Description of fatal shooting of motorist
Re: “2 fatally shot at intersection,” June 21 news story.
In your front-page lead-in to this article, and in the article itself, you mention three times that the force of the bullets knocked the driver into the back seat. Is your desire to print sensational copy so strong that it overrides your common sense as well as your journalistic integrity?
It seems this “conclusion” is based upon conjecture by a bystander who was not present at the shooting. Additionally, the idea is counter to the laws of physics, unless the shooter was on the floor of the car under the dashboard and shooting upward with a very large-caliber weapon. Does the possibility that the victim was climbing into the back seat in an attempt to escape the shooter hold any sway? I think you need to re-evaluate your balance between journalistic honesty and the need to sensationalize.
J. Vincent, Denver
Amendment to ban burning of the U.S. flag
Re: “Federal ban on flag burning sails through House – again,” June 23 news story.
I am so happy that Congress is taking up the flag-burning amendment, because this can only mean terrorism, the exploding budget, and the rest of the far more important problems are solved. Way to go, Congress!
But what does the First Amendment have to do with it, and why is a new amendment needed? The entire question is solved by property rights. Everyone has the right to buy or weave and therefore own a piece of cloth in the shape and design of an American flag (or in any other design) and to do whatever with it: fly it, burn it, defile it, bury it, put it in the closet, wear it, etc. Flag laws are unjustifiable violations of the rights of private property. On the other hand, no one has the right to come up and burn your flag, or someone else’s. That should be illegal, not because a flag is being burned, but because the arsonist is burning your property without your permission, and is therefore violating your property rights.
Bill Jevons, Franktown
…
The flag-burning amendment is clearly irrelevant and has nothing to do with making our country a better place. It accomplishes nothing other than to weaken the foundation of our Constitution. It will not stop the two or three people who burn the flag in protest every year. It will introduce a “negative” amendment that weakens the far more important and more positive First Amendment. It reduces the public dialogue about patriotism and what makes our country special to symbolic litmus tests.
Let’s face it – the people who hate our country will be the first to follow the symbolic gestures to the letter. They will be sure to blend in with the crowd. Those few flag-burners, misguided though they may be, are not the problem. It’s the folks with the hidden agendas and their hands over their hearts, mouthing words they really don’t mean.
Being an American should not be about idolizing the flag or coercing citizens into reluctant symbolic gestures. Respect for our nation’s symbols comes from how we as a nation behave.
Paul Edwards, Gunnison
…
The other day, I saw an atrocious display of anti-Americanism: the wonton destruction of our flag, Old Glory, symbol of American freedom and democracy. There it was, tattered, torn and dirty, flapping violently in the wind on the antenna of the SUV.
Andrew Kittelson, Denver
Return of dog after eight days in wilderness
Re: “A golden retrieval: Girl’s dog found,” June 21 news story.
The story of Sable, the Belgian Malinois mix who was mysteriously found after an eight-day wilderness journey, failed to make an important point: The reason Sable was lost in the first place is she was riding in the back of a pickup truck and jumped out. A broken leg, a broken heart and the money of several groups and individuals who felt that Sable should have veterinary care despite her owners’ lack of funds could all have been avoided if Sable had been secured in the truck.
Imagine the possible ramifications if a driver behind Sable’s vehicle had swerved to avoid her and caused an even larger tragedy. There are many ways to travel with your pets safely, whether it be safety belts, barrier bars in SUVs or simply a dog kennel or crate in the back of that truck.
Elaine Berg, Evergreen
The writer is a professional dog trainer.
EPA’s “green” building
Letter-writer Dick J. Morroni (June 19 Open Forum) wants to know why the Environmental Protection Agency needs a $90 million building, especially with budgets tight. And what does the EPA need with a green roof, anyway?
First, EPA Region 8 is moving because of Homeland Security requirements for federal offices that are not, and cannot be, met in our current location. Second, the government is not buying a $90 million building. The government will be leasing a building that is expected to cost $70 million to design and construct. The EPA and General Services Administration selected a private developer, which will own the building.
Third, we are working together to ensure a building that is as energy efficient and environmentally friendly as possible. We expect, for example, our energy costs to be one-third less than comparably sized buildings because of the way natural light is used and other improvements. As for the rooftop garden, in addition to helping to moderate the temperature – and, thus, the need for heating and cooling – it will cleanse storm water and improve Denver’s water supply by removing sediments and pollutants as the water moves down and through the building.
We expect our building to be one of the greenest in Denver and a model for other office buildings to follow. By doing so, we further demonstrate our commitment to making the air cleaner, the water purer, and the land better protected.
Robert E. Roberts, Regional Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Senator’s comments on torture of prisoners
Last week’s comments by Sen. Dick Durbin about the torture of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and elsewhere have brought a storm of criticism from the White House and key Senate leaders, much as Amnesty International’s comments on the same issue did. The White House and Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner accuse Durbin of insulting the troops.
I believe Durbin, who did apologize for his comments this week, should be commended for his courage. It is the White House that insults the troops, by court-martialing young soldiers at the same time it promotes those who set torture and abuse policies in motion. It’s past time Congress attacked the problem, not those who try to fix it.
Torture is not an American value. No amount of partisan political attacks will change that.
Emily Darden, Littleton
How should we measure intelligence?
Re: “Smarter than 99.9% of the rest of us,” June 21 Scene story.
Your article both interested and disturbed me. The concept of intelligence being mainly mathematical, as seen in the sample test titled “How Smart Are You?”, was a good example.
Howard Gardner of Harvard has done extensive research on multiple intelligences. There are eight or more. Since gifted people are one of our most precious natural resources, we need to understand what this quality is.
Our schools have been based on developing only two or three types of intelligence. In many of our schools, people with outstanding abilities are labeled “geeks” or “misfits.” It’s not cool to be smart.
Girls, as the article pointed out, have been culturally taught to hide their talents. We also have the mistaken notion that our democratic ideals prevent us from developing the gifts of students with outstanding ability.
Let’s appreciate a variety of talents in people. Let’s realize that success in school does not necessarily mean that a person is creative or talented.
Jeanne A. Hull, Gunnison
TO REACH OPINION EDITORS
Phone: 303-820-1331
Fax: 303-820-1502
E-mail: openforum@denverpost.com
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.
