Liberal and Loving It

It's Time to Bring Democracy to Boulder

I know what you're thinking - what am I talking about. Of course we're a democracy. Not only are we a democracy, but as an enlightened liberal politically aware populace, we understand and support our democracy.

Really?

With the commendable exception of the upcoming City Council election, the majority of elections here, both in the Democratic primary and in the general election are either uncontested or so lopsided they might as well be uncontested.

And the primary responsibility for our sad state of affairs is… The Republican party. For better or worse our system is a 2 party system. Even in Boulder the odds of a Green or Libertarian being elected are essentially zero.

So where are the Republicans? Yes they occasionally run a sacrificial lamb but where are the serious credible candidates - candidates that can win? It wasn't always this bad, Sandy Hume and Bob Greenlee both ran and won. And both earned respect for doing a good job.

Saying Republicans can't win here is just a lame excuse for not putting in the hard work required to win. Our problem is that our local Republicans are a bunch of girlie-men who would rather sit around and complain rather than do something.

So what if the Republicans decide to get it in gear?

The largest issue is that the Republicans need to find compelling moderate candidates. Wingnuts will lose. In the free market of ideas that a campaign is, the Republicans need to respond to the demands of that market and supply candidates that the voters here find compelling. The problem is not that the voters don't want what the Republicans have been selling, it's that the Republicans need to change their "product." The Republican party claims to believe in the free market - well listen to the market and respond.

Because people in Boulder will respond to a moderate candidate that looks to the free market first, with maybe some incentive from the government, rather than to a government program that might make some use of the free market. People in Boulder will respond to a candidate that sees America as a land of equal opportunity but not a land of equal results, as long as the candidate understands that equal opportunity sometimes requires help from the government.

The other excuse Republicans will use is it's difficult in the present political environment for Republicans. Damn straight it is - but do Republicans run away when the going gets tough or do they step up and try harder. And if the Republican party is to recover, it will be through the efforts of moderates that can get elected in places like Boulder, not the wingnuts elected from the remaining ultra-conservative enclaves left in the country.

So where to start? The best place to start is executive level offices. One legislator generally does not make a big individual difference. But a County Commissioner, a Sherriff, a District Attorney - they all have direct responsibility for their departments. That specific person makes a big difference.

So where is the opportunity in '08?

The best opportunity is District Attorney. Mary Lacy has been a disaster and so people realize that who is elected matters. Stan Garnett has never run for election against an opponent and would probably be another mediocre DA - so voters would be very open to an alternative here.

Second is a wildcard - the County Clerk. If the City Council election is another disaster, which is quite possible, then this becomes the top opportunity because voters will be fed up with Democratic incompetence by then. If it is not a mess, then Hillary Hall is probably safe.

Third is County Commissioner. Most voters don't know much specific about the commissioners, but they do know that a lot of people are unhappy with a lot of county issues. That general unease provides opportunity. (Suggestion, go beg Pete Salas to switch to being a Republican and then back him 1000%.)

Sheriff - forget it. Joe Pelle could use prairie dogs for target practice and still win.

Next is CD-2. At present the argument would be forget it. We have three great Democratic candidates and most of us Dems would be happy with any of the three, we're just trying to decide which of the 3 Amigos we like best. But by the time the primary is over, which will probably be pretty brutal because it will be close, the winner could be, maybe, barely, beatable.

Finally we have the state House and Senate races - virtually impossible. The Dems barely have a majority in the legislature and with that majority they have taken the state government from lousy to effective, helpful, and progressive. People are not willing to risk that. But... Having quality candidates run who speak to continuing to have an effective progressive state government would get people thinking about it.

So why do I, an ardent Democrat, bring this all up? Well first, the long term health of our system requires that we have competitive races. We get problems like Mary Lacy and the County Commissioners because we have no alternative.

And second, I don't think the Republicans will do it. Making a credible compelling effort requires a lot of work on the part of a lot of people. It's much easier to just sit on your ass, let Bob Greenlee complain every Sunday in the Camera, and bitch about how if only the people would listen to them…

Grading the candidates: Balancing Open Space

So here's the grades on the candidates answers to the Daily Camera question "Is the Open Space and Mountain Parks Department striking the proper balance between preservation and recreation?" This is a softball question - it's not like any candidate is going to say recreation only or preservation only.

With that said, for many what they do, and more importantly don't say, gives a good idea of where they fall on this. (Or at least I think I can accurately extrapolate from their posts.)

My bias in my grading below? I think we need to learn toward using the open space as much as possible. Look but don't touch makes no sense right next door to a city as active and outdoors oriented as Boulder. I also think mountain bikers need to be restricted to sole use tracks because the vast majority (not all) are arrogant boorish louts who when they take a blind corner at 45MPH the only person you want them running over is another bicyclist who wiped out around the corner.

Ken Wilson B+ : A clear thoughtful answer about the trade-offs involved and that different areas require different rules. And he sounds like he is trying to figure out a reasonable balance throughout. I do wish Ken could answer a question without the "I'm a scientist and I'm reading papers on this issue" but I understand that it sells. No mention of debt reduction or maintenance issues.

Rob Smoke C+ : Very funny. Spot on and very funny (and it would work) answer to measuring voice control of dogs. And a straightforward concise answer. However, Rob clearly leans heavily in the look but don't touch direction.

Eric Rutherford F : no answer.

Tom Riley A- : Says the present balance is good and then discusses debt reduction and maintenance costs with some very good points. Good points on rotating use and dog control. And a short answer (for Tom).

Larry Quilling C- : Very generic answer that says nothing.

Susan Peterson D+ : Very generic answer that say almost nothing. You can draw the inference that she strongly favors preservation over recreation.

Eugene Pearson B- : Very short answer mainly about increasing maintenance to cover existing and future use. In that he clearly supports recreational use of our lands.

Susan Osborne F : no answer.

Alan O'Hashi C : Discussion of the trade-offs and a good idea in having reservations but clearly comes down on the side of preservation over recreation. And no discussion of debt and only peripherally maintenance.

Lisa Morzel A- : Good solid answers on balancing trade-offs and improving the system. And it's very clear that she is a heavy recreational user of open space and is on that side of the divide. No mention of debt. She does touch on maintenance discussing how to improve the system.

Adam Massey F : no answer.

Kathy Kramer B+ : Kathy generally has a good thoughtful answer and she does again here. A very good high-level view of the conflict between recreation and preservation. And clearly is a recreation user. No discussion of debt or maintenance. I love her idea of increasing the fine for those that leave their dog poo behind.

Nabil Karkamaz C- : Very short generic answer and it's not clear if "more work need it[sic] on the recreation part" means he would like to see more or less recreational use.

Philip Hernandez C : Very short generic answer. Say the existing balance is good.

Andrew Harrison B : Very good high level look at the system past, present, and future. Is a recreational user of open space and discusses how to best make recreational use while preserving the natural state of the area. Talks about maintenance too. Then he goes to propose yet another tax increase for open space - they don't have enough money already???

Crystal Gray B+ : Good solid answer that touches on all the major points. But very dry - a lot of listing what we have and what has occured and less of what she wants to see occur in the future. Good ideas on the trail suggestions.

Angelique Espinoza A+ : Impressive answer. In three paragraphs she walks us through the variety of uses of the land, the different issues that require different approaches, and ends up talking about finances, maintenance, and the impact on the Boulder economy. And clearly wants people to be able to visit the space, not just look at it.

Macon Cowles C+ : A knowledgeable thoughtful post - but in favor of, when in doubt, preservation over use. And in Boulder that tends to be, not a slight change, but rather a giant DO NOT ENTER on lots of the land.

Shawn Coleman B- : Clearly favors recreation use (for tax raising reasons but favor is favor). But then talks exclusively about support for continuing the tax. The tax matters but so does how we balance and why.

Seth Brigham F--- : Long and rambling - I stopped reading at the bottom of the first page.

Philip Bradley B-- : Generic comment about how things have changed (they have) and we need to re-look at what we allow where. He is clearly in favor of maximizing recreational use.

Matthew Applebaum B- : Touches on the trade-offs and the need to take a long term view. touches on finance and discusses maintenance. But clearly puts preservation well ahead of recreation. Yes preservation is essential but in Boulder that is taken to mean keep it pristine with no human impact whatsoever (except to favor prairie dogs over all other species).

A note to the candidates: I always get emails on these grades saying "why?". Please, feel free to comment below if you think the grade is unfair.

Candidate Gradebook

Here's a running summation of the grades I've given each candidate on the Daily Camera twice weekly blog questions.

Click on the link at the top of each column to get both my criteria for grading that question and a short paragraph on why each candidate got the grade they did.

Candidate Gradebook

	Climate Action Plan	Supporting Business	Convention Center	Open Space	Balancing the Budget	Pops & Scrapes	SlowTracks	Deserted Island	Prairie Dogs	Booze Rules	Online Debate	Power Distribution	Beam me up Scotty
Matt Applebaum	D+	A-	B+	B-	B+	C	C+	A+	A-	A	F	C+	C-
Philip Bradley	B+	C	F	B--	B-	B	F+	D-	D	F	A	A	C-
Seth Brigham								A	A	C	F	F	B+
Shawn Coleman	C-	B	A-	B-	A+	C+	B-	B-	A	B	A	A+	B-
Macon Cowles	B	F-	C+	C+	F	D+	D+	C-	A-	B	F	F-	D-
Angelique Espinoza	C+	C+	B-	A+	B	B++	C+	A+	A-	C	A	B+	B
Crystal Gray	D-	F-	B	F	A-	C-	C-	A+	B	C	A	C	C
Andrew Harrison	F-	F-	C+	B	D	D	F	F-	F	F	F	B	F
Philip Hernandez	F+	C	F	C	C	A-	C-	D+	B	D+	A	B+	D
Nabil Karkamaz	F-	F-	F	C-	F	F	F	F-	F	D	F	A	D
Kathryn Kramer	D+	A+	C+	B+	C+	C	A+	A	D+	B+	A	B-	A-
Adam Massey	F-	B+	C-	F	D	D	B-	A-	D	C	F	A-	D+
Lisa Morzel	F-	F-	F	A-	F	C-	D+	B-	D	B-	F	D+	C+
Alan O'Hashi	C-	C+	C	C	C	C	B+	F--	B+	B-	A	A+	C
Susan Osborne	B+	F-	F	F	D-	C+	D-	A	A-	D-	F	C	D
Eugene Pearson	C	A-	C-	B-	A-	D+	C+	C-	B	C+	A	C-	D+
Susan Peterson	F	D	F+	D+	D	A	D-	F-	D+	B	A	F	D+
Larry Quilling	A	F-	F	C-	C+	C	B	A++	A	B-	A	A-	B-
Tom Riley	A	B	B	A-	B+	B+	A+	A	B	A	A	B-	B
Eric Rutherford	C+	C	C-	F	B-	C	C+	C	A-	B-	A	A-	A++
Rob Smoke	D	C-	C	C+	B-	C+	A-	?	D+	C-	F	D	D
Ken Wilson	C	A-	B-	B+	D+	B	D+	A	A	B+	F	C-	C+

Campaign update

Ok, we have yard signs, we have forums, we have blogs, we have... you get the idea. We have a campaign with 22 candidates all out there trying to drum up votes. So to measure it's effect, the other night at Glacier Ice Cream I offered a dollar tip for each candidate they could name. $22.00 in free money.

So between 3 employees and about 12 customers (for $22.00 they were asking everyone for help) they were able to name... exactly... no one. This includes one person who knows she jogs by yard signs for 3 different candidates but had no idea what their names are. And these people vote...

Ok, so what's happening? Not a whole lot.

• The transit village is something most residents are aware of. No strong feelings for most but they are aware of it. This may be the big issue of the campaign but I don't think it will matter that much.
• Macon Cowles appears to be leading the fund-raising effort as he is the first and only to get matching funds from the city so far.
• Crystal Gray is back from her son's wedding and is going to start campaigning. She is starting way behind in name recognition at Glacier :). Actually it's nice to see a candidate put family first.
• Andrew Harrison, Nabil Karkamaz, and Lisa Morzel may have also been at Crystal Gray's son's wedding as none of them have answered any of the Daily Camera's first 3 questions. Guys (meant in a gender neutral way) - campaigning means actually doing something. And the Camera posts are the absolute best ROI effort for votes.
• Seth, Rob, and Jann Scott are all very upset about something. What it is is not clear but apparently everyone else in Boulder is in cahoots either for or against it (not sure which).
• I am worried about Hillary Hall's ability to accurately count the votes. Hopefully the main website is not indicative of their IT competence in the rest of the clerk's office but many times it is a good indication of their skills.
• FIDOS is my favorite of the groups interviewing candidates. Basically they want candidates who enjoy time with their pets and take them for walks on open space. And they don't throw their weight around, they list preferences but they don't work to be a powerful voting block.

Ok, time for an editorial comment rant. Seth, Rob, and Jan Scott are upset by, I think (the emails are not clear), Seth and/or Rob not being invited to a candidate forum and/or not being included in the televised part because they are banned from BTV (which I assume is the city funded TV channel boondoggle). A couple of observations on this:

1. It is not fraud or a violation of your constitutional rights or a violation of election laws for a private entity to exclude candidates unless that exclusion is based upon race, gender, or religion. If FIDOS chooses to only allow candidates who own dogs in their forum, that is their right. Freedom of speech does not include the right of you to force others to listen to you.
   Update: What I wrote here was sloppy - I was using FIDOS as a hypothetical but the way I worded the previous sentence it could be construed as a specific example. I apologize. Here is what I should have said: For example, if the Acme Choir chooses to only allow candidates who sing a-capella in their forum, that is their right. As far as I know, FIDOS does not even have a candidate forum.
2. Why on earth is the city funding public access in the age of YouTube? No one watches BTV. Never, ever, in 11 years living here have I ever heard of a single person watching it. Channel 8 (slogan - "more effective then NyQuill") is watched occasionally. But not BTV. And if you shoot a good video, put it up on YouTube. If it's worth watching it will get millions of hits. And if it doesn't it's not that the system is suppressing the truth, it's that your video is booooring.
3. The fact that someone disagrees with you does not mean they are evil. In some cases they may even be right and you wrong in their estimation of what approach to a problem would work best.
4. There is not some central group running Boulder. There are numerous interest groups with substantial political power. But they tend to be at odds with each other. There is definitely not some secret group that calls all of us and tells us how to vote. Or if they do call our house they get my wife instead of me.

Can the council please drop this turkey (public access TV)? It takes up an inordinate amount of Council time and is less accessible than just posting to YouTube.

Update: Jann Scott & Co. has gone the YouTube route. Its at www.BoulderChannel1.com and it's quite impressive.

Grading the candidates: Convention Center

The Daily Camera asked the candidates about building a convention center and where it should be located. I have no opinion on if this should be done (although if the arts part includes bringing in all the Eurovision finalists, then I'm very much in favor) so my grades below do not reflect if they are for or against the center. I wouldn't use a convention center and I don't go to the farmer's market (except when my wife drags me there).

My grades are based on answering both questions clearly and showing a good understanding of the issues involved. I do have one question though - why not put the entire thing underground? Convention centers generally are a bunch of rooms with no windows so why put it above ground?

Posts by some candidates are still coming in (this just went up) so I will update for the candidates who's posts come in after this.

Matthew Applebaum B+ : About as good an answer you can get from someone who likes the concept but has a lot of issues he wants to see resolved first. And he does want to see the Farmer's market continue.

Philip Bradley F : no answer.

Seth Brigham F----- : Seth wrote more than everyone else put together. And it veers of into who knows where quickly. I stopped reading it.

Shawn Coleman A- : Like Matt, a good answer and Shawn has clearly put in a lot of time on this issue and sees all of the pieces of it. I think Shawn could be the best candidate on this issue if you want someone who will work to find a good way to implement this.

Macon Cowles C+ : Lists the trade-offs but his answer is light and I think that means he does not have the detailed knowledge of some others. On the flip side, his answer leads one to believe that with more knowledge, he would do a good job on this.

Angelique Espinoza B- : Good points on sizing the center (only one to do so) and believes having the University as a partner is critical. Standard general reply about what location is the right fit...

Crystal Gray B : standard general answer but well said. And brings up the issue of the center surviving a flood (good point!). Wants to insure it does not kill the Farmer's Market, teahouse, etc. - which is different from saying that they are sacrosanct and is a even balance.

Andrew Harrison C+ : Good solid answer with clear specifics of what should and should not be done and why. However on location he supports the transit idea which I think is a terrible location for the center.

Philip Hernandez F : no answer.

Nabil Karkamaz F : no answer.

Kathy Kramer C+ : Strong clear answers. She also is against the Farmers Market location and does list some alternatives - but most of them are not good. She also is in favor of a cultural/arts part to the events center.

Adam Massey C- : Very short generic answer, specific that he supports it but prefers not 13th & Canyon with no listing of alternatives.

Lisa Morzel F : no answer.

Alan O'Hashi C : Very short generic answer, but he is specific that he supports building it.

Susan Osborne F : no answer.

Eugene Pearson C- : Ok, I don't have a strong preference either way but I think Eugene's proposal to put it at the transit village is nuts. When people are at a convention they want to walk (not drive, not take a bus) a short distance to both food and their hotel. And if they do have to take a bus, you need to have 10 buses waiting there when it lets out because everyone needs the bus at the same time.

Susan Peterson F+ : Ok, we're in la-la land here. A "World Community Center ... that attracts free thinking and expression." Thats the ticket - a convention center loses money itself but the added business revenues make up for it. Lets insure that it's a total loss by just bringing the occasional kumbaya crowd. Because lord knows, if Boulder is short of anything, it's free thinking.

Larry Quilling F : no answer.

Tom Riley B : Is in favor of the center but not in the downtown area. Lists the usual other locations. Talks quite a bit about how to fund it which is a key point. And is clearly a proponent of making arts/culture part of it.

Eric Rutherford C- : Clear answer in favor of the center and why. No mention of the Farmers Market or the cultural/arts component so my guess is they are both toast in Eric's opinion.

Rob Smoke C : Clear answer of no unless it doesn't hurt anything else (which is almost impossible). He then veers somewhat (not totally) off-topic.
Update: In answer to Rob's comment, I would have prefered some specifics of where he would put the center and what we lose (if anything) if we just don't do it. I said somewhat off-topic because he didn't completely answer the initial question and he then basically threw out general questions.

Ken Wilson B- : Short clear answer supporting a convention center but not at the proposed location. No details about where he would like to see at and what his parameters for a location are. His answer appears to be written fast so I assume he does have a better understanding than he expresses.

Has Hillary Hall ever used the Internet?

Lets take a look at the Boulder County Clerk & Recorder website. It does have phone numbers for the three main divisions. But say you want to contact Hillary Hall - well you can write her a letter but that's it. Because all it has is her address. (I am hoping that if Hillary is not aware of the Internet, she does at least know about telephones.)

But it gets worse. You want to email one of the divisions. Sorry - no. In the entire website the only email address is the one for the webmaster. But don't bother emailing to that address because you won't get an answer. So the bottom line is that the clerk & recorder's office does not use the most cost effective method of communication with the public.

I did talk to Sydney Power in Hillary's office (by telephone of course - no email) and she said that they "are working on it." Apparently adding email addresses to the website is a major effort requiring months of time. So sometime this year they might get email addresses added to their website.

So if you are wondering how Boulder ended up with such a brain-dead electronic voting system, it was selected by an office that doesn't even understand the basics of a simple website. There's no way they can figure out if an electronic voting system is accurate and secure.

ps - Hillary, if you email me your phone number and the email addresses for you and each division, I am happy to post them here for people until you get them on your website.

Grading the candidates: Supporting Business

This is my grades for the candidates answers on the subject of supporting business in Boulder. Unfortunately all too often "business" in Boulder is equated with the interests of real estate developers and/or retail shops. But that is a small part of the business environment here in Boulder and we will grade here based on the full business community.

And a personal note about the economic viability grants. I'm the founder of a local software company and a) I had no idea these things even existed before today, and b) $850,000.00 is nothing - most software startups generally get around $3,000,000.00 for their first round. It is also generally a bad idea for the city to place bets on which companies will be successful as they will tend to be wrong.

This is not to say the city should not spend money on economic viability, but that it should be for things other than direct payments to companies. Making broadband ubiquitous, providing advice and mentoring to startups, encouraging affordable appropriate office space - these are all things that could help a lot.

Ken Wilson A- : Very good answer explaining why we need business here and then discussing attracting & retaining businesses. And the concentration on green businesses is a good one. I would prefer a focus on high-tech industries too but that may be my own self-interest speaking here. (However, this city does have a large number of vibrant high-tech startups.)

Rob Smoke C- : The big concern with this answer is that payoffs that Rob cannot intuitively see he is unlikely to support. Results should be measured but it's many times not as easy as Rob wants. With that said, he does question if the economic viability grants do any good and that is a good question to ask.

Eric Rutherford C : A bunch of good generalities... And that's it. Eric talks about his experience being an asset in bringing business here - but again doesn't say how.

Tom Riley B : Some innovative ideas about how to fund and use the economic viability grants. Unfortunately he wants to spend a lot of it on direct payments to businesses. And struggling businesses are generally struggling not because of a lack of money but because there is a problem in what they are doing (at least that is what I have always found).

Larry Quilling F- : no answer.

Susan Peterson D : empty platitudes.

Eugene Pearson A- : Good sensible ideas such as reducing the regulatory maze (which fortunately does not touch software companies) and touches on affordable leases which could be a big boost for high-tech startups.

Susan Osborne F- : no answer.

Alan O'Hashi C+ : Pretty general generic answers. Good points on making sure the money spent on this is getting a good ROI and excellent point on including non-profits and arts/cultural businesses in what constitutes the business sector.

Lisa Morzel F- : no answer.

Adam Massey B+ : Adam brings up a number of important things to concentrate on and making sure we continue to improve how we approach this. He also brings up how the University and federal labs are key to Boulder's economy.

Kathy Kramer A+ : Wow - I was going to ding Kathy for a long (10 paragraph) answer but short, concise, intelligent point after point. Lists issues, approaches to solve them, etc. (And she mentions broadband!)

Nabil Karkamaz F- : no answer.

Philip Hernandez C : Generic list of the common complaints of real estate and retail businesses. He does touch on the lack of space for companies as they get too large for any facilities in the city although that generally is more a dollar than availability issue.

Andrew Harrison F- : no answer.

Crystal Gray F- : no answer.

Angelique Espinoza C+ : Pretty general comments but she does cover the full breadth of the business community (it helps that she is a principal in a high-tech company).

Macon Cowles F- : no answer.

Shawn Coleman B : A number of good points and things to consider. And Shawn definitely has a good understanding of the interdependency between various businesses. But a bit short on what specific steps we should take next.

Seth Brigham F+ : Seth wins the Joe Biden award this time for the longest answer. And in this long answer Seth talks about most everything except what can be done directly to improve the business environment. (Yes making Boulder prettier helps, but it's a very small indirect effect.)

Philip Bradley C : According to Philip my company doesn't exist. Businesses are small retail operations (regulatory hurdles), real estate developers, and large companies/federal labs. After listing the general issues he lists what he is against - a head tax (which would be a bad idea). But not much in the way of specifics.

Matthew Applebaum A- : Matt touches on all the right points. I'd like more detail but if he provided it I would probably complain that his response was too long so I'll leave this as very good answer.

Grading the candidates: Climate Action Plan

The Daily Camera asked each candidate for their opinion on the City's Climate Action Plan. Below is my grade of their answers.

My answers are predicated upon the economic consensus that the most effective approach is to tax carbon emissions and oil usage. However, I'm not sure any candidate can win in Boulder on that platform as the environmental group endorsements tend to select the winners and those groups generally prefer mandated actions over market pricing.

Matthew Applebaum D+ : Matt definitely takes the "we will force all of you to do these specific things" approach. Under that approach all of Matt's point are good, but the sum total is a significant intrusion into every building in the city (but no vehicles).

Philip Bradley B+ : A decent market oriented approach with the tax credit. And he keeps it simple which is also commendable.

Seth Brigham A- : Seth's comments are not a model of clarity but I think what he is proposing is people & companies (including the city government) are taxed based on their carbon emissions. Good answer.

Shawn Coleman C- : Shawn gets the Joe Biden award for his loooooooong answer. And all he does is review the existing plan and discusses issues with it's implementation. So his answer on the existing plan is "we don't know yet" which is reasonable, but could have been said in 1 paragraph.

Macon Cowles B : Gives a clear answer (and in his first sentence!). And sees the big picture which is the next step is vehicles as the CAP addresses buildings. I wish he had addressed how to go about addressing vehicles which is a harder problem as they enter and leave Boulder (unlike buildings).

Angelique Espinoza C+ : Another clear answer and also sees it as successful so far. But her sole "next step" is education & outreach.

Crystal Gray D- : Basically doesn't say anything - but takes 3 paragraphs to do so (or is it not do so?).

Andrew Harrison F- : no answer.

Philip Hernandez F+ : Philip gets an A for honesty. But this is a big issue with significant impact on all residents so we need council members who are reasonably knowledgeable on this subject.

Nabil Karkamaz F- : no answer.

Kathy Kramer D+ : An interesting answer where Kathy discusses how she has lots of background on this subject, but that's it - no specifics, no next steps, just that we need to solve this.
Update: Kathy ask below why the lower grade this time. Because in comparison to many other responses this time I felt hers was greatly lacking in specifics.

Adam Massey F- : no answer.

Lisa Morzel F- : no answer.

Alan O'Hashi C- : Alan's answer is a bit more vague than Matt's but is basically the same thing - except he goes for strongly incent over require. But it will be the city determining what everyone should do.

Susan Osborne B+ : Good answer that it is too soon to tell if it is having an effect. And ditto for the next step being to improve the efficiency of some public buildings as examples.

Eugene Pearson C :  Doesn't really say anything other than increase marketing and help low income homeowners.

Susan Peterson F : WTF? This is not cheerleading tryouts.

Larry Quilling A : Impressive answer. Hits traffic improvement and the coal plant both of which are major. And seeing if the City could get volume discounts for homeowners buying solar panels, etc is a market-driven win/win possibility.

Tom Riley A : Tom is the runner-up for the Joe Biden award on this topic. But lots of good specific ideas. And sensible approaches in almost all cases.

Eric Rutherford C+ : A bunch of empty platitudes. The one positive is he does prefer incentives over government mandates. But who knows for sure where that leads with him as there are no specifics.

Rob Smoke D : Basically Rob says we're destined to fail. And then proposes the city fully subsidize one specific type of non-carbon electricity generation (solar) rather than having the market determine what approach works best.

Ken Wilson C : Another set of empty platitudes. No idea of where he wants to go next other than have the city use more renewable energy.

City of Boulder F- : This past winter I was going into a gas station and parked out front was a city vehicle. It was very cold out and the truck had the engine on, both windows open, and the heat blasting. No one was in it. I went in, bought some food, and when I left it was still sitting there. I have no idea how long they left it like that. I emailed the city manager but got no response. Boulder, reducing carbon emissions and oil consumption begins at home.

ps - I know politically it's impossible here but I was disappointed to see none supported nuclear power which is our only medium-term alternative to coal & oil.

Try something different - music from the rest of the world

Ok, not the entire world, but from Europe. Europe his an incredibly vibrant music scene, especially the Eastern bloc & Greece. If you get tired of listening to the same 10 groups you have been listening to for the last couple of years, take a look.

I have started to write about what I have found here. This is just a start. My favorite is Russian pop - I don't understand a word of it but it sure is pleasant to listen to.

So if you are looking for a nice break in the day, come take a look a A World of Music. But all that matters is if it's for you. And please check back - I haven't even started my pages on Russian pop and I have a lot of songs to add for it.

Boulder's first online candidate debate

Here's your chance to see Boulder history in the making. On Monday October 15 at 7:00pm Boulder will have it's first live online debate. The City Council candidates will be debating live via and simultaneously the web right here at Liberal and Loving It.

Because of the large number of candidates, having an in-person debate is essentially unworkable. Giving each candidate a 3 minute introduction takes over an hour. Add 3 - 4 questions and you are looking at a 5-1/2 hour marathon where even the candidates fall asleep between their 3 minutes once an hour.

The structure of this debate is designed to allow all to "talk" at the same time while keeping with the debate framework where they are given the question and must answer immediately and in a limited time frame. Here's how it will work:

1. A question (contribute your questions...) is posted to this blog.
2. Each candidate must respond within 5 minutes, answering on their own, and in under 300 words.
3. Answers are emailed to us and we then add all of the answers to the question at the same time.
4. The next question is posted.

In under an hour we will present the candidates with 11 questions and get answers. By 8:00 we will be done. And this will occur the day you will probably receive your ballot. So you can watch, evaluate, and then vote.

A giant thank you to the candidates for trying this. None of them know if it will be useful so kudos to them for putting in the time to try something new.

Note: 21 candidates have agreed to participate. Adam Massey has declined.
Update: Macon Cowles has withdrawn from the event due to this post.