The rights of adoptees to find birth families
Re: “Bill helps adoptees find birth parents,” April 21 news story.
Although not a Colorado resident, I must object to the unbalanced report on opening adoptee birth records. The Post’s article repeatedly refers to “adopted children” who would be impacted by this legislation, even quoting adoptive parents on the damaging impact their son’s birth father had on his childhood.
The proposed bill concerns adoptees 18 years of age or older – not “children,” but adults who deserve the same access to their birth certificates as any other citizen. Whether they choose to seek out their biological families is not the business of the government. Birth-family searches are not illegal, and though costly and difficult, they occur on a regular basis.
For accurate reporting of birth parents’ perspective, The Post might seek out statistics from states with open records or from organizations comprised of birth parents, rather than quoting state Rep. Richard Decker, whose only reported connection to birth parents is his adopted sister.
Let us desist in perpetuating the myth that the truth in adoption is something shameful to be kept under seal, that adult adoptees need government protection from their own identities, or that birth families want or have government protection from their offspring.
Melissa Butensky, Princeton Junction, N.J.
—————————————-
Columnist’s opposition to state smoking ban
Re: “Health alarmists blow smoke,” April 25 David Harsanyi column.
I am alarmed at David Harsanyi’s apparent ignorance on the subject of secondhand smoke and its effect on health.
I do not understand how Harsanyi can think that breathing secondhand smoke can’t be bad for you. Besides the obvious effects on your lungs and sinuses, I find that it makes me sneeze, which must mean I am allergic to it.
The biggest complaint I have about secondhand smoke, however, is more practical. If you have to sit in this smoke, you find that you have to take a shower when you get home, because you stink like smoke. Also, you wind up with a larger dry-cleaning bill, as your clothes stink and must be cleaned.
The majority of people who are non-smokers will always vote for the right of smokers to go outside and have a smoke. Why should the 20 percent of the population who smoke be allowed to cause hardships to the 80 percent who choose to not indulge in this bad habit?
Rich Morton, Parker
…
Once again, David Harsanyi attacks the Colorado Indoor Clean Air Act. This time he cites statistics claiming that secondhand smoke is not linked to lung-cancer risk.
OK, fine. Try looking at it from this perspective: Cigarette smoke is repulsive to most non-smokers whether or not it causes lung cancer. It is simply an unwelcome assault upon the senses. In contemporary society, a smoker would not think of lighting up in a non-smoker’s home, out of respect for the person.
Why does the smoker think it’s OK to abandon respect for non-smokers in public places? Social mores change with time. And this is the case we have with smoking in public. It is no longer socially acceptable behavior.
Bob Helmer, Denver
—————————————-
Stricter laws for teenage drivers
Re: “New road rules for teens; First-year passengers to be limited starting July 1,” April 21 news story.
The absolute idiocy of the increased limitations on teenage drivers still manages to amaze me, though by now I should probably know better.
Why Gov. Bill Owens has decided that the ages of passengers in the car of a newly licensed teen make a difference is a mystery. Owens might as well just prevent kids from getting licenses until they’re 18, because, hey, there’s not much point in driving your friends around with your mom riding shotgun.
If a teen wants to drive with someone under 21, he’s going to do it, whether or not he has the governor’s permission.
Kaitlin Tarr, Centennial
—————————————-
The high cost of oil
Re: “No quick help on oil prices; Saudis reiterate long-term plan to boost production,” April 26 news story.
The Post’s front-page picture of President Bush holding hands with Saudi Arabian Crown Prince Abdullah is a perfect metaphor for the way the Bush administration holds hands with big energy. The current Bush energy bill gives $8 billion in tax relief to the energy companies and virtually ignores funding alternative energy programs in any meaningful way. Prince Abdullah knows high gas prices will eventually lead to alternative, non-petroleum sources of energy. Why doesn’t our president?
It is time for the administration and Congress to create a “Manhattan Project” for energy independence, not just more of the same tired old policies of feeding big oil companies at the public trough while mortgaging the future of our children.
Howard Sweeney, Lafayette
…
While the media was full of stories about President Bush meeting with Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah today at the Bush ranch, there was little coverage of Vice President Dick Cheney and the crown prince meeting ahead of the ranch talks at the prince’s hotel. Naturally, the White House refused to reveal details about the meeting. Here’s a guess: The hotel meeting was the real meeting. The trip to the ranch was just for show and to let George W. know what Boss Cheney and the prince had decided.
Fake intelligence, fake crises, fake news, fake town hall meetings, fake Secret Service agents … why not a fake president?
Felice Sage, Littleton
…
Congress could easily solve the current energy crunch and avert the impending economic slowdown. We seem to have forgotten the lessons of the 1970s when we dropped highway speeds from 70 mph to 55 mph and reduced oil consumption by 20 percent. I urge your readers to contact their representatives and senators to repeal Reagan-era speed laws. One reason we don’t feel the pinch of higher gas prices is that our pockets are flush with cash, thanks to the credit bubble and low interest rates.
Sadly, I suspect that elected officials won’t act on this matter, especially with a friend of Big Oil in the White House and election campaigns on both sides of the aisle indubitably well-paved with oil dollars. Given this political environment, I would suggest that gas stations procure extra 4s, 5s and 6s for their roadside signs (one can assume that they have already purchased extra 3s).
Ed D’Silva, Loveland
—————————————-
Sen. Salazar s position on judicial nominees
Re: “Salazar wins points in filibuster tussle,” April 26 news story.
Democratic organizations, many of which are outside Colorado, are complimenting Sen. Ken Salazar after his flip-flop on supporting up- or-down votes for President Bush’s judicial nominees. Insults are coming from Christian organizations, particularly Colorado Springs- based Focus on the Family.
Politically, they all miss the point. Those who are crowing about Salazar’s new position either don’t live in Colorado or were already committed Democrat voters. Those who are complaining now are already committed Republicans.
But Colorado has a very independent-minded electorate, with roughly as many registered independents as Democrats. It is these people who decide elections and who might object to abandoning an important campaign promise.
If the election were soon, the flip-flop would hurt Salazar. But since he’s only a few months into a six-year term and voters probably won’t remember this, he gains a lot more immediate political clout among D.C. Democrats compared to what he risks losing in 2010 at home. Salazar’s choice is thus disappointing but not surprising.
Ross G. Kaminsky, Boulder
TO REACH US
Phone: 303-820-1331
Fax: 303-820-1502
E-mail: openforum@denverpost.com (only straight text, not attachments)
Mail: The Open Forum, The Denver Post, 1560 Broadway, Denver, 80202
Letters guidelines: The Post welcomes letters up to 200 words on topics of general interest. Letters must include full name, home address and day and evening phone numbers. Letters may be edited for length, grammar and accuracy.
