Protecting mountain homes from forest fires
Re: “Precipitation can’t bail out Bailey from wildfire fears,” May 11 news story.
The Post’s article omits some important facts about the huge Harris Park project proposed by the U.S. Forest Service near Bailey, which is meant to help protect homes from Conifer to Bailey.
More than 11,000 acres of forest would be cut, requiring 30 miles of new roads. Using old roads the Forest Service has tried but generally failed to close, all-terrain vehicles run rampant through the area, causing considerable soil erosion. Almost 1,500 acres would be logged in roadless areas, areas that are relatively pristine and thus provide a great deal of benefit for wildlife, watershed and people.
There is a need for reducing fuels to protect nearby homes from fire, but the Forest Service’s proposal is well in excess of what is needed to accomplish this goal. The Forest Service’s own research shows that the greatest fire protection for homes is achieved by removing, or reducing the density of, vegetation in the immediate vicinity of the home. Other homeowner actions, such as installing a non- flammable roof, also make a house less susceptible to fire. These actions would accomplish much more fire protection than logging up to 1.5 miles from any houses, as the Forest Service proposal would allow.
Rocky Smith, Denver
—————————————-
Immigration and the death of a Denver cop
Re: “Groups protest illegal immigration,” May 17 news story (early edition).
Sounds like the mayor of Denver could use a new chief of staff – one who has studied law at some point. Michael Bennet said that Denver police shouldn’t have to ask for valid identification on traffic stops because the police department’s “main job is catching people who are committing crimes.”
It apparently will be news to Bennet that illegal immigrants are violating the law merely by being here, and also by working here. What part of “illegal” does he not understand?
Peg Manning, Los Angeles
…
Re: “Why turn a blind eye to illegals?” May 16 David Harsanyi column.
Anyone who buys into David Harsanyi’s Denver-cops-won’t-do-anything-about-illegal-immigrants rhetoric should ask one simple question: Would you rather see cops spending their time chasing some illegal immigrant or Brent J. Brents?
Mike Freed, Parker
—————————————-
Thwarting workplace drug tests
Re: “Drug-test foils never fail to impress,” May 17 Al Lewis column.
Despite a short-lived high, marijuana is the only drug that stays in the human body long enough to make urinalysis a deterrent. Marijuana’s organic metabolites are fat-soluble and can linger for days. Synthetic drugs are water- soluble and exit the body quickly. An employee who uses methamphetamine on Friday night will likely test clean on Monday morning. If you think drug users don’t know this, think again. Anyone capable of running a search on the Internet can find out how to thwart a drug test.
Workplace drug tests may compel users of relatively harmless marijuana to switch to harder drugs to avoid testing positive. Drug-testing profiteers do not readily volunteer this information, for obvious reasons. The most commonly abused drug and the one most closely associated with violence is almost impossible to detect with urinalysis. That drug is alcohol, and it takes far more lives each year than all illegal drugs combined. Hangovers don’t contribute to workplace safety, and counterproductive drug tests do absolutely nothing to discourage the No. 1 drug problem.
Robert Sharpe, Arlington, Va.
The writer is a policy analyst for Common Sense for Drug Policy in Washington, D.C.
—————————————-
Race and U.S. labor
Re: “Fox sorry for words on blacks,” May 17 news story.
Everybody, especially the White House, was disingenuously outraged by Mexican President Vicente Fox’s comment that “Mexican men and women … do the work that not even blacks want to do in the United States.” They forced him to apologize for the comment, yet he should have simply changed it to add American “whites” to the equation.
It is a case of the Emperor having no clothes on, and I’ll be the little boy who points it out. Drive by a construction site and find someone, other than the foreman, who speaks English and then you can vilify President Fox.
Alaeldin Rachid, Fort Collins
—————————————-
John Bolton nomination
Re: “Bolton nomination now up to Senate,” May 13 news story.
Nominating John Bolton to be ambassador to the United Nations rewards a man who has been a “poster child for everything a diplomat should not be,” to quote the courageous Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio. I find it disgusting that a man who bullied his subordinates and rejected honest assessments of the pre-war status of Iraq to demand doctored reports conforming to the administration’s opinion should be nominated as a representative to the U.N. Any licensed professional in a reputable scientific field would be stripped of their credentials for unethical behavior for following the methods of Bolton.
Ron Puening, Centennial
—————————————-
Selective taxpaying
Letter-writer Bart Rhoten (May 15 Open Forum) writes, “Either PBS should find the support from people who voluntarily contribute or it should die. PBS doesn’t deserve life support through taxes.”
The idea of only paying taxes on something we support has great merit. But I would change “PBS” to “the occupation of Iraq” in Rhoten’s letter. I would like my taxes which are being used to support the occupation of Iraq to go to PBS. In exchange, the taxes paid to PBS by those who support the occupation of Iraq could be used for that support.
If only 10 percent of the public went with exchanging one for the other, PBS would receive an infusion of $20 billion and could probably provide Rhoten with a program he would like.
Jack Zeller, Lafayette
—————————————-
The focus on judges and the Senate filibuster
Re: “Compromise foreign to Dobson,” May 12 editorial.
The Post goes to great lengths to promote the virtues of a compromise on President Bush’s judicial nominees. What your editorial fails to point out is that the U.S. Constitution doesn’t call for compromise on nominees.
The Constitution is quite clear: The Senate shall provide “advice and consent” on the president’s nominees. It’s equally clear that their advice and consent shall be accomplished by an up-or-down vote, decided by a simple majority – since Article II, Section 2 doesn’t require a 60-vote super- majority for judges, as the Democrats want to impose via the filibuster.
Incidentally, back in 1995, Democrats wanted to abolish all filibusters – not just judicial filibusters – as “unconstitutional.” How’s that for compromise?
Let’s consider this “compromise” for just a moment. The Senate minority wants to allow the majority to pick any four of the seven nominees for swift confirmation. But that would reduce the process to a mockery, a game of judicial three-card monte: “Pick a judge, any judge.” If any four could pass muster, then all seven are qualified. They at least deserve a vote.
Finally, you charge that Dr. James Dobson is using his radio show to block any compromise. I wish our program were indeed that powerful. All we do is speak the truth as we see it, which is exactly what you do on your editorial page, every day.
Tom Minnery, Vice President,
Focus on the Family, Colorado Springs
TO REACH OPINION EDITORS
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.
