Recent Comments
Re: “More angst over military helicopters”
TejonTech reveals that he is unaware of the history of the Pinon Canyon situation when he says that the people there are "stupid" for moving in next to military base and then complaining about the noise. Most of the people who live around Pinon Canyon have been there all there lives, as were their parents and grand parents before them. They didn't move in next to a military base; the military moved in and took 235,000 acres of agricultural land by condemnation, forcing American Citizens off their property. Now that you know the truth, TejonTech, do you still think they are stupid for trying to defend their land and their way of life?
Posted by
Purgatory Pilgrim
on 05/08/2012 at 9:41 AM
Re: “More angst over military helicopters”
"The sound of freedom" is not the "whop whop" of more and more military, but the "swoosh, swoosh" of wind generators. Our national security depends more upon energy independence than it does upon our ability to militarily seize and control foreign oil fields. But the more the military claims dominion of the super-adjacent airspace, between the surface and 500 feet, the less likely it becomes that SE Colorado will play a role in alternative energy production. (BTW, this airspace is the private property of the surface owner, not the government.)
Posted by
Purgatory Pilgrim
on 05/08/2012 at 8:50 AM
Re: “UPDATE: Reaction to environmental report on Carson's CAB”
There are a couple of noteworthy features of this EA. First of all, in an attempt to soften the negative PR associated with Pinon Canyon the maneuver site is referred to as a part of the installation. "In this EA, the term ‘Installation’ refers to both Fort Carson and PCMS." Fort Carson gave up on renaming it "Fort Carson South."
An aspect of this EA which is of potential concern is the taking of hyper-adjacent airspace, the airspace between the surface and 500 feet, through the proposed establishment of a low-level or "Nap-of-the-Earth" training route between Fort Carson and Pinon Canyon. Nap-of-the-Earth, NOE is defined as, "NOE flight is conducted at varying airspeeds as close to the earth’s surface as vegetation and obstacles permit." This invasion of airspace as low as 50 feet above ground level may constitute an unconstitutional taking of private property. Just as the land was once taken from Native Americans, and just as water and sub-surface minerals were lost by property owners, the hyper-adjacent airspace, to which we give little thought may soon be taken.
Posted by
Purgatory Pilgrim
on 01/04/2012 at 2:45 PM
Re: “Fort Carson south? That could be the new name for Piñon Canyon”
I can see why the Army would like to get rid of the negative PR image associated with "Pinon Canyon." I'll bet the nuclear industry would have like to rename Three-mile Island, "Dauphin County South" too. Pinon Canyon has become a symbol for military waste, abuse, mismanagement and worse; disregard for our traditional democratic institutions. In the name of Pinon Canyon the Army has thumbed its nose at the property rights of citizens, demonstrated contempt toward congressional mandates, and flat out ignored federal court orders. The public has come to pay attention when they see the words, "Pinon Canyon." The Army is hoping that we'll pay less attention when we see mention of things happening at "Fort Caron South." After all, "Army Secretary John McHugh has promised that there would be no attempt to expand "Pinon Canyon" for the next five years. But he said nothing about "Fort Carson South."
Posted by
Purgatory Pilgrim
on 09/21/2011 at 4:57 PM
Re: “Carson chosen as a net-zero sustainability site”
It's good that the military is going "green." It would also be good if rapists would use condoms. Sometimes the end justifies the means. Other times the means is used to justify the end.
Posted by
Purgatory Pilgrim
on 04/21/2011 at 10:11 AM
Re: “Painting hits a nerve for Air Force Academy grads”
It's obvious that "THE faith" referenced in the picture could not possibly be the Christian faith. After all Jesus Christ, the founder of the Christian Faith taught non-violence. He made it clear that the Christian faith didn't need to be defended by force of arms. When Peter tried to defend Jesus with his sword, Jesus told him to put it away, stating that, "He who lives by the sword will die by the sword." And when asked about his kingdom, he responded that his kingdom is, "not of this world." and explained that if his kingdom were and earthly kingdom, "then would my servents fight." So, I agree that any "defending the faith" that is going on is strickly related to the "kingdom of this world" and not Christ's kingdom. It is the defense of America's and perhaps multi-national corporate interests, and not the trans-national, universal Christian faith.
Posted by
Purgatory Pilgrim
on 04/21/2011 at 10:03 AM
Re: “More whop whop”
TejonTech employs a strange logic; that if some entity (Fort Carson) predates your arrival on the scene, you have no right to express an opinion or to try to influence how that entity behaves. There are two reasons why this is faulty logic. First of all, everything is predated by something. If we accept the logic that we have no right to change any existing condition because it existed prior to our arrival on the scene, where would that put us? There are a million examples; Polio was here before Jonas Salk. Secondly, it's just not true that Fort Carson "predates us all." Many of the people living around Pinon Canyon are members of multi-generational families which predate Fort Carson and PCMS by many decades. So according to your logic the military has no right to fly over Southeastern Colorado since ranching predates the Army. There may be logical arguments to support increased militarism, such as the profit-making advantage of CoSpr being a prime beneficiary of the federal warfare state, but the they-were-here-first argument is not a logical one.