-9-r-financial-transparency/</link>
        <title>Chase and Ruddell: Independent committee helps 9-R financial transparency</title>
        <description>The FAC is an independent, external oversight body comprised of seven community members with diverse financial backgrounds. The FAC was established in June 1999 by the District’s Board of Education policy BC-04 based on recommendations made in past district financial...</description>
        <pubDate>Sat, 24 Mar 2018 05:04:49 -0600</pubDate>
        <guid isPermaLink="false">68191C88-0BF9-43A1-E053-0100007F70A4</guid>
        <media:content url="https://imengine.public.prod.dur.navigacloud.com/?uuid=61F90B19-E19F-4217-B2CA-7DFC0147EA71&#038;function=thumbnail&#038;type=preview&#038;source=false&#038;width=600&#038;height=400" medium="image" type="image/jpeg" />
        <media:thumbnail url="https://imengine.public.prod.dur.navigacloud.com/?uuid=61F90B19-E19F-4217-B2CA-7DFC0147EA71&#038;function=thumbnail&#038;type=preview&#038;source=false&#038;width=600&#038;height=400" />
        <content:encoded><![CDATA[It may be of interest for the Durango community to know that the Durango School District 9-R’s financial position is reviewed monthly by a Finance Advisory Committee, or FAC. The FAC is an independent, external oversight body comprised of seven community members with diverse financial backgrounds. The FAC was established in June 1999 by the District’s Board of Education policy BC-04 based on recommendations made in past district financial audit management letters. The district supports the FAC’s’ work without mandates or requirements to do so. By being independent of the district, the FAC reports directly to the Board of Education. Having an external, independent body like the FAC is not required by Colorado law, but it provides our community with a higher level of transparency of our district’s financial position. The board has made our meetings open to the public, and directs the scope of our work by issuing charges to the FAC that must be reported publicly during the board’s January and June monthly meetings. This school year’s charges can be found by visiting the Finance section of the website at durangoschools.org. Four of the FAC’s standing charges are to: review the district’s budget for long-term viability and ensure that it is a balanced budget;review public input into district finances and continue to improve communication, transparency, effectiveness and buy-in;review the findings from the annual audit and the district’s response to these findings;monitor mill-levy funds to ensure that these funds are used on promised ballot expenditures; and additionally, this year, the board has requested that the FAC review the district’s finance policies. Public school finance is continually changing based on the state’s approved funding level (the state’s portion of the per pupil revenue) and local tax and mill levy revenues (our portion of the per pupil revenue). Over the past year, our district has undergone significant changes to our revenues and expenses, including: The successful November 2016 mill levy override ballot initiative has provided additional funds that have improved and stabilized the district’s financial position, enabling it to invest (and in some cases, reinvest) in critical programs;The district, Durango Education Association and Durango Education Support Professionals Association leadership personnel and association members have successfully negotiated creative and innovative compensation schedules that link longevity, service and performance to compensation, and that continue to undergo collaborative adjustments;Revamping the health insurance program provided to its employees; andInstituting annual increases in the district’s contribution to the Colorado Public Employee Retirement Association to cover its increasing liabilities, as required by the State of Colorado.During its bi-annual report to the board on January 23, the FAC reported having no major concerns regarding the 2017-2018 budget, as amended and approved by the board. During its report, the FAC also stated that the Durango School District 9-R’s finances are in the best shape since before the 2008 recession, and reported a high-level of confidence in several areas. These included the recent Finance Department’s personnel changes, the annual audit findings and the district’s response to these findings, the district’s efforts to continually improve transparency in its accounting and financial records and community trust, and the district’s spending priorities. The FAC also identified two areas of concern. The first is the change in the district’s health insurance benefit plan, which may present a challenge to sustain over time. The second is that the state required annual increase in the district’s contribution to PERA, the state employee retirement plan, reduces the district’s ability to fund other program and capital needs. Community members can learn more about the scope of the FAC’s work by contacting co-chairs Art Chase at achase@banksanjuans.com or Steve Ruddell at sruddell9999@gmail.com. Community members are also welcome to come to the FAC’s monthly meetings held on the second Friday of each month during the school year at 7:30 a.m. in the district’s administration building. Communication and transparency require a public process of continual improvement that we are all committed to ensuring. Durango School District 9-R’s Finance Advisory Committee includes co-chairs Art Chase and Steve Ruddell, and members John Gillam, John Reiter, Stan Johnson, Cheryl Wiescamp and Tim Zink.]]></content:encoded>
    </item>
    <item>
        <link>https://www.durangoherald.com/articles/columnists/armano-budget-riders-undermine-clean-water-healthy-rivers/</link>
        <title>Armano: Budget riders undermine clean water, healthy rivers</title>
        <description>Kara Armanodu1-i-syn As an angler, I understand that rivers are all connected and part of a greater ecosystem, and keeping them that way is imperative for maintaining their health for future generations. Sadly, the omnibus budget bill coming to a...</description>
        <pubDate>Thu, 22 Mar 2018 05:03:36 -0600</pubDate>
        <guid isPermaLink="false">67F9B01C-D371-664C-E053-0100007FF917</guid>
        <media:content url="https://imengine.public.prod.dur.navigacloud.com/?uuid=F1DF3614-8CB5-4A78-A9F1-1EA793C83B57&#038;function=thumbnail&#038;type=preview&#038;source=false&#038;width=600&#038;height=400" medium="image" type="image/jpeg" />
        <media:thumbnail url="https://imengine.public.prod.dur.navigacloud.com/?uuid=F1DF3614-8CB5-4A78-A9F1-1EA793C83B57&#038;function=thumbnail&#038;type=preview&#038;source=false&#038;width=600&#038;height=400" />
        <content:encoded><![CDATA[Kara Armanodu1-i-syn I make my way to local rivers and high mountain lakes as often as possible to find solace, beauty and healthy habitats. Whent I’m not fishing, I am an engaged angler who stands up against bad decisions — like the omnibus budget bill that harm these places and species. As an angler, I understand that rivers are all connected and part of a greater ecosystem, and keeping them that way is imperative for maintaining their health for future generations. Sadly, the omnibus budget bill coming to a head in Congress right now is not showing our rivers the same courtesy. It could include three policy riders that will undermine Clean Water Act safeguards and set a terrible precedent for our nation. These riders are bad for fish, bad for fishing, and bad for families in Colorado. These riders are broadly unpopular with the American public and could never pass the House or the Senate on a stand-alone vote. While there are other troubling elements in the budget, I want to focus on three ‘dirty water’ riders that are of particular importance to anglers and to everyone who cares about clean water and healthy rivers. A recent Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership poll found that four out of five anglers and hunters support Clean Water Act protections for smaller streams and wetlands. Sadly, the current Administration is trying to repeal the Clean Water Rule, which clarifies and ensures exactly those types of protections. Many hunters and anglers joined the nearly 800,000 Americans who commented in favor of the Clean Water Rule before it was finalized in 2015.The widespread support for clean water is an obstacle to its repeal, because the law requires federal agencies to listen to public input and to provide a sound rationale for their actions before repealing a final rule. However, Congress is considering a rider that would give the Administration a free pass to repeal the Clean Water Rule without a clear rationale and without due consideration of the public’s input. This rider would also block the courts’ ability to review the agencies’ repeal action as potentially “arbitrary or capricious.” This rider is not just irresponsible; it is undemocratic.A second rider would eliminate Clean Water Act protections for the infamous Yazoo Pumps Project in Mississippi, which would destroy or damage up to 200,000 acres of wetlands. Responding to public outcry, the Bush Administration studied and then stopped this ill-advised project by exercising a rarely used Clean Water Act veto power in 2008. This rider would override the Bush Administration’s 2008 veto and require immediate construction of the Yazoo Pumps project at a cost of more than $220 million taxpayer dollars without any further analysis. This sets a terrible precedent that could affect rivers and wetlands elsewhere. The third rider adds insult to injury for anglers and the nation’s waters. Anglers like me prefer our waters to be full of fish, not muck. This rider would allow polluters to more easily dump dredged or fill material into streams and wetlands, putting our waters at risk. If this rider becomes law, America’s waters — and our drinking water quality — will suffer.Incredibly, the House may vote on this bill as early as today, even though no one has seen the text yet. Some members of Congress are clearly hoping that anglers and other Americans will be watching March Madness instead of focusing on the madness on Capitol Hill. But we cannot afford to stay silent. We need Colorado’s senators and representatives to stand up against these and other policy riders that attack or undermine safeguards for the nation’s streams, wetlands, lakes and rivers. Kara Armano, of Hesperus, is a passionate angler and outdoors woman. She manages communications for multiple fly fishing manufacturers and is a co-founder of Artemis, a sportswomen’s conservation group affiliated with the National Wildlife Federation. Reach her at ski3pin@yahoo.com or (970) 319-5708.]]></content:encoded>
    </item>
    <item>
        <link>https://www.durangoherald.com/articles/columnists/duran-protecting-coloradans-from-discrimination/</link>
        <title>Duran: Protecting Coloradans from discrimination</title>
        <description>Crisanta Durandu1-i-syn I’ll skip the name-calling and stick to the facts. Each year, the CCRD investigates hundreds of claims of discrimination in employment, housing and public accommodations based on race, gender, disability, sexual orientation and other factors. It’s an important...</description>
        <pubDate>Thu, 22 Mar 2018 05:03:06 -0600</pubDate>
        <guid isPermaLink="false">67CDD08C-7550-5E41-E053-0100007F74AE</guid>
        <media:content url="https://imengine.public.prod.dur.navigacloud.com/?uuid=5FA3230E-58AB-48DA-A586-A9AF441E5581&#038;function=thumbnail&#038;type=preview&#038;source=false&#038;width=600&#038;height=400" medium="image" type="image/jpeg" />
        <media:thumbnail url="https://imengine.public.prod.dur.navigacloud.com/?uuid=5FA3230E-58AB-48DA-A586-A9AF441E5581&#038;function=thumbnail&#038;type=preview&#038;source=false&#038;width=600&#038;height=400" />
        <content:encoded><![CDATA[Crisanta Durandu1-i-syn Recently in this space, Sen. Bob Gardner, a Colorado Springs Republican, wrote that Democrats had resorted to “misinformation,” “demagoguery” and “hysterical cries” about Republicans’ vote to defund the Colorado Civil Rights Division. I’ll skip the name-calling and stick to the facts. Each year, the CCRD investigates hundreds of claims of discrimination in employment, housing and public accommodations based on race, gender, disability, sexual orientation and other factors. It’s an important resource for individuals who face discrimination, including communities of color, LGBTQ individuals, women and seniors, helping them access justice without having to file expensive lawsuits. And it’s beneficial for businesses, for whom lawsuits are also costly and time-consuming. Ensuring the continued existence of the CCRD should be a no-brainer, and beyond petty partisan games. But on Feb. 8, Republicans on the legislative Joint Budget Committee, which drafts the state budget, blocked funding for the CCRD. As a result, there is currently no money set aside in the budget for the CCRD to continue operating past June 30. This certainly can change before the budget is finalized. But despite claiming a desire to continue the division, 26 of the 28 House Republicans voted on Wednesday against reauthorizing it. Democratic votes were enough to pass the reauthorization in the House. But now the reauthorization is headed to the Republican-controlled Senate, where its future is not assured. And until the JBC Republicans vote to fund the division, its prospects remain clouded. The Republican votes against the agency charged with protecting Coloradans from discrimination prompted widespread protest, and for good cause. Though it is not necessarily unusual to “table” – essentially set aside for further debate – components of the budget while it’s being put together, that move is generally reserved for items that are a point of disagreement, which will have to be debated and hashed out during the final budget negotiations. Instead, we now see Republicans publicly claiming support for the CCRD while simultaneously voting to discontinue it and to block its funding. Trying to extract changes to the commission – such as stacking it with appointments from big business to tilt it away from its core mission – by threatening the division’s funding, rather than entering into a regular policy discussion about the agency, is a brazen political maneuver and it should absolutely be called for what it is. Democrats are open to honest policy discussions about how or whether the agency could be improved. But we are not open to changes that will undermine the commission and its core mission of protecting Coloradans from discrimination. A “compromise” that undermines the agency and the protections it offers is not good enough for me, or for the people of Colorado. Our goal is to ensure that Coloradans have the right to work and live in Colorado without fear of discrimination and harassment in their jobs and their homes, and a strong, independent and balanced CCRD is critical to achieving that goal. The continued existence of this agency is too important to play brinksmanship politics, holding it hostage to extract changes. We hope that common sense prevails over politics, and we can pass a clean bill reauthorizing the division this year. Because Colorado is watching. Crisanta Duran, D-Denver, is speaker of the Colorado House of Representatives.]]></content:encoded>
    </item>
    <item>
        <link>https://www.durangoherald.com/articles/columnists/costello-and-moore-federal-budget-poison-pills-policy-riders-risk-clean-air-public-health/</link>
        <title>Costello and Moore: Federal budget poison pills – policy riders risk clean air, public health</title>
        <description>Congress is working on a federal funding bill right now that endangers public health and the environment. The bill includes a host of harmful policy riders known as “poison pills,” the term for unrelated amendments attached to must-pass legislation. For...</description>
        <pubDate>Sat, 17 Mar 2018 05:05:57 -0600</pubDate>
        <guid isPermaLink="false">67954D36-F9F5-35D8-E053-0100007F6516</guid>
        <media:content url="https://imengine.public.prod.dur.navigacloud.com/?uuid=64B14809-8C62-47FD-9273-32980368685B&#038;function=thumbnail&#038;type=preview&#038;source=false&#038;width=600&#038;height=400" medium="image" type="image/jpeg" />
        <media:thumbnail url="https://imengine.public.prod.dur.navigacloud.com/?uuid=64B14809-8C62-47FD-9273-32980368685B&#038;function=thumbnail&#038;type=preview&#038;source=false&#038;width=600&#038;height=400" />
        <content:encoded><![CDATA[According to the 2018 Conservation in the West poll, Coloradans overwhelmingly favor health-protective rules that keep us safe from air pollutants and climate-changing methane emissions. Seventy-four percent want government to require the oil and gas industry to do more to prevent leaks and capture methane on public lands. Unfortunately, some in Congress are pushing for the exact opposite. Congress is working on a federal funding bill right now that endangers public health and the environment. The bill includes a host of harmful policy riders known as “poison pills,” the term for unrelated amendments attached to must-pass legislation. For example, some of these riders would block Environmental Protection Agency and Bureau of Land Management rules limiting dangerous methane pollution from fracking operations. These rules require the oil and gas industry to use cost-effective technologies to reduce natural gas venting and flaring, as well as to find and fix leaks from equipment and operations. The Obama administration’s EPA estimated that the agency’s standards would avert 510,000 tons of methane pollution in 2025, which is equivalent to burning 12.3 billion tons of coal. Stopping leaks also reduces the toxic emissions that accompany methane. Published studies have highlighted the connection between living close to fracking operations, exposure to airborne chemicals and increased health risks for Coloradans. Researchers at the Colorado School of Public Health identified dangerous levels of benzene – a powerful carcinogen – near fracking operations and elevated risks of cancer for residents living within a half-mile of a drilling site. Additional peer-reviewed research has shown increased risks for birth defects and childhood leukemia to babies born to mothers living in the closest proximity to and increasing density of oil and gas drilling operations. Asthma and preterm births have also been associated with fracking operations. Methane also accelerates climate change. It is a far more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide in the atmosphere – fully 86 times more potent over its first 20 years. Coloradans are already seeing the impacts of climate change in the increasing number of wildfires and decreasing amount of snowpack. Climate Central, the nonprofit news organization composed of scientists and science journalists, reports that Colorado is one of the 10 states experiencing the fastest warming summers. These increased temperatures can lead to increases in serious illness and death for our most vulnerable people, namely children and the elderly. Fugitive emissions from drilling and rising temperatures both contribute to the formation of ground-level ozone, the primary component of smog. This is a major problem for Colorado. The Front Range has failed to comply with EPA ozone standards since 2012, and by some estimates, compliance may not be possible before 2030. The Four Corners is under the largest methane cloud in the nation as a result of venting, flaring and leaks from drilling operations. Ozone levels are increased under the methane cloud, and elevated ozone levels result in increased incidence of asthma and respiratory infections, with children and the elderly being the most vulnerable. Ozone itself is linked to approximately 10,000 premature deaths in the U.S. each year. In June of 2017, the state of Colorado joined other states in a lawsuit challenging the EPA administrator’s decision to stop the EPA’s rules to reduce methane and other harmful air pollutants from oil and gas operations on federal lands. Sen. Michael Bennet has consistently voted for environmental and public health protections. We urge Rep. Scott Tipton and Sen. Cory Gardner to follow his example and oppose any poison pill environmental riders, like the methane riders, in the final 2018 spending bill. We also urge our local, state and federal policymakers to support the expansion of clean renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, geothermal and battery backup. Only then can we begin to reduce the risks to our health caused by the mining and burning of coal, oil and gas. Lauri Costello, MD, of Durango and Larry Moore, MD, of Manitou Springs are members of Physicians for Social Responsibility. Reach Moore at doclmoore@wildernesswise.com and Costello at lauricos@gmail.com.]]></content:encoded>
    </item>
    <item>
        <link>https://www.durangoherald.com/articles/columnists/ornstein-this-major-challenge-to-local-news-has-gone-almost-unnoticed/</link>
        <title>Ornstein: This major challenge to local news has gone almost unnoticed</title>
        <description>Norman J. Ornsteindu1-i-syn But one particular challenge, involving Sinclair Broadcast Group and local television ownership, has gone almost unnoticed. For many decades, the vigilance of the Federal Communications Commission has kept deep-pocketed players, including owners of newspapers and other important...</description>
        <pubDate>Fri, 16 Mar 2018 05:03:39 -0600</pubDate>
        <guid isPermaLink="false">6777326D-D256-5B54-E053-0100007FF23B</guid>
        <media:content url="https://imengine.public.prod.dur.navigacloud.com/?uuid=29A9683C-0D9B-4091-AEB7-440A06A32C63&#038;function=thumbnail&#038;type=preview&#038;source=false&#038;width=600&#038;height=400" medium="image" type="image/jpeg" />
        <media:thumbnail url="https://imengine.public.prod.dur.navigacloud.com/?uuid=29A9683C-0D9B-4091-AEB7-440A06A32C63&#038;function=thumbnail&#038;type=preview&#038;source=false&#038;width=600&#038;height=400" />
        <content:encoded><![CDATA[Norman J. Ornsteindu1-i-syn The foundations of the U.S. political system have recently come under unprecedented threat, centered on manipulation by foreign powers – notably, the insidious role of Russian interference in our public debate – and the increasing domination of domestic news organizations by a small number of rich players. But one particular challenge, involving Sinclair Broadcast Group and local television ownership, has gone almost unnoticed. For many decades, the vigilance of the Federal Communications Commission has kept deep-pocketed players, including owners of newspapers and other important media, from attaining dominance over local television markets. But over the past year,the FCC weakened those rules. Fewer local media owners means less local news coverage. Now, the proposed acquisition of Tribune Media by the Sinclair Broadcast Group is under consideration by the FCC and the Justice Department. Approval would likely trigger a hemorrhage in local reporting and voices and a sharp decline across much of the nation in balanced coverage of politics and government. The proposed merger would be by far the largest in the history of local TV, adding up to 42 stations - including in New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, Philadelphia, Dallas, Denver and other top-20 markets - to the Sinclair empire. These would join the 173 stations Sinclair already owns, including outlets in other big cities such as Baltimore, Minneapolis, Seattle, St. Louis and the District of Columbia, plus stations in key electoral states such as Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Congress limits a single broadcaster to covering 39 percent of the country,but due to an arcane rule adopted before cable and satellite became the dominant way that Americans receive broadcast TV, ultra-high-frequency stations get counted at only 50 percent of their coverage. Sinclair, which owns many UHF stations, would have ended up covering a staggering 72 percent of the national audience if approved as initially proposed – an action that would be hotly disputed by many in Congress who believe this would breach the law. Adding to the problem are Sinclair’s numerous “sidecar” agreements, a controversial industry arrangement that allows companies to bypass ownership limitations by outsourcing management, as well as much content, to another station in the same market. In theory, media outlets owned by megaconglomerates will not necessarily ignore local interests. The real question is whether owners interfere in the content of the outlets, either to promote and protect business interests or to tilt news coverage in a slanted, ideological direction. Sinclair has frequently been accused of the latter, via “must-run” programming mandates that tilt heavily toward the right - including recent promotional inserts requiring its anchors to lament “false news.” The company maintains that such segments make up only a tiny fraction of programming and provide “a viewpoint that often gets lost in the typical national broadcast media dialogue.” But they directly contravene the localism principle at the core of the Communications Act. The Sinclair merger has been opposed by a slew of individuals, media companies, members of Congress, state attorneys general and newspapers and other media outlets. Importantly, these objectors range across the ideological spectrum from conservative cable news networks to liberal public interest organizations. Sinclair president and chief executive Chris Ripley has defended the duopolies the company has in many local markets, arguing that they create “efficiencies” that ultimately improve local coverage. And the FCC, led by Chairman Ajit Pai, appears ready to approve the merger – assuming Pai escapes an investigation by the agency’s inspector general into whether he has shown favoritism toward Sinclair. Meanwhile, the Justice Department is negotiating with Sinclair and may permit the merger if the company agrees to divest several stations. Sinclair did announce last month that it would sell stations in Chicago, New York (for an absurdly low price of $15 million) and nine smaller markets. But even though selling these stations would on the surface significantly reduce Sinclair’s national coverage – Sinclair claims it would take it back under the 39 percent cap – its UHF discount and sidecar agreements in New York and Chicago to a family trust and a close Sinclair business associate, respectively, make that claim laughable. The core principles undergirding the Communications Act are localism, diversity and competition. Approval of this merger, along with erasure of the previous limits on ownership, would open a floodgate, likely leading to more mergers by media conglomerates, whether liberal or conservative. This would mean more monopolies or oligopolies in broadcast news, which is a primary source of information for a significant share of Americans – those older, poorer and more rural citizens who do not have access to cable or satellite television. This merger would be a major setback for America’s media and electoral process. And it is not an exaggeration to predict that it would signal the end of local TV as we know it. Norman J. Ornstein is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and co-author of “One Nation After Trump: A Guide for the Perplexed, the Disillusioned, the Desperate, and the Not-Yet-Deported.” Special to The Washington Post.]]></content:encoded>
    </item>
    <item>
        <link>https://www.durangoherald.com/articles/columnists/mazur-bayfield-basketball-gets-its-day/</link>
        <title>Mazur: Bayfield basketball gets its day</title>
        <description>Melanie Brubaker Mazur, Editor, Pine River Timesdu1-i-syn This small school has won plenty of other state athletic titles before, notably in football, track, cheer and cross country, buy not on the basketball court. They had played hard for three days,...</description>
        <pubDate>Fri, 16 Mar 2018 05:03:06 -0600</pubDate>
        <guid isPermaLink="false">6777326D-D252-5B54-E053-0100007FF23B</guid>
        <media:content url="https://imengine.public.prod.dur.navigacloud.com/?uuid=49B5C27B-C61C-4935-AFBE-B5FCEF2A33BC&#038;function=thumbnail&#038;type=preview&#038;source=false&#038;width=600&#038;height=400" medium="image" type="image/jpeg" />
        <media:thumbnail url="https://imengine.public.prod.dur.navigacloud.com/?uuid=49B5C27B-C61C-4935-AFBE-B5FCEF2A33BC&#038;function=thumbnail&#038;type=preview&#038;source=false&#038;width=600&#038;height=400" />
        <content:encoded><![CDATA[Melanie Brubaker Mazur, Editor, Pine River Timesdu1-i-syn Some weary boys stepped off the school bus on Sunday, but they were holding the ultimate prize, a long-sought state championship for Bayfield...in basketball. This small school has won plenty of other state athletic titles before, notably in football, track, cheer and cross country, buy not on the basketball court. They had played hard for three days, sandwiched in between a 600-mile round trip on a school bus, so it had not been a leisurely trip. But they were celebrating a seven-game winning streak, including three games against private academies that have the luxury of picking and choosing their players. Small public schools in Southwest Colorado don’t have that luxury. But in a way that plays to Bayfield’s strength, Coach Jeff Lehnus told the proud parents and friends who gathered to meet the bus. These boys grew up together, playing basketball. Some of their parents played basketball in Bayfield. Coach Prior, the grandfather of one of this year’s players, had coached at Bayfield. Lehnus also credited our small town for the boys’ success this season. Success on the court and on the field starts with parents driving them to practice and coaching those T-ball and parks and recreation games. It often involves playing in leagues beyond the school district and town, which involves a lot of trips to Farmington, Albuquerque and Denver. State success also is due to respect for the coaches, the team and the game. Lehnu thanked his assistants for the long hours they put in, as well. It’s also a lot of work from friends, family, cheerleaders, our trainer, bus drivers and the rest of the staff at Bayfield schools. Our school has a lot to be proud of this year. In addition to state titles in 2A football and 3A poms for the dance team, there was a second-place state performance for the Marching Wolverines, post-season play for boys soccer and girls basketball, a runner at the state boys cross-country meet, and our Skills USA and Knowledge Bowl students are still heading to state competition! Congratulations go to Ignacio High School, as well, for achieving another formidable task this year – winning regionals and sending both of their basketball teams to the state 2A tournament, a first for this basketball-crazy town. It’s good to see our teams win with the support of their hometowns. We are proud of all of these kids.]]></content:encoded>
    </item>
    <item>
        <link>https://www.durangoherald.com/articles/columnists/davidson-sunshine-week-is-turbid-under-trump/</link>
        <title>Davidson: Sunshine Week is turbid under Trump</title>
        <description>Joe Davidsondu1-i-syn He and his administration have a gloomy record when it comes to transparency, a particularly lamentable situation during Sunshine Week, which ends Saturday. Started by the American Society of News Editors (ASNE), the observance began in 2005 to...</description>
        <pubDate>Thu, 15 Mar 2018 05:03:39 -0600</pubDate>
        <guid isPermaLink="false">676D2615-B8B9-3C35-E053-0100007F5BDC</guid>
        <media:content url="https://imengine.public.prod.dur.navigacloud.com/?uuid=79418A90-A615-4EAA-A907-414BBCEF6A57&#038;function=thumbnail&#038;type=preview&#038;source=false&#038;width=600&#038;height=400" medium="image" type="image/jpeg" />
        <media:thumbnail url="https://imengine.public.prod.dur.navigacloud.com/?uuid=79418A90-A615-4EAA-A907-414BBCEF6A57&#038;function=thumbnail&#038;type=preview&#038;source=false&#038;width=600&#038;height=400" />
        <content:encoded><![CDATA[Joe Davidsondu1-i-syn WASHINGTON — If sunshine is the best disinfectant, President Donald Trump must pray for rain. He and his administration have a gloomy record when it comes to transparency, a particularly lamentable situation during Sunshine Week, which ends Saturday. Started by the American Society of News Editors (ASNE), the observance began in 2005 to celebrate openness and transparency in government. But what’s to celebrate under Trump? ASNE has “significant concerns with the level of transparency demonstrated by the Trump Administration,” said Kevin Goldberg, the organization’s legal counsel. “Public data that was once available even without a Freedom of Information Act request has disappeared from public view, a trend of restricting access to government officials — especially those in agencies dealing with science and defense issues — has continued and some forward-looking programs designed to improve the flow of information to the public that were created by prior Administrations have been discontinued.” “Transparency is in danger,” he added by email, “when it is needed most.” Before he ran for president, Trump sounded like a champion of transparency, declaring in a 2012 tweet that Barack Obama was “the least transparent President - ever - and he ran on transparency.” Setting aside the dubiousness of that declaration, the current president is beating Obama on the transparency-deficit front. “It’s President Trump who, in the first 400 days of his Administration, has instituted a culture of secrecy in the Executive Branch and the White House,” said a report issued by Rep. John Sarbanes, Md., chairman of the Democratic Reform Task Force. Trump’s approach to transparency was defined before he became president. Unlike Obama, Trump ran against transparency by refusing to release his tax returns. That violated decades of custom and tradition that his predecessors, including Obama, followed. The refusal to release his tax returns remains Trump’s most notable example of opaqueness, but it certainly is not alone. The current restraining order preventing porn actress Stormy Daniels, who received $130,000 in hush money from a Trump attorney, from talking about her decade-old alleged affair with the president is another. “While every administration has erred on the side of secrecy, under the current administration we have witnessed a rapid erosion of openness, the crumbling of norms, frequent and ongoing disparagement of the media, as well as efforts to stonewall information requests, manipulate data, and suppress facts,” said “Closing Democracy’s Window,” a report issued Friday by Open the Government, a coalition of groups favoring open government. To mark Sunshine Week, examples of darkness have been catalogued by Rep. Elijah Cummings, Md., the ranking Democrat on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, in “a broad review of the unprecedented secrecy of the Trump administration.” “The Trump Administration is shrouded in secrecy - hiding foreign meetings, conflicts of interest, and self-dealing that benefit President Trump and his family,” Cummings said by email. “The American people deserve to know how the President and his businesses are profiting from the presidency. Unfortunately, congressional Republicans continue to wall off the Administration from real oversight.” Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., did not respond to a request for comment. Cummings released his review on Monday, the same day he sent letters to the Treasury Department and the Trump Organization, the conglomerate owned by the president, seeking information about foreign payments to the business. The White House, the Office of Management and Budget and the Trump Organization also ignored requests for comment. Other items on Cummings’ list of “secrecy in the Trump administration” include: Trump’s decision to keep White House visitor logs secret, “reversing the Obama Administration’s policy of voluntarily disclosing logs of visitors to the White House. A lawsuit forced President Trump to release at least some of those records.”A “dramatic increase in Freedom of Information Act lawsuits.” There were 671 lawsuits in 2017 after Trump was inaugurated that January, compared with 448 in 2016, Obama’s last full year in office, according to Justice Department data.Secret regulatory task force members. “Many agencies have refused to disclose the identities of individuals serving on Regulatory Reform Task Forces that President Trump required each agency to create.”Withholding documents about the October ambush in Niger that killed four U.S. service members. Cummings requested a briefing, “but the White House has refused to even talk about the incident.”Withholding information about private jet travel by administration officials. Cummings and Gowdy requested documents, “but the White House has stonewalled the Committee.”While all administrations have issues with transparency, Trump is vying to be the champion of opacity. “The growing culture of unwarranted secrecy is increasingly the rule, rather than the exception,” said Lisa Rosenberg, executive director of Open the Government. “At the White House and in many agencies, transparency seems to be perceived as an enemy, rather than an indispensable ally in the service of safeguarding our democracy.” Columnist Joe Davidson covers federal government issues in the Federal Insider, formerly the Federal Diary. Davidson previously was an assistant city editor at The Washington Post and a Washington and foreign correspondent with the Wall Street Journal, where he covered federal agencies and political campaigns. (c) 2018 Washington Post Writers Group]]></content:encoded>
    </item>
    <item>
        <link>https://www.durangoherald.com/articles/columnists/brooks-with-a-rising-populist-wave-what-comes-after-trump/</link>
        <title>Brooks: With a rising populist wave, what comes after Trump?</title>
        <description>David Brooksdu1-i-syn The best indicator we have so far is the example of Italy since the reign of Silvio Berlusconi. And the main lesson there is that once the norms of acceptable behavior are violated and once the institutions of...</description>
        <pubDate>Wed, 14 Mar 2018 05:03:49 -0600</pubDate>
        <guid isPermaLink="false">67525069-5697-63A1-E053-0100007FD2F6</guid>
        <media:content url="https://imengine.public.prod.dur.navigacloud.com/?uuid=C5D8BFFC-2AF7-4ADB-8622-8995D8E33BB2&#038;function=thumbnail&#038;type=preview&#038;source=false&#038;width=600&#038;height=400" medium="image" type="image/jpeg" />
        <media:thumbnail url="https://imengine.public.prod.dur.navigacloud.com/?uuid=C5D8BFFC-2AF7-4ADB-8622-8995D8E33BB2&#038;function=thumbnail&#038;type=preview&#038;source=false&#038;width=600&#038;height=400" />
        <content:encoded><![CDATA[David Brooksdu1-i-syn What happens to U.S. politics after Donald Trump? Do we snap back to normal, or do things spin ever more widely out of control? The best indicator we have so far is the example of Italy since the reign of Silvio Berlusconi. And the main lesson there is that once the norms of acceptable behavior are violated and once the institutions of government are weakened, it is very hard to re-establish them. Instead, you get this cycle of ever more extreme behavior, as politicians compete to be the most radical outsider. The political center collapses, the normal left/right categories cease to apply and you see the rise of strange new political groups that are crazier than anything you could have imagined before. If the United States follows the Italian example, by 2025 ,we’ll look back at Trump nostalgically as some sort of beacon of relative normalcy. And by the way, if America follows the Italian example, Trump will never go away. Berlusconi first came to power for the same reasons Trump and other populists have been coming to power around the world: Voters were disgusted by a governing elite that seemed corrupt and out of touch. They felt swamped by waves of immigrants, frustrated by economic stagnation and disgusted by the cultural values of the cosmopolitan urbanites. In office, Berlusconi did nothing to address Italy’s core problems, but he did degrade public discourse with his speech, weaken the structures of government with his corruption and offend basic decency with his Bunga Bunga sex parties and his general priapic lewdness. In short, Berlusconi, like Trump, did nothing to address the sources of public anger, but he did erase any restraints on the way it could be expressed. This past weekend’s elections in Italy were dominated by parties that took many of Berlusconi’s excesses and turned them up a notch. The big winner is the populist Five Star Movement, which was started by a comedian and is now led by a 31-year-old who had never held a full-time job. Another winner is the League, led by Matteo Salvini, which declined to effectively distance itself from one of its former candidates who went on a shooting rampage against African immigrants. Berlusconi, who vowed to expel 600,000 immigrants, is back and is now considered a moderating influence. The respectable center-left party, like center-left parties across Europe, collapsed. Italy is now a poster child for the three big trends that are undermining democracies around the world: First, the erasure of the informal norms of behavior. As Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt argue in How Democracies Die, democracies depend not just on formal constitutions but also on informal codes. You treat your opponents like legitimate adversaries, not illegitimate enemies. You tell the truth as best you can. You don’t make naked appeals to bigotry. Berlusconi, like Trump, undermined those norms. And now Berlusconi’s rivals across the political spectrum have waged a campaign that was rife with conspiracy theories, misinformation and naked appeals to race. Second, the loss of faith in the democratic system. As Yascha Mounk writes in his book The People vs. Democracy, faith in democratic regimes is declining with every new generation. Seventy-one percent of Europeans and North Americans born in the 1930s think it’s essential to live in a democracy, but only 29 percent of people born in the 1980s think that. In the U.S., nearly a quarter of millennials think democracy is a bad way to run a country. Nearly half would like a strongman leader. One in 6 Americans of all ages support military rule. In the Italian campaign, we see the practical results of that kind of attitude. Voters are no longer particularly bothered if a politician shows dictatorial tendencies. As one voter told Jason Horowitz of The Times: “Salvini is a good man. I like him because he puts Italians first. And I guess he’s a fascist, too. What can you do?” Third, the deterioration of debate caused by social media. At the dawn of the internet, people hoped free communication would lead to an epoch of peace, understanding and democratic communication. Instead, we’re seeing polarization, alternative information universes and the rise of autocracy. In Italy, the Five Star Movement began not so much as a party but as an online decision-making platform. It pretends to use the internet to create unmediated democracy, but as La Stampa’s journalist Jacopo Iacoboni told David Broder of Jacobin: “In reality, the members have no real power. In reality, there is not any real direct democracy within M5S, but a totally top-down orchestration of the movement.” In Italy, as with Trump and his Facebook campaign, the social media platform seems decentralizing, but it actually buttresses authoritarian ends. The underlying message is clear. As Mounk has argued, the populist wave is still rising. The younger generations are more radical, on left and right. The rising political tendencies combine lavish spending from the left with racially charged immigrant restrictions from the right. Vladimir Putin’s admirers are surging. The center is still hollowing out. Nothing is inevitable in life, but liberal democracy clearly ain’t going to automatically fix itself. David Brooks is a columnist for The New York Times. Reach him c/o The New York Times, Editorial Department, 620 Eighth Ave., New York, NY 10018. © 2018 New York Times News Service]]></content:encoded>
    </item>
    <item>
        <link>https://www.durangoherald.com/articles/columnists/thompson-resistance-to-chaco-drilling-grows-on-the-navajo-nation/</link>
        <title>Thompson: Resistance to Chaco drilling grows on the Navajo Nation</title>
        <description>Jonathan Thompsondu1-i-syn When someone texted Kendra Pinto, who lives several miles away, she raced to join the frightened spectators and watched, stunned, as the conflagration engulfed all of WPX Energy’s equipment, setting off a series of explosions that shook the...</description>
        <pubDate>Tue, 13 Mar 2018 05:03:13 -0600</pubDate>
        <guid isPermaLink="false">6740F59D-5D8A-2E9D-E053-0100007FE2F6</guid>
        <media:content url="https://imengine.public.prod.dur.navigacloud.com/?uuid=E3F59F3C-5690-4814-86E7-C455C2E93A26&#038;function=thumbnail&#038;type=preview&#038;source=false&#038;width=600&#038;height=400" medium="image" type="image/jpeg" />
        <media:thumbnail url="https://imengine.public.prod.dur.navigacloud.com/?uuid=E3F59F3C-5690-4814-86E7-C455C2E93A26&#038;function=thumbnail&#038;type=preview&#038;source=false&#038;width=600&#038;height=400" />
        <content:encoded><![CDATA[Jonathan Thompsondu1-i-syn Editor’s note: On March 1, the Interior Department canceled the sale of oil and gas leases that would have impacted the Chaco Canyon area. The department received hundreds of protests of the sale, before it was cancelled. This story explores the fight of organizers trying to halt that sale and others like it.On the warm, pre-monsoon night of July 11, 2016, fire broke out among a cluster of six newly drilled oil wells near the small Navajo community of Nageezi, New Mexico. The residents of nearby homes fled to the highway, where they watched huge curdling balls of orange flame boil up into the vast bowl of dark sky above their corner of the Greater Chaco Region. When someone texted Kendra Pinto, who lives several miles away, she raced to join the frightened spectators and watched, stunned, as the conflagration engulfed all of WPX Energy’s equipment, setting off a series of explosions that shook the earth and sent up thick clouds of burnt hydrocarbons. “I saw the flames … black smoke streaking into the sky,” Pinto told me as we sat in the dappled shade of a small cottonwood outside the Counselor Chapter House just over a year later. Wearing denim shorts, a tank top and beaded earrings, she recalled how, in the years before the fire, she had gotten involved in the effort to rein in oil and gas development, joining a ragtag group of regional and local environmentalists, archaeologists and tribal officials working to protect the Navajo communities of Nageezi, Lybrook and Counselor, and the millennia-old cultural landscape that radiates out from Chaco Culture National Historic Park. Like her grandmother before her, Pinto, who is in her early 30s, grew up here, in an area of bone-white sandstone cliffs, fragrant piñon and juniper forest, sagebrush and sensuous, deep-purple and gray badlands, a landscape that Georgia O’Keeffe once described as “a beautiful, untouched lonely-feeling place — part of what I call the Far Away.” The surrounding San Juan Basin had seen successive natural gas frenzies since the 1920s, but this part of it had mostly been spared in more recent times, its oil deposits thought to be tapped out. Then, around 2012, high oil prices and drilling and fracking advances sparked new interest in the Chaco region. First came the landmen with their leases and promises of fat checks, at least for those who owned land allotments and mineral rights. Then drill rigs and fracking apparatus sprang up in the places where Pinto’s grandmother had gathered herbs and piñon nuts. And Pinto watched sadly as a steady stream of tanker trucks kicked up plumes of dust on the once-quiet caliche roads. Then the fire erupted in 2016, burning for four days and consuming 36 tanks of crude oil and produced wastewater. No one died in the fire; it didn’t even significantly hinder production. Yet it left a lasting scar on the collective psyche of the people around here, Pinto said. And it injected a sense of urgency into her community: “That’s when I said, ‘They can’t treat us this way.’” Pinto had been inspired by other causes that summer, particularly the effort led by five tribes, including the Navajo Nation, to save the area known as Bears Ears in southeastern Utah. And she had traveled to one of the Standing Rock resistance camps in North Dakota, where she and her comrades hoped to stop a crude oil pipeline from crossing Lake Oahe. Pinto dreamed of bringing some of that activist energy back to the Chaco struggle, which some media outlets touted as the “next Standing Rock.” Chaco, however, is far more complicated than those other fights. Though the threats to the environment and communities from energy development are arguably greater here than at Standing Rock or Bears Ears, Chaco has not attracted the same kind of attention. There are no movie stars or major politicians going to jail for blocking the tanker trucks’ paths, no outdoor gear corporations pouring money into slick videos to stop the battalions of drill rigs from overrunning Indigenous homelands. Yet that hasn’t discouraged the Chaco resistance. If anything, this scrappy, underfunded, sometimes shaky alliance is gaining momentum, forging its own way through a thicket of complicated relationships that stretch back hundreds of years and that have always favored industry, even under the most progressive administrations in Washington, D.C. To understand what’s going on in the Greater Chaco Region, you have to start with the land, 2,000 square miles of high desert located in the hydrocarbon hot spot known as the San Juan Basin. Because of the pattern of land ownership — a hodgepodge of federal, tribal, state, private and Indian allotment land — it’s called the Checkerboard, but it’s actually more chaotic, like a patchwork quilt stitched together by a nearsighted drunkard. It is that way by design, the outcome of a century-long systematic land grab. After the Pueblo people moved on from the communities and structures they had built and lived in for hundreds of years, the Diné, or Navajo, moved into the Four Corners country, establishing a 40,000-square-mile homeland bounded by four sacred peaks. At the heart of this civilization was Huerfano Peak, within the Chaco region and just a dozen miles north of Nageezi. The Spanish and then Mexican colonizers who appeared centuries later were not gentle; they attacked Navajo homes and kidnapped thousands of Navajo and other Native American children and held them as slaves. But it wasn’t until the white American miners, ranchers, settlers and soldiers arrived that any concerted effort to rob the Diné of their land began. And when that happened, it was brutal. In 1863 Kit Carson, then serving as a field commander for the U.S. Army, led troops across Navajo country, slaughtering sheep and goats, hacking down peach orchards and torching cornfields, starving the people into surrender. Army troops then forced some 9,000 survivors on the infamous “Long Walk” to Bosque Redondo in southeastern New Mexico, a barren swath of alkali dirt that was more concentration camp than reservation. Brig. Gen. James Carleton, who planned Carson’s campaign, laid out the rationale for the killing and oppression in 1864: “By the subjugation and colonization of the Navajo tribe, we gain for civilization their whole country, which … by far the best pastoral region between the two oceans, is said to abound in the precious as well as the useful metals.” Bosque Redondo was a disaster — captives fell ill and died and mass incarceration cost the federal government dearly. So in 1868, the Indian Peace Commission sent Lt. Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman to come up with a solution. After listening to a Navajo leader named Barboncito wax eloquently about his people’s existential yearning for their homeland, Sherman decided to let the Navajo people go. The rectangular reservation laid out in the Treaty of 1868 was only about one-eighth the size of the original homeland. It included very little arable land and left out important religious sites. Though the treaty ordered the people to live only on the reservation, Sherman’s instructions to the headmen were more ambiguous, and perhaps muddled in translation. But the message the Navajo received was simple: You are free to go home. So hundreds of families returned to the land beyond the reservation’s eastern boundary, an area now known as the Greater Chaco Region. Federal officials on the ground repeatedly urged the president to extend the reservation boundaries to encompass this land and the holy sites. But New Mexico politicians, pressured by white stockmen hungry for more land, successfully lobbied against them. As a concession, the feds eventually suggested that individual Navajos claim 160-acre plots on the public domain under the 1887 General Allotment Act. Typically, this law was applied to reservation land, where tribal members got first dibs on parcels before the rest of the reservation was opened up to homesteading — an insidious form of land grab that fractured tribal communities. Here in Chaco, however, the Navajos competed head-to-head with white homesteaders to hold on to tiny parcels of their own homeland. And the game was rigged: If a family was away at summer herding camp when the Indian agent came to their winter hogan to process an allotment claim, they lost the opportunity to file. And when Navajos did make claims, white homesteaders managed to get them nullified by alleging that they weren’t making the proper “improvements” on the land in question. As a result, untold numbers of Navajo people ended up living as “unauthorized occupants” on public domain land in the Chaco region, considered squatters on their own ancestral territory. Over time, the Navajo Nation acquired much of those lands through purchases and swaps, and today the descendants of those earlier occupants live on tribal (albeit not reservation) land. Those parcels share boundaries with some 4,000 disparate Indian allotments covering a total of 600,000 acres, which themselves are scattered against a backdrop of federal Bureau of Land Management acreage. Allotments are “private,” but are in federal trust indefinitely, and cannot be sold, gifted or willed to anyone. When the original allottee dies, ownership — along with mineral rights — are divided up, or fractionated, between all of his or her heirs. Today, jurisdiction over oil and gas development on this fractured landscape is as confounding as the surface ownership patterns. Most of the tribal land is “split estate,” meaning the Navajo Nation owns the surface, but the federal government controls — and gets royalties from — the oil and gas underneath. The allottees receive royalties from extraction of minerals under their lands, but all leases must go through the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Because today’s oil wells can extend two or more miles horizontally, the oil they extract is often a combination of allotment and federal minerals — known as a unit or pool. That means multiple agencies are involved in permitting and oversight. “It’s a real problem, because when you don’t know who’s in charge it leads to a total lack of accountability,” Pinto says. “Who’s really watching the oil companies and oilfield workers?” The official answer to Pinto’s question is: The Farmington Field Office of the BLM, which sits at the top of this jurisdictional layer cake. Though the agency has no say over leasing of allotment or tribal lands, it does handle permitting on those lands, along with leasing and permitting of all federal lands and minerals. It is currently working on a new environmental analysis of drilling in the Chaco region, due out next year, but right now it’s still operating under a plan that’s 15 years old, a fact that concerns people like Pinto. The 2003 plan — an analysis of the impacts caused by full-field development — was created under George W. Bush, when the always-porous line between industry and regulatory agencies in the New Mexico energy patch was more of a sieve. Natural gas prices were skyrocketing, and industry was eager to drill for coalbed methane on the mostly federal land north of the Checkerboard. The feds were just as eager to hand it over to them. Steve Henke, then-BLM district manager, issued a plan that opened the door to 9,942 new wells. (Henke was later caught accepting golf tickets and other gifts from local energy companies. He left the BLM in 2010 and promptly became president of the New Mexico Oil and Gas Association, the advocacy group for the industry’s big players.) Soon thereafter, oil companies started poking around in the Gallup play, the oil-bearing shale formation in the Chaco region, south of the old natural gas hotspots. Acknowledging that the horizontal drilling and multi-stage hydraulic fracturing required here would be far more intensive than anything the region had seen before, the BLM in 2014 launched a multi-year process to amend the 2003 plan for Chaco-specific development. Around the same time, Henke, on behalf of the state oil and gas group, donated $800,000 to the state BLM office to hire more staff in order to speed permitting. Henke then wrote to his Farmington colleagues, urging them not to “run from the 2003 document nor to ignore the job you are doing on site specific analyses.” It appears that the BLM heeded Henke’s request. Since 2010, the field office has leased out more than 50,000 acres and issued more than 500 drilling permits, mostly in the Chaco area. In early 2017, the BLM leased 842 acres on four parcels, despite the fact that development could affect 314 cultural features and a mesa known as Sis Naateel, home of Navajo deities, a sacred spring and ceremonial deer-hunting grounds. This March, the BLM planned to lease 25 additional parcels covering nearly 4,500 acres around Chaco, in an area where more than 90 percent of the land is already leased. Agency officials told me that since the 2003 plan specified “no geographical horizon,” and denying permits to leaseholders would be a “violation of property rights,” the BLM could continue to permit thousands of new wells on a case-by-case basis before it hits the limit — with or without the new analysis. “I don’t think the Farmington BLM is making the decisions; industry is,” said Mike Eisenfeld of the San Juan Citizens Alliance, who is perhaps the only professional environmentalist residing in Farmington. “They are being manipulated. And under Trump, it will be exacerbated. They’ll try to lease everything.” On a hot day last August, as thunderheads raced across the sky like schooners, former Navajo Nation tribal council delegate and citizen watchdog Daniel Tso, wearing boots, a big silver belt buckle, wire-rimmed glasses and a straw cowboy hat, his gray hair pulled back in a traditional bun, showed me how these industry-friendly practices played out on the ground. My little car was clearly no match for the rain-slicked roads, so I hopped into his truck and we ventured into the sagebrush ocean south of Nageezi. Soon, we reached one of the new wells permitted under the 2003 plan. The Cyclone Rig No. 32, a hulking baby-blue beast, loomed over low hills and a doublewide home about 600 feet away. Like a retro-sci-fi monster, the rig can “walk” across a drill pad, and just days after Tso and I visited, the two dozen workers here set a world drilling-speed record, churning through 8,370 feet of shale in just 24 hours. It’s a supersized version of a scene that has played out thousands of times over the last century in the San Juan Basin, where no one is immune to the effects of oil and gas extraction. Shiny distilling columns loom over a Catholic cemetery near Bloomfield, pumpjacks grace the Farmington golf course sand traps, and the horse track sits next to a Superfund site. It is all part of a grand transaction between the communities and industry. Locals live with the industrialization of their neighborhoods. In return, oil and gas companies pay royalties and taxes and provide jobs, which result in better infrastructure, reduced economic inequality, low property taxes, and, at least in Farmington, three Starbucks, two Walmart Supercenters and a baseball team called the Frackers. It’s a lopsided transaction, especially when the booms bust, but a transaction nonetheless. Down here in the Chaco Region, however, the deal feels more like outright theft. Oil companies still pay taxes and royalties and employ people, but nearly all the cash generated by the wells is, like the oil they extract, piped far away. Tax revenues on drilling and production go to Santa Fe, then get redistributed statewide to communities that have the resources to pursue them. Rig and fracking crews are often contractors, based in Wyoming, Texas or Colorado. They’ll stay and eat in Farmington or Bloomfield, not here, where there are no hotels or grocery stores, not even a laundromat. This WPX Energy well, like the nearby ones that blew up in 2016, is on Navajo allotment land, and is targeting oil in the 12,800-acre West Lybrook pool, a mingling of federal and allotment minerals. About 900 people share ownership of the 35 allotments in this pool. In order for the oil companies to secure leases, a majority of each allotment’s owners must sign off. “When the landman or his liaison shows up and says, ‘Sign on the line and you’ll get a fat check,’ and when you’ve got 60 to 80 percent unemployment, you say, ‘Sure,’ ” Tso said. Terms of allotment leases are not public. But if rates are on par with those on nearby federal lands, then a single allotment could bring in a signing bonus of $480,000 or more, which would then be divided equally between the owners. Because many allotments are highly fractionated, each owner might only get a few thousand dollars, though a lease can yield a hefty chunk of change if the owners are few. Once the wells start producing, the allottees receive royalty checks, too. According to state records, WPX Energy grossed some $30 million from the allotment portion of the West Lybrook pool in 2016, and paid out an average of $4,680 per allottee — some got a lot less, others more. While the checks will increase along with oil prices, they will also decrease over time as production diminishes. Even on the lower end, the payments can make a big difference. A grandmother may, for the first time in her life, get a floor in her home that isn’t dirt, a roof that doesn’t leak, electric lights, a vehicle that can navigate the rutted roads. Yet allotment checks are as likely to be sent to Albuquerque or Phoenix mailboxes as to ones in Lybrook or Nageezi. And even if it’s the latter, the cash doesn’t linger locally. That’s because, unlike in Farmington or Aztec, there’s no economic infrastructure to capture the wealth and benefit the community as a whole. An allottee family might live next door to one living on tribal land. Both will bear the burden of hosting a nearby well, yet only the allottee will receive any benefits. “It creates a system of haves and have-nots,” said Gloria Chiquito, whose parents are allottees. “It’s separating families. … Families are fighting one another.” Stories abound of grandchildren swindling grandparents, of envy-fueled burglaries, violence — even murder. Despite the economic incentives, some allottees are among the most outspoken opponents of development. Residents worry about livestock drinking out of unfenced waste pits, speeding trucks hitting animals, and the ubiquitous moon dust that rises into the air behind vehicles and settles on every nearby surface. People near wells complain about burning eyes, scratchy throats, dizziness and nausea — symptoms associated with prolonged exposure to low levels of benzene and hydrogen sulfide, which occur naturally in oil and natural gas and can seep into the air during every step of extraction and processing, even from tanker trucks. Tso and I followed a stream of those trucks along dusty roads in the direction of the spectacular pueblos of Chaco Canyon, some 15 miles distant. We saw men in grimy coveralls wrestling with giant drillbits, and orange flares burning off methane, nitrogen and other byproducts from recently drilled wells. One tanker stopped, the door swung open and the driver hopped out of the truck, long black hair spilling out from under her hardhat. She looked Navajo; Tso said that locals are often hired as truck drivers because they know the roads. She yanked at a valve on the back of her rig, releasing a thick stream of liquid onto the side of the road. We arrived at another roaring complex of tanks and pipes, a fracking job in process. A smell like that of a hot, dirty car engine wafted on the air as the workers pumped millions of gallons of nitrogen gel and water, along with tons of sand and a soup of chemicals, miles into the earth at pressures so high that it shattered the rock, freeing the oil that had been locked inside there for millions of years. I tried to imagine what this place looked like a thousand years ago, when it was populated by a society of Pueblo farmers and hunters and thinkers and builders. And I wondered what future archaeologists would make of all this. Will they puzzle over the practical applications of this byzantine assemblage of tanks? Or theorize that it was a monument — perhaps a memorial — to an insatiable hunger for a resource that by then will be long tapped out? When President Theodore Roosevelt wielded the brand-new Antiquities Act in 1907 to create Chaco Canyon National Monument, he drew the boundaries around what is now known as “downtown Chaco,” a handful of structures including the 800-room Pueblo Bonito, constructed between the ninth and 12th centuries by ancestors of today’s Pueblo people. That was merely the center of the Chacoan world, however, which extended over 100 miles across the Four Corners region and is represented by more than 200 outliers, or great houses, that share architectural traits with Pueblo Bonito. No one knows if this was a political empire, a religious or cultural society, or simply a school of architecture. But it’s clear that outliers — along with thousands of smaller sites, shrines and architectural features, their functions still unknown — did not exist in isolation. They were part of a vast cultural tapestry woven into the natural landscape. On a cloudless, scorching August afternoon, I made my way to the Pierre’s Site outlier, about 10 miles north of the park’s boundary, by car and then on foot via a maze of oil-patch roads. It was a surreal and lonely journey, my only companions pumpjacks bobbing up and down in the sea of sage and a small herd of horses, their manes shiny in the sun. Once there, I climbed onto the “Acropolis,” an aptly named flat-topped butte upon which three of the structures in the complex sit. Unlike the buildings in Chaco Canyon, these haven’t been excavated or stabilized, so at first glance they appear to be amorphous piles of rock. But, on closer inspection, the outlines of old walls, kivas and rooms became visible, like the curves of a body under a thick blanket. Various layers of protection cover Chacoan sites. The park itself is off-limits to all oil and gas development. Pierre’s Site and several other outliers are part of the Chaco Culture Archaeological Protection Sites Program, and all sites on federal land are shielded by the Archaeological Resources Protection Act and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, which requires oil companies to conduct a cultural inventory of all land in the path of development. If the surveyors happen upon a “significant” site, the well pad or road or pipeline must be relocated, a process known as “identify and avoid.” Thanks to these laws, the major structures at Pierre’s Site have remained unmarred by development. The ambience has not. Ruth Van Dyke, a professor of anthropology at Binghamton University, cataloged the impacts of oil and gas development on the sound- and view-scapes at Pierre’s. “I found that, despite the due diligence agencies have exercised to protect the ground footprint of Pierre’s, there have been significant impacts,” she wrote. Twelve pumpjacks are visible from the Acropolis. When I was there, the whir-pop-pop-whir of the machines was irritatingly audible, affirming Van Dyke’s observation: “Rather than a sacred landscape and part of a UNESCO World Heritage Site, the Pierre’s community had the feeling of an industrial park.” The drilling threatens more than aesthetics. Taking cues from their Native American colleagues, archaeologists are increasingly going beyond analyzing just the material remains of cultures. Rather, they are, as Van Dyke puts it, trying “to understand an ancient sense of place … particularly sensory dimensions of place.” That’s not easy when machinery is noisily grinding away all around you. Meanwhile, “identify and avoid,” the only real protection for a vast majority of sites, is hardly comprehensive. “That’s how ancient landscapes get fragmented,” says Paul Reed, a longtime Chaco scholar. For a pipeline, the inventory follows a narrow swath along the right of way, and nothing else. The project is steered to avoid disturbing ancient structures, but it could still end up bisecting a village, says Reed, or plowing through an ancient cornfield or networks of “other super-subtle things going on that are part of understanding that landscape.” Pierre’s lies along the Great North Road, which stretches directly north of Chaco Canyon for 30 miles or more. It may have been a symbolic path through time, connecting old worlds with new, or a reminder of the power Chaco-central wielded over its outliers. Reed calls it “a landscape monument on a large scale.” Similar “roads” appear all over the Chaco world. A cultural inventory could easily miss segments that aren’t readily apparent, or other features that appear to be natural but served a cultural function, like a stone monolith that served as a shrine. “Even though agencies try to mitigate the impact, it isn’t enough, because you’ve literally destroyed the context in which those things exist,” says Theresa Pasqual, former director of Acoma Pueblo’s Historic Preservation Office, and a descendant of the Pueblo people who occupied the Four Corners for thousands of years. “Most of our pueblos are still transmitting their migration history through oral means. So when you have development that begins to impact many of these sites — that range in size from the grandeur of Chaco Canyon or Mesa Verde to very small unknown sites that still remain un-surveyed and unknown to the public — they are literally destroying the pages of the history book of the Pueblo people.” “We need to go beyond ‘identify and avoid,’ ” Reed says. “But we’re not gonna draw a big circle around everything and say, ‘No more development.’ ” It’s simply too late for that here. So Reed and his allies, including the National Parks Conservation Association and Pueblo tribal leaders, asked the BLM to implement a master leasing plan for the area, an approach introduced by the Obama administration to bring more public input into what had been a “sight-unseen” leasing process. The proposal would put about a half-million acres directly surrounding the park, along with the rest of the Great North Road, off-limits to future leasing. Existing leases in the protection zone could still be developed, but only on the condition that quiet, darkness and viewsheds are preserved. But such a plan is not on the table for the current administration. And it has its own drawbacks: It wouldn’t apply to allotment lands, so even more development could be pushed onto the Navajo communities of Lybrook, Nageezi and Counselor. That prospect has unearthed old tensions — between advocates for the past and those fighting for modern-day residents — that echo those from the original designation of the Chaco monument, when Navajos who lived there were evicted and had their allotments cancelled. But Marissa Naranjo, co-founder of the Diné-Pueblo Youth Solidarity Coalition, emphasizes that despite divisions, the fight to save ancestral Pueblo homelands and the fight to protect current Navajo homelands are one and the same. “It’s not just about protecting cultural resources,” says Naranjo, a community organizer from Santa Clara Pueblo, east of the Navajo Nation. Like Pinto, she’s part of what may be the most vital branch of the Chaco movement: young, Native American women. “The attack on our homelands necessitates solidarity with the Diné. They are the caretakers of that land. They are on the front lines every day, dealing with health and social impacts. … That whole landscape connects us.” Last August, prior to our oil-patch tour, Tso invited me to the front lines to witness the “power base” of the movement firsthand. It was neither a protest camp nor the headquarters of an environmental group, simply a regular meeting of the Ojo Encino Chapter. Chapters were introduced to the Navajo Nation in 1927, four years after the federal government, needing a sole entity to sign off on oil leases on tribal land, instituted the centralized tribal government that endures today. But they hark back to the pre-Long Walk days, when the tribe was divided into units of a dozen or more families, each governed by naataanii, or headmen. Today, there are 110 chapters, the most local political subdivision of the Navajo Nation. The Ojo Encino meeting was similar to many county meetings I’ve attended, except for the kids selling meat-and-potato burritos, fry bread and sno-cones from a window in the back. And while the officers ran the meeting, the entire audience voted on every action item, from a resolution to approve college scholarships to requests by residents to get solar panels installed at their homes. Like many rural Western county commissioners, who feel that D.C. bureaucrats ignore their concerns, members of far-flung chapters feel invisible to the tribal government in Window Rock, Arizona. “The people out here are the same as the people in Tuba City or Kayenta,” said Chapter President George Werito, a slim man with a ready smile in a red Ojo Encino Day School Braves shirt. “But they (the Navajo Nation leaders) don’t even know where we are. They give us no help.” Hoping to amplify their chapters’ individual voices, the Ojo Encino, Torreon and Counselor chapters came together to form the Tri-Chapter alliance in 2014 at the height of the oil boom. Drilling has hit Counselor hard, and Torreon and Ojo Encino may be next. “It’s coming this way, so we’ve got to get ready for it,” Werito said. Ultimately, they’d like to bring all the chapters in the region together to create legally binding regulations — greater setbacks from homes, impact fees for fixing roads, a more equitable system of revenue sharing — on oil and gas development. Getting Window Rock’s backing, however, hasn’t been easy. Fossil fuels have long been the Navajo Nation’s prime source of income, and though it receives very little revenue from oil development on the Checkerboard because of the land-use mishmash, many delegates are leery of opposing drilling or coal mining. Looming threats may change their tune, however. The Department of Interior’s evisceration of environmental protections that “burden domestic industry” could hit Chaco and the surrounding San Juan Basin — home to 40,000 oil and gas wells and the Four Corners Methane Hot Spot — especially hard. On the chopping block are new hydraulic fracturing regulations, master leasing plans and the land-use designation that keeps rigs off much of the Great North Road. If the 2016 well pad fire was the spark that ignited the Chaco resistance, then the Trump administration’s drive to achieve “energy dominance” is like gasoline, further enflaming the broad-based effort. Still, this is no Standing Rock. The issues here are more nuanced, the beauty and intrinsic value of the San Juan Basin of a harsher, more subtle sort than the serpentine canyons of the Bears Ears area. The Chaco movement is unlikely to ever explode onto the national stage, but that’s just fine with its leaders. “I was very inspired by the energy, that momentum, at Standing Rock,” says Naranjo. “But we also realize that this movement to protect Chaco is very, very different. That (Chaco’s) entire landscape is sacred. There are outlier sites, prayer sites; it’s alive, it’s active. We’ve been very careful not to initiate an occupation movement there because that would be extremely disrespectful to our ancestors there.” With so many wells already in place, the coalition is focusing not on shutting down industry, but on fighting new leases and ensuring compliance and enforcement of regulations. Last year, Pinto testified before Congress in favor of keeping the Obama-era methane rule that would have reduced emissions, not only of the potent greenhouse gas, but also benzene, volatile organic compounds and hydrogen sulfide. It would have also yielded more royalties for the federal government and the allottees. The Senate agreed to keep the rule in place, but Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke is now trying to scrap it. Late last year, the National Congress of American Indians joined the All Pueblo Council of Governors, the entire New Mexico Democratic congressional delegation, and even Navajo Nation President Russell Begaye in calling for a moratorium on all new leases in the Chaco region, at least until the new environmental analysis is complete. And in January, a coalition of environmental groups filed a formal protest against the March lease sale, joining more than 400 others in speaking out against it, including Acoma Pueblo, the Tri-Chapter alliance and the Nageezi Chapter. In March, the Interior Department cancelled the sale, citing “uncertainty about cultural impacts.” The chapters have been one of the most significant, and unique, components of the movement. “This has always been a group effort,” Tso said, as he stood up before the Ojo Encino audience and, in Navajo and English, summarized resolutions supporting air-quality and health-impact monitoring in the oil patch. Pinto and others have been sampling air near facilities, and a coalition of affected chapters launched a Hozhoogo Na’adah assessment — a Diné-centered research model — to gain a more holistic understanding of how residents are affected by oil and gas development. Tso talked about the Church Rock spill of 1979, about 80 miles west of here, where a uranium mill tailings dam busted, sending 1,100 tons of radioactive tailings and toxic effluent into the Rio Puerco of the West, contaminating countless water wells on the southern portion of the Checkerboard. “We don’t want that to be our story,” he said. Both resolutions passed resoundingly. After the meeting adjourned, as I picked at the crumbs of alkaan — a sweet and smoky corn and flour cake that someone had brought — I considered what I had just witnessed. This is no explosive movement, scoring dramatic, if temporary, victories. It’s a slow and rumbling and lasting upswelling of protest truly rooted in the land, led by the people who call this place home. “There is a constant effort and movement to protect those places,” Pasquale says. “And while they may seem small and incremental, they do lead to larger movements to protect these places that are important not just to the Pueblo people, but all of the people, all of the public, because it belongs to the greater story of all of us, of all of the human race.” As I turned to leave, I caught a glimpse of a poster hanging on the wall. It portrayed a young Navajo woman wearing a squash-blossom necklace and a gas mask: “Don’t Just Walk In Beauty,” the bold lettering said. “Protect It! Hózhó (Beauty) Starts With You.” Jonathan Thompson is a contributing editor at High Country News (hcn.org). He is the author of the new book, River of Lost Souls: The Science, Politics, and Greed Behind the Gold King Mine Disaster. This column appeared originally in the March 2 print edition of High Country News. The coverage is supported by contributors to the High Country News Enterprise Journalism Fund.]]></content:encoded>
    </item>
    <item>
        <link>https://www.durangoherald.com/articles/columnists/the-utah-headliners-foia-is-the-speedometer-not-the-cop-writing-tickets/</link>
        <title>The Utah Headliners: FOIA is the speedometer, not the cop writing tickets</title>
        <description>du1-i-syn Sunshine Week is here, and we who value government transparency are again celebrating the laws that allow us to know what our local, state and federal governments are doing. But laws aren’t as popular as they used to be....</description>
        <pubDate>Mon, 12 Mar 2018 05:04:15 -0600</pubDate>
        <guid isPermaLink="false">67278941-F85D-623B-E053-0100007F83B5</guid>
        <media:content url="https://imengine.public.prod.dur.navigacloud.com/?uuid=4E7C3AAE-1C3D-4303-9D5F-7FB8D83F90CC&#038;function=thumbnail&#038;type=preview&#038;source=false&#038;width=600&#038;height=400" medium="image" type="image/jpeg" />
        <media:thumbnail url="https://imengine.public.prod.dur.navigacloud.com/?uuid=4E7C3AAE-1C3D-4303-9D5F-7FB8D83F90CC&#038;function=thumbnail&#038;type=preview&#038;source=false&#038;width=600&#038;height=400" />
        <content:encoded><![CDATA[du1-i-syn The Utah Headliners Sunshine Week is here, and we who value government transparency are again celebrating the laws that allow us to know what our local, state and federal governments are doing. But laws aren’t as popular as they used to be. One person’s reasonable statute is another person’s burdensome government regulation, and the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) is no exception. Look at what the Bureau of Land Management is proposing. The Washington Post recently published a memo in which the BLM, which manages a swath of Utah equal to two-fifths of the state, proposes streamlining a number of environmental reviews and regulations or asks Congress to do so. Nestled within the proposals to eliminate what the BLM considers duplicative and unnecessary regulations holding up oil, gas and mining projects are changes to FOIA. The memo proposes limiting “the number of FOIA requests from any one group” and increasing the fees associated with FOIA requests. The BLM also proposes protecting the information that state and local government share with it. Put another way, the proposal would make a federal agency vital to the health of the West simpler by making it harder to learn what it is doing. It’s not the first time someone has argued that disclosing government happenings is a burden on the government. Back in 2011, as Utah legislators were gutting the state’s public records law through a bill called HB477, one of their arguments was that records requests had become a burden for state and local governments. Utah legislators also made the argument – much as the language in the BLM memo does – that record laws serve the special interest of some “group,” whether that group be journalists or advocacy agencies. Yet, examinations tend to show record laws benefit journalists, advocates and average citizens, and a change to limit one of these groups winds up harming access for everyone. To the Utah legislature’s credit, it realized its mistake and repealed HB477 not long after Gov. Gary Herbert signed it. Here’s hoping the BLM realizes its error before it’s ever made. Saying record laws are a burden on government is like saying the speedometer and fuel gauge are burdens on a car. Both record laws and dashboard displays tell you what their respective vehicles are doing and whether there are problems. The American taxpayers are the ones who gas up the BLM, and restricting FOIA will only make them more ignorant about the decisions being made and why. For that matter, it’s not as if the BLM is buried in FOIA requests. According to the Interior Department’s annual report, the BLM received 1,024 FOIA requests in fiscal year 2017. That’s not much for an agency that manages one-eighth of the country’s land mass. It’s not even among the top agencies receiving requests within the Interior Department. The National Park Service, the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service all received more FOIA requests than the BLM. For further reference, in calendar year 2017, Salt Lake City’s municipal government received 468 record requests through its online filing system. If the BLM really wants to reduce record requests, it could be more proactive. Post more data, correspondence and other records online so FOIA isn’t necessary. But restricting FOIA does a disservice to the people the BLM is working for – those who work on, play on and care for public lands. The proposal also shows a fundamental misunderstanding of FOIA. It’s no burden to tell the people what the government is doing. It’s good government. The Utah Headliners is the state’s largest chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists. Learn more at https://twitter.com/UtahSPJ.]]></content:encoded>
    </item>
    <item>
        <link>https://www.durangoherald.com/articles/columnists/thorn-politics-worthy-of-the-landscape-we-inhabit/</link>
        <title>Thorn: Politics worthy of the landscape we inhabit</title>
        <description>Emily Thorndu1-i-syn I have come to believe this demeanor is shaped by the particular places we inhabit: mountains, valleys, rivers, mesas and deserts. So it is both fitting and paradoxical that our county’s recent fissure line is over a land-use...</description>
        <pubDate>Sat, 10 Mar 2018 05:05:18 -0700</pubDate>
        <guid isPermaLink="false">6700529C-0D31-6881-E053-0100007FCDFB</guid>
        <media:content url="https://imengine.public.prod.dur.navigacloud.com/?uuid=494D33EE-248F-49CB-A5BD-3669A6E5280A&#038;function=thumbnail&#038;type=preview&#038;source=false&#038;width=600&#038;height=400" medium="image" type="image/jpeg" />
        <media:thumbnail url="https://imengine.public.prod.dur.navigacloud.com/?uuid=494D33EE-248F-49CB-A5BD-3669A6E5280A&#038;function=thumbnail&#038;type=preview&#038;source=false&#038;width=600&#038;height=400" />
        <content:encoded><![CDATA[Emily Thorndu1-i-syn As a proud life-long Westerner, I hold that the common denominator among my fellow regionalists is a love for the land and a gentle respect for each other. I have come to believe this demeanor is shaped by the particular places we inhabit: mountains, valleys, rivers, mesas and deserts. So it is both fitting and paradoxical that our county’s recent fissure line is over a land-use planning process intended to make neighborliness a little easier. It saddens me that the divisions among us have gotten so ugly in recent weeks, as dissent for the land-use planning process has developed an emotional life of its own. I have been following both sides of the debate on social media, in an effort to escape my echo chamber, only to encounter polarizing words and behavior, toward any who disagree or even asks a question. With all the posting about “locals” vs. “outsiders,” property rights vs. Gwen Lachelt, socialists vs. libertarians, city vs. county, Koch Brothers vs. Tom Steyer, it seems that we have forgotten we are neighbors (and that anyone can see our names and profile photos). Have we lost our capacity for public life, our ability to resolve crucial issues, and our sense of what being in La Plata County and from the West means? I find myself re-reading Community and the Politics of Place, essays by Daniel Kemmis, former mayor of Missoula, Montana. He writes: “[W]hat ‘we’ do depends upon who ‘we’ are (or who we think we are). It depends ... upon how we choose to relate to each other, to the place we inhabit, and to the issues which that inhabiting raises for us. If in fact there is a connection between the places we inhabit and the political culture which our inhabiting of them produces, then perhaps it makes sense to begin with the place, with a sense of what it is, and then try to imagine a way of being public which would fit the place.” In this spirit, I’d like to challenge us all to do the hard work of shaping a cooperative, face-to-face practice of public life that is rooted in our shared love of this place and respect for each other. Our local politics should be worthy of the landscape we inhabit, and should help us to be better people, a better community, and a better place. We may not agree on everything. We may have very different ways of relating to and inhabiting this place, but we can do better than this. To quote Daniel Kemmis again: “There are not many rivers, one for each of us, but only this one river, and if we all want to stay here, in some kind of relation to the river, then we have to learn, somehow, to live together.” Emily Thorn is an environmental scientist and sociologist. She writes from Durango. Reach her at emily.e.thorn@gmail.com.]]></content:encoded>
    </item>
    <item>
        <link>https://www.durangoherald.com/articles/columnists/pearson-society-and-the-role-of-government/</link>
        <title>Pearson: Society and the role of government</title>
        <description>Mark Pearsondu1-i-syn Do you consider government as a beneficial contributor to society in a way that attempts to look out for everyone’s collective interest? Or do you think of government as an impediment that erects unnecessary obstacles, or sticks its...</description>
        <pubDate>Sat, 10 Mar 2018 05:05:04 -0700</pubDate>
        <guid isPermaLink="false">6700529C-0D2F-6881-E053-0100007FCDFB</guid>
        <media:content url="https://imengine.public.prod.dur.navigacloud.com/?uuid=FAFA0076-3F84-48CC-BEA5-2AF15F268335&#038;function=thumbnail&#038;type=preview&#038;source=false&#038;width=600&#038;height=400" medium="image" type="image/jpeg" />
        <media:thumbnail url="https://imengine.public.prod.dur.navigacloud.com/?uuid=FAFA0076-3F84-48CC-BEA5-2AF15F268335&#038;function=thumbnail&#038;type=preview&#038;source=false&#038;width=600&#038;height=400" />
        <content:encoded><![CDATA[Mark Pearsondu1-i-syn One’s worldview of government greatly influences perspectives about La Plata County’s attempted update to its land-use code. Do you consider government as a beneficial contributor to society in a way that attempts to look out for everyone’s collective interest? Or do you think of government as an impediment that erects unnecessary obstacles, or sticks its nose where it doesn’t belong? While this might be an interesting ideological debate, it obscures obvious areas of agreement on the land-use code. Of course, taxpayers don’t want to subsidize development, and of course, it makes sense to encourage development where infrastructure already exists. Regardless of one’s location along the ideological spectrum, that is an outcome widely shared among many, and it’s the big-picture overview of the land-use code update. As La Plata County residents debate the specific merits of various iterations of the code, and if we can get beyond the distractions created by the Texas-based consultants about Zircon containers or limits on the number of cars that can attend your summer barbecue, it turns out there is a lot of overlap in agreement on where the code should be headed. Our county commissioners and planning staff appear to be listening carefully to public opinion and are in the process of appropriately adjusting the draft code. Some years ago, San Juan Citizens Alliance leapt into the fray to defend the rights of private landowners impacted by booming natural gas drilling. Many unwary landowners awoke to the noise, traffic, pollution and construction of energy development, literally in their front yards. Their right to the peaceable use and enjoyment of their property was placed at risk by the understandable enthusiasm of mineral owners to extract profit from leasing underground gas and oil resources. Because the mineral and surface rights were split between different owners, conflict ensued. Eventually, La Plata County adopted rules aimed at offering some protections for landowners hoping to moderate the impacts of new gas field roads, drilling pads and truck traffic on folks just wanting to enjoy their homes and farms. These local government rules attempted to level the playing field, or at minimum, make it a bit less unbalanced, between energy companies and property owners. Today’s update of the land-use code does not deal with those generally successful rules, despite the opposition of the La Plata Energy Council and the oil and gas industry to the updated land-use code. But the debate about the code is reflective of a larger political context over the appropriate role of government. This is most apparent at the national scale, where the Environmental Protection Agency’s new purpose is to eliminate environmental protections. Similarly, the Interior Department is diligently attempting to abandon rules that eliminate wasteful methane venting and to avoid involving local communities prior to approving new oil and gas development around Mesa Verde and the Mancos Valley. In these cases, EPA and the Interior Department characterize government and its rules as burdensome impediments to industry and commerce. Which brings us back to La Plata County. What’s the balance between rules for the overall benefit of the entire community that don’t also unfairly limit individual options? La Plata County’s revision was undeniably hamstrung by the ham-handed approach of the hired out-of-state consultants. But after that serious misstep, the county staff and county commissioners are listening to public comment, and modifying the draft code to accommodate that feedback. Which is exactly how the process should work. Now, if only the federal agencies like the EPA and Department of Interior were similarly inclined to listen and incorporate public feedback. Mark Pearson is executive director at San Juan Citizens Alliance. Reach him at mark@sanjuancitizens.org and visit sanjuancitizens.org for more information.]]></content:encoded>
    </item>
    <item>
        <link>https://www.durangoherald.com/articles/columnists/fossel-getting-it-right-la-plata-liberty-coalition-takes-on-the-land-use-code/</link>
        <title>Fossel; Getting it right! La Plata Liberty Coalition takes on the land-use code</title>
        <description>One, by the executive director of the San Juan Citizens Alliance (Herald, Jan. 21), states: “The gist of the public debate about the land use code is whether it limits what people can do with their property.” Well, it certainly...</description>
        <pubDate>Sat, 10 Mar 2018 05:04:54 -0700</pubDate>
        <guid isPermaLink="false">6700529C-0D2D-6881-E053-0100007FCDFB</guid>
        <media:content url="https://imengine.public.prod.dur.navigacloud.com/?uuid=312B4AED-5601-4F36-B046-2F2C101CD51B&#038;function=thumbnail&#038;type=preview&#038;source=false&#038;width=600&#038;height=400" medium="image" type="image/jpeg" />
        <media:thumbnail url="https://imengine.public.prod.dur.navigacloud.com/?uuid=312B4AED-5601-4F36-B046-2F2C101CD51B&#038;function=thumbnail&#038;type=preview&#038;source=false&#038;width=600&#038;height=400" />
        <content:encoded><![CDATA[The Herald has published several columns recently regarding the proposed land-use code and property rights. One, by the executive director of the San Juan Citizens Alliance (Herald, Jan. 21), states: “The gist of the public debate about the land use code is whether it limits what people can do with their property.” Well, it certainly does. Everyone favors streamlining of the permitting process, increasing its predictability and more consistency. I hope the commissioners would also favor keeping fees reasonable, not look at them as a new revenue source for the county. When it comes to property rights, opinions tend to diverge and passions seem to increase. The 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, passed in 1791, states: “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” Common sense says that protecting “open vistas” and preserving “scenic corridors” and “aesthetics” is a public use and therefore requires “just compensation.” The San Juan Citizens Alliance appears to oppose protecting individual property rights, particularly of La Plata’s rural citizens. Their executive director states: “It’s head-scratching that ‘plan’ has become such a four-letter word among some county residents.” In my view, it’s not a plan that is so head-scratching, but rather this particular plan, which envisions La Plata County as a 1.1 million-acre Home Owners Association. HOA is what has become a four-letter word! As the plan states, county government has a legitimate purpose to: “Preserve and provide for the public health, safety and welfare of the citizens and businesses of La Plata County generally, and specifically as related to an adequate water supply.” However, the county’s authority should not extend to: limiting building height;using muted earth tones;screening structures and minimizing impacts on views; providing visual breaks to any structures’ facade; oravoiding monotonous roof planes, etc.These, and a myriad of other restrictions like them, are expensive to the property owner and represent a taking of private property rights for “public use.” They may belong in a HOA, but not imposed on the entirety of La Plata County. Common sense says that the more a property is restricted, the less value it has. I may not like my neighbor across the river painting his barn orange with pink stripes and having a “monotonous roof plane,” but I will fight to protect his right to do so. Does the San Juan Citizens Alliance favor these restrictions? Does it favor the Scenic and River Corridor Overlay Districts and all the restrictions that come with them? If landowners want to sell their farm to a developer, they should have the right to do so. However, if the developer wants to develop a property in an area that has inadequate infrastructure, then they should be required to pay for the needed improvements like sewers, roads etc., or be forced to scale back their proposal so that it does not become a financial burden to the taxpayers and protects the health, welfare and safety of our county’s citizens. The county can obviously use incentives, such as density bonuses, to encourage development in areas better able to support development and still protect the legitimate rights of its citizens in other areas of the county. The proposed code is merely eminent domain by regulation without compensation! There is no doubt that a sensible middle ground can be found that achieves the worthwhile objectives of streamlining, clarifying and improving consistency without impairing our legitimate property rights or imposing unduly restrictive and expensive burdens on our citizens. Our commissioners seem to be moving in that direction. The La Plata Liberty Coalition, a coalition of “We The People” working to protect and preserve the historical and constitutional rights of the citizens of La Plata County, is working with the county commissioners and planners to improve the process of developing an updated code by including more citizen input from the county’s 12 Planning Districts and we look forward to “getting it right.” As Ronald Reagan said, “Government’s first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives.” Jon Fossel is co-chair of the La Plata Liberty Coalition. Reach him at fossel711@aol.com and visit laplatalibertycoalition.org for more information.]]></content:encoded>
    </item>
    <item>
        <link>https://www.durangoherald.com/articles/columnists/brooks-how-the-left-wins-the-culture-war/</link>
        <title>Brooks: How the left wins the culture war</title>
        <description>David Brooksdu1-i-syn I started this latest round of the debate with the presumption that supporters of moderate gun restrictions are popularly strong but legislatively weak. Since Sandy Hook in 2012, more than two dozen states have passed gun laws and...</description>
        <pubDate>Fri, 09 Mar 2018 05:03:37 -0700</pubDate>
        <guid isPermaLink="false">66EB589D-B232-2BDA-E053-0100007F2B20</guid>
        <media:content url="https://imengine.public.prod.dur.navigacloud.com/?uuid=539C295C-061A-407F-8265-8AC98243DC42&#038;function=thumbnail&#038;type=preview&#038;source=false&#038;width=600&#038;height=400" medium="image" type="image/jpeg" />
        <media:thumbnail url="https://imengine.public.prod.dur.navigacloud.com/?uuid=539C295C-061A-407F-8265-8AC98243DC42&#038;function=thumbnail&#038;type=preview&#038;source=false&#038;width=600&#038;height=400" />
        <content:encoded><![CDATA[David Brooksdu1-i-syn I wonder if I’m wrong on the subject of guns. I started this latest round of the debate with the presumption that supporters of moderate gun restrictions are popularly strong but legislatively weak. Since Sandy Hook in 2012, more than two dozen states have passed gun laws and almost all of those laws have loosened gun restrictions. Roughly 360 gun bills have been introduced in Congress, and they have all failed but one, which also loosened gun use. The blunt fact is that Republicans control most legislatures. To get anything passed, I thought, it would be necessary to separate some Republicans from the absolutist NRA position. To do that you have to depolarize the issue: show gun owners some respect, put red state figures at the head and make the gun discussion look more like the opioid discussion. The tribalists in this country have little interest in the opioid issue. As a result, a lot of pragmatic things are being done across partisan lines. The people pushing for gun restrictions have basically done the exact opposite of what I thought was wise. Instead of depolarizing the issue they have massively polarized it. The students from Parkland are being assisted by all the usual hyper-polarizing left-wing groups: Planned Parenthood, Move On and the Women’s March. The rhetoric has been extreme. Marco Rubio has been likened to a mass murderer while the NRA has been called a terrorist organization. The early results would seem to completely vindicate my position. The Florida Legislature turned aside gun restrictions. New gun measures in Congress have been quickly shelved. Democrats are more likely to lose House and Senate seats in the key 2018 pro-gun states. The losing streak continues. Yet I have to admit that something bigger is going on. It could be that progressives understood something I didn’t. It could be that you can win more important victories through an aggressive cultural crusade than you can through legislation. Progressives could be on the verge of delegitimizing their foes, on guns but also much else, rendering them untouchable for anybody who wants to stay in polite society. That would produce social changes far vaster than limiting assault rifles. Two things have fundamentally changed the landscape. First, over the past two years conservatives have self-marginalized. In supporting Donald Trump they have tied themselves to a man whose racial prejudices, sexual behavior and personal morality put him beyond the pale of decent society. While becoming the movement of Dinesh D’Souza, Sean Hannity and Franklin Graham, they have essentially expelled the leaders and thinkers who have purchase in mainstream culture. Conservatism is now less a political or philosophic movement and more a separatist subculture that participates in its own ostracism. Second, progressives are getting better and more aggressive at silencing dissenting behavior. All sorts of formerly legitimate opinions have now been deemed beyond the pale on elite campuses. Speakers have been disinvited and careers destroyed. The boundaries are being redrawn across society. As Andrew Sullivan noted recently, “workplace codes today read like campus speech codes of a few years ago.” There are a number of formerly popular ideas that can now end your career: the belief that men and women have inherent psychological differences, the belief that marriage is between a man and a woman, opposition to affirmative action. What’s happening today is that certain ideas about gun rights, and maybe gun ownership itself, are being cast in the realm of the morally illegitimate and socially unacceptable. That’s the importance of the corporate efforts to end NRA affiliations. It’s not about members saving some money when they fly. It’s that they are not morally worthy of being among the affiliated groups. The idea is to stigmatize. If progressives can cut what’s left of the conservative movement off from mainstream society, they will fundamentally alter the culture war. We think of the culture war as this stagnant thing in which both sides scream at each other. But eventually there could be a winner. Progressives have won on most social issues. They could win on nearly everything else. Continued school shootings could be just the thing that persuades the mainstream that conservatism is vulgar and socially illegitimate, somewhere between smoking and segregationism. If that kind of total victory is on offer for progressives, why should they take my advice and tone things down for the sake of a few small gun laws? The big prize here is not gun laws. It’s winning the culture war, with the gunfight as the final battle. The only thing I’d say to my progressive friends is, be careful how you win your victories. It is one thing to win by persuasion and another thing to win by elite cultural intimidation. Illiberalism breeds illiberalism. Using elite power, whether economic or cultural, to silence less educated foes usually produces a backlash. Conservatives have zero cultural power, but they have immense political power. Even today, voters trust Republicans on the gun issue more than Democrats. If you exile 40 percent of the country from respectable society they will mount a political backlash that will make Donald Trump look like Adlai Stevenson. David Brooks is a columnist for The New York Times. Reach him c/o The New York Times, Editorial Department, 620 8th Ave., New York, NY 10018. © 2018 New York Times News Service]]></content:encoded>
    </item>
    <item>
        <link>https://www.durangoherald.com/articles/columnists/douthat-power-to-the-parents/</link>
        <title>Douthat: Power to the parents</title>
        <description>Ross Douthatdu1-i-syn My support peaked when I was that age myself; I thought that lowering the voting age was literally the least that adults could do to acknowledge that their teenage kids were citizens, too, rather than a disenfranchised class...</description>
        <pubDate>Thu, 08 Mar 2018 05:04:19 -0700</pubDate>
        <guid isPermaLink="false">66DFBDFF-CB5A-0A1A-E053-0100007FE1FB</guid>
        <media:content url="https://imengine.public.prod.dur.navigacloud.com/?uuid=FF2917D5-AFFC-4994-B18C-274B5A90D33E&#038;function=thumbnail&#038;type=preview&#038;source=false&#038;width=600&#038;height=400" medium="image" type="image/jpeg" />
        <media:thumbnail url="https://imengine.public.prod.dur.navigacloud.com/?uuid=FF2917D5-AFFC-4994-B18C-274B5A90D33E&#038;function=thumbnail&#038;type=preview&#038;source=false&#038;width=600&#038;height=400" />
        <content:encoded><![CDATA[Ross Douthatdu1-i-syn The teenage crusade for gun control has given new energy to an idea that I once supported fervently: Voting rights for 16-year-olds. My support peaked when I was that age myself; I thought that lowering the voting age was literally the least that adults could do to acknowledge that their teenage kids were citizens, too, rather than a disenfranchised class imprisoned in classrooms and ruled by absurd drinking-age restrictions and … well, anyway, I had pretty strong views on the issue, let’s just put it that way, and also about the ridiculously early time my parents expected me home on weekend nights. Now that I’m a father, I have equally strong views about a different way of representing minors in our electoral system. Namely, I think my wife and I should be able to cast extra votes on behalf of our three small children, until they’re old enough to choose for themselves between the presidential candidacies of Hope Hicks and Chelsea Clinton in 2032. The term for this sort of system is “Demeny voting,” named for demographer Paul Demeny, who proposed the idea in 1986 to address the threat of gerontocracy — in which fertility declines and life expectancy increases and the political power of the elderly strangles future-oriented policymaking. Since then it’s been debated in low-fertility nations like Japan and Hungary, finding champions among demography-obsessed conservatives, but also among liberals concerned about a retiree-dominated politics and the just representation of the young. Of course, under a Demeny system that representation would be achieved by proxy, a novel feature for a representative democracy — but on the spectrum of powers we necessarily grant to parents, hardly that dramatic of a step. The simplest mechanism would be to assign half a vote to each custodial parent; presumably single parents with full custody could exercise the full franchise for each child, and assigning rights in custody disputes and polyamorous households would provide a mild stimulus for the legal profession. In the U.S., higher fertility rates track with support for Republicans, but single mothers are more likely to vote for Democrats — as are recent immigrants, a relatively high-fertility group. So Demeny voting might change the balance of power within each coalition rather than benefiting either party overall: Hispanics and low-income families would have more clout within the Democratic Party, and the Hannity-obsessed elderly would cede influence within the GOP to the minivan-driving middle-aged. Both shifts would be positive. American life is increasingly polarized by age, with our politics tilted rightward by aging baby boomers voting Trump to hold off a millennial-ruled future and our cultural and commercial spheres devoted to pandering to the fashions of the adolescent. Parents, mostly Gen Xers now, are as well-positioned as any group to play a mediating role — and they will be more likely to play it effectively if they have the political power to redirect more resources to the beleaguered, ever-more-expensive cause of procreation. Such a system, of course, would turn politically aware teenagers who differed ideologically from their parents into domestic dissidents, their citizenship hijacked, their support for an alderman who wants to build a skate park subsumed by their dad’s desire to make the local dog park great again. I’m personally not all that troubled by this injustice, but I’m happy to offer concessions to my 16-year-old self. There’s no reason Demeny voting when kids are small can’t coexist with giving teenagers the vote a little earlier, if that’s what’s required to make their parents’ empowerment during their minority more tolerable. Sadly, the very thing that makes Demeny voting desirable — the political and cultural weakness of the family in an aging and individualist society — makes it hard to imagine how it could ever get off the ground politically. But it’s somewhat easier to imagine experiments at the state level, where a certain kind of political self-interest could grease the wheels. Just as there’s currently a push for youth voting in liberal California, where more teenage voters would top off liberal supermajorities, there’s no reason that red states rich in Republican-voting families (hello, Utah) couldn’t consider experiments with Demeny voting. (Certainly it would be a far better voting-reform cause for social conservatives than the present Republican fixation on hassling Democratic constituencies — sorry, preventing voter fraud — with onerous voter registration requirements.) And then blue-state feminists could respond by embracing a matriarchal Demeny alternative, like economist Miles Corak’s suggestion that a child’s voting rights should be vested, not half in each parent, but wholly in the mother. By the time the competing experiments are running and the debate is fully joined, I will have probably aged out of my current pro-parental biases and into a grouchy near-retirement. But even if I find gerontocracy more congenial by then, hopefully a Demeny movement will continue to live by the admonition I offer now: The hand that steers the minivan should be the hand that rules the world. Ross Douthat is a columnist for The New York Times. Reach him c/o The New York Times, Editorial Department, 620 8th Ave., New York, NY 10018. © 2017 New York Times News Service]]></content:encoded>
    </item>
</channel>
</rss>
