Mormon management of historical federal land
Re: “A difficult showdown between faith and history,” July 17 news story.
In a time when our government is in debt, why would we want to take the management of a section of government land out of the hands of an organization known for its good management skills and with the income to care for it? The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is interested in caring for this section of their history and telling the story honestly and openly.
Many in our country have become so concerned about separating church and state that they must make the Founding Fathers roll over in their graves. The First Amendment states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof … .” Most people concerned about separation of church and state consider only the first part, not the second. This nation was formed so that all men might have the opportunity to worship as they choose. The more we try to separate church and state, the more we move away from the principles on which this great nation was founded in the first place.
Rosanne Ainscough, Centennial
Paying for higher education
Re: “The high cost of higher ed,” July 17 Perspective article.
I was surprised to read the assertion that tuition increases hit middle-class students harder than low-income students, because low-income students are covered by “federal grants and other financial aid.”
True, low-income families are uniquely eligible for certain types of aid, such as federal Pell grants. But other forms of aid, including federal tuition tax credits, primarily benefit middle-class families. Furthermore, reports from national and state organizations, including the Colorado Commission on Higher Education, repeatedly stress that low-income students face the largest financial barriers.
While tuition increases do pose a threat to affordability, research clearly indicates that the most significant problem is not enough need-based financial aid. Severe budget cuts to Colorado’s higher education system – the most dramatic in the nation – combined with rising enrollment have made the financial aid shortage even worse.
In light of the college access crisis facing low-income students and the budget crisis facing our community and state colleges and universities, it is imperative for Colorado to re-invest in the most important asset – its people. Unless voters pass Referendums C and D, Colorado will be unable to offer all students the opportunity of quality education and training, putting its future at risk.
Spiros Protopsaltis, Denver
The writer is a policy analyst for the Bell Policy Center
…
Dan Haley wrote an excellent article exploring the cost of tuition at the University of Colorado. I’d like to supplement his exposition with this: Middle-class Coloradans will bear the brunt of the CU cost increases. These are the folks who make too much to qualify for aid and too little to afford it. These are the folks whose taxes buy bricks for the campus buildings. However, these are the folks who probably don’t realize the lengths CU goes to attract foreign students.
Foreign intellect and diversity are good things – to a point. However, CU and other American colleges have gone too far. Foreign students, mostly at the graduate level, take a ride on government or corporate research contracts, and consume all the teaching assistantships. How many of these foreign students stay in Colorado to embellish our society and economy? How many would fight in a war for the U.S.? How many will join the alumni association and contribute to the university? How many have parents and grandparents who have paid taxes which buy buildings and pay professor salaries?
It’s time to get all the facts on the table and let’s just see who’s paying and who’s benefiting. Perhaps The Denver Post can research my assertions.
Dick Rochester, Lafayette
Necessity of providing vaccinations to kids
Re: “Kid vaccines are immune to skeptics,” July 11 David Harsanyi column.
David Harsanyi’s column criticizing the state’s efforts to ensure that all parents who want to have their children immunized have access to immunizations is a confusing and ultimately irresponsible commentary.
While Harsanyi chooses immunizations for his family and admits that immunizations have saved millions of lives, he criticizes the state for not telling the “other side of the story,” which, according to him, is that immunizations are not risk-free.
While I agree that vaccinations are not risk-proof, the risks need to be measured against proven benefits. Every bit of mainstream medical science is clear – the risk of not immunizing your child is far outweighed by any risk associated with immunizing your child. We know that it’s only through immunizations that we have eradicated smallpox and polio.
Because of the proven health benefits of immunizations, the state of Colorado will continue to advocate for immunizations and will continue its effort to ensure that all parents who want to have their child immunized have access to immunizations.
Harsanyi points to the chickenpox vaccine as evidence of the “other side of the story.” Here are the facts on the chickenpox vaccine: It has been in use for many years and there is no evidence of its use being associated with disease later in life. In fact, a childhood immunization for chickenpox correlates to a lower risk of a painful condition later in life known as shingles.
This information is posted at the “Immunize Colorado’s Kids: Protect the Ones You Love” website, www.immunizecoloradoskids.org.
The other confusing aspect of Harsanyi’s column is his recitation of our immunization rates for different vaccines, the misguided point of which is that because Colorado’s immunization rates exceed Third World levels, the state’s efforts to protect children from disease through timely immunizations are unnecessary. Perhaps, in Harsanyi’s next column, he can share with us how many unimmunized children are acceptable to him before the issue can be addressed.
Harsanyi might also clarify his point in regard to rates of vaccine-preventable diseases in Colorado as measured against immunizations in Colorado. His point seems to be that while our immunization rate may be low, that’s unimportant because our rate of disease is also low. He misses the point.
First, those numbers don’t correlate with each other given that Colorado’s population isn’t static; people move, therefore we don’t know that we’re talking about the same universe. Further, immunizations administered by the age of 2 are the collective target of Colorado’s campaign because those rates are the lowest and that population is the most vulnerable to disease. The overall disease rate is for all Coloradans.
Parents need accurate information to make the best decisions for their children. The most accurate information with respect to immunizations is that mainstream scientific evidence shows the tremendous protections that vaccines provide to Colorado’s most vulnerable citizens.
Douglas H. Benevento, Executive Director, Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
The future of the Supreme Court and nominee John C. Roberts Jr.
Re: “Bush picks conservative with short bench record,” July 20 news story.
The job of Supreme Court justices is to interpret the U.S. Constitution. Nowhere in the Constitution is there a single word about abortion or homosexuality, or even an allusion to these matters. Therefore, for a senator to question a nominee to the court about these matters would be inappropriate and deserves no answer. It is like asking the nominee his favorite color or whether he likes country-western music – totally out of bounds and inappropriate.
William Horton, Loveland
…
At a time when the world needs so desperately for the United States to take a leadership position in the most urgent challenge facing the world today, global warming, Judge John G. Roberts Jr.’s records show he will only take us backwards in environmental policies. The main reason the Bush administration has targeted such a controversial judicial choice is to take attention away from the Karl Rove scandal. What a dirty political trick!
Bonnie Lowdermilk, Boulder
…
It’s hard to tell how John G. Roberts Jr. will conduct himself as a Supreme Court justice. Since his appointment to the D.C. Circuit Court was so recent, he has little experience and no record to speak of. However, his actions as a corporate lawyer and Republican political appointee do make him look rather like a right-wing ideologue.
During the confirmation process, it is vital that Judge Roberts be questioned closely about his principles and opinions, so that a rational decision can be made. I would have liked to have seen another mainstream conservative in the tradition of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, rather than this relatively unknown and potentially radical nominee.
Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., was quoted as saying Roberts is “neither a confrontational nor a consensus nomination to the Supreme Court.” Schumer added, “He’s in the middle.” However, this is quite misleading – a consensus nomination would have been “in the middle,” as ordinarily understood. In fact, this nominee is in the middle of the right wing.
Douglas Kretzmann, Highlands Ranch
…
George W. Bush has demonstrated his arrogance and ignorance by selecting someone to the Supreme Court who is far from mainstream.
When Bush was narrowly elected to a second term, he declared that he would do his best to unite the country.
I am in my 50s, so what the court does won’t affect me as much as my daughters (and future grandchildren), as they are both in their 20s.
I fear that the country is headed in the wrong direction, and now with another conservative headed for the court, the writing is on the wall.
Linda J. Rudzinskas, Lone Tree
Suburban land zoning
Re: “Cities wrestle with growth,” July 17 editorial.
As one of the proponents of the citizen referendum petition drive your editorial refers to, I must clear up some misconceptions – though I agree with 80 percent of the editorial.
As citizens, we are not presently seeking to recall our council. Four of the seven seats in Westminster are up for election in November, with two being vacated due to term limits. We recognize our fundamental constitutional right to recall our elected officials, but are focusing our energies on another fundamental constitutional right: the right to petition the government. We are exercising our right to petition for a referendum and ask our council either to repeal the changes they made to our comprehensive land use plan and to the zoning of the land or to refer the matter to a vote.
Contrary to your statement, we do not have “Hate Wal-Mart, will travel” on our business cards. We have many Wal-Mart patrons in our organization, but the battle has left many disillusioned and they have stopped shopping with Wal-Mart and returned their Sam’s Club cards. From the day this nightmare of a proposal was brought forth, we have been fighting the changes to the land use and zoning and not necessarily Wal-Mart. We believe that any big-box store that operates 24 hours a day is not compatible and harmonious with our neighborhood.
We are unhappy that our City Council, after receiving six hours of testimony related to the land use criteria – not philosophical issues – spent almost an hour belittling and cajoling our remarks as “emotion.” We are unhappy that council members stuck their heads in the sand like ostriches for four months and said they couldn’t talk to us because they were in “quasi-judicial” mode.
Ours is a group of homeowners, business owners and everyday average citizens who are unhappy with how we were treated by our elected officials and who are simply exercising our fundamental rights.
Larry Dean Valente, Westminster
Supreme Court ruling on restraining orders
Re: “What does ‘shall’ mean?” July 17 guest commentary.
G. Kristian Miccio writes about the meaning of the word “shall,” as it is used in a Colorado law stating that law enforcement officers “shall use every reasonable means to enforce a restraining order.” I think Miccio analyzed the wrong word. She should have analyzed the word “reasonable.”
Assuming a violation of a restraining order did in fact occur, what are the “reasonable” means and steps the Castle Rock Police Department should have taken to enforce a nonviolent (up to that point) violation of a court order that is, at best, a misdemeanor?
Is it “reasonable” for one or more Castle Rock police officers to leave their jurisdiction and drive to Denver to look for the needle in a haystack – a father with three kids who said he was at Elitch Gardens, but who could have actually been anywhere?
Is it “reasonable” for anyone to expect the Denver Police Department to send enough officers to Elitch’s to try to locate a misdemeanor suspect who may or may not have actually been there? And just how were they expected to do that? Do they demand that everyone at the park provide ID?
I’ll grant anyone this: The case in question ended in tragedy. But we expect our law enforcement officers to use “reasonable” means to enforce the law – not think of the worst-case scenario imaginable and call out the National Guard to find a misdemeanor suspect at Elitch’s.
Robert E. Forman, Lakewood
…
The truth of restraining orders is that they criminalize behavior that is not illegal to prevent behavior that is already illegal. They are issued in the belief that a piece of paper signed by a judge will prevent what the law and all its punishments cannot.
The question raised by Castle Rock vs. Gonzales is whether those who hold restraining orders have a right to greater protection from crime than the rest of us. The Supreme Court in effect ruled they don’t, avoiding thereby the creation of two classes of citizens: those with restraining orders and those without. In doing so, the court affirmed that we’re all equal before the law, and entitled to the same protection – or lack of it.
Paul C. Robbins, Arvada
GOP adviser’s support of state fiscal changes
Re: “GOP adviser takes party to task,” July 17 Diane Carman column.
It was most amusing to see GOP consultant Katy Atkinson shake her finger at the Colorado Republican faithful for opposing TABOR-wrecking Referendum C and its permanent taxing/spending increases. When left-leaning, mercenary, Republicans-in-name-only like Atkinson get enthusiastic top-billing in the column of liberal darling Diane Carman, they should know they are sitting in the wrong pew.
Atkinson certainly seems to have earned her pay by getting such great free press for her employers – the “Yes on C and D” campaign – who apparently favor the traditionally liberal tactics of fear and class division in spreading the misinformation about their assault on fiscally responsible government.
Anthony J. Fabian, Aurora
TO THE POINT: Short takes from readers
Regarding the London terrorist bombings: The same thing could happen here. It seems to me that it is impossible to check every person and every backpack, and as little as 10 pounds of explosives can do horrible damage. Why not seriously regulate the sale and possession of all explosive materials?
J.W. Adams, Denver
A recent article on the London bombings said it was “the worst terrorist attack (in London) since World War II.” The writer should have either (a) explained what “terrorist attack” took place 60 years ago; or (b) know that not all catastrophes are terrorists’ heinous work. Some are committed by wartime enemies, some by madmen or insurgents, etc.
Ed Wager, Denver
I have to chuckle every time I see a hulking SUV with a “Support our Troops” ribbon on it. If it weren’t for these gas hogs, we wouldn’t be in Iraq trying to steal their oil. So, if you really want to support our troops, get a fuel-efficient, environmentally friendly car instead of the behemoth you’re driving.
Michael Kanarish, Parker
“Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is.” A Democrat criticizing President Bush’s handling of the Iraq war? No. It’s George W. Bush in 1999, on Clinton’s intervention in Kosovo.
Ben Anderson, Castle Rock
To have your comments printed in To the Point, please send letters of no more than 40 words to openforum@denverpost.com (no attachments, please) or 1560 Broadway, Denver, 80202. Writers are limited to one letter per month.
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 or PO Box 1709, Denver, 80201
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.
