Disarmament of the Irish Republican Army
Re: “IRA must follow through,” Aug. 1 editorial.
The Post’s response to the IRA peace initiative was skeptical and misinformed.
If the history of the modern Irish conflict teaches us anything, it is that the IRA lives up to its promises and the British do not. Britain’s tactics involve sowing dissent and reneging on deals with Nationalists so that a reaction might be provoked.
Much to the chagrin of the British, the IRA cease-fire has held for seven years. This despite orchestrated provocations. The Belfast Agreement of 1998 called for disarmament of the IRA along with demilitarization of the six counties. After the disposal of two substantial arms caches, which were observed by General de Chastelain, the government’s monitor, and little effort by the British to remove the towers and forts, the IRA declined to continue the effort. Now the British Army fortresses and spy posts, as you noted, have begun to be dismantled.
Your “terrorist” analogy doesn’t work. Britain introduced the car bomb to Ireland in the 1974 Dublin-Monaghan bombings, which took 33 lives, mostly women and children. This was preceded in 1972 by the slaughter of Bloody Sunday and the Widgery Report, which not only excused the murdering soldiers but slandered the innocent dead. The next 30 years were about ridding the Nationalist communities of British troops and their treachery.
Your references to Catholic and Protestant misinform your reader on the nature of the conflict. It was a civil and human rights struggle from 1968 to today.
Andrew Somers, National President, Irish American Unity Conference, Fitchburg, Wisc.
—————————————-
Actor’s comments on use of antidepressants
Re: “Tom Cruise’s depressing ignorance,” Aug. 3 Michelle Ancell column.
In addition to presenting a cogent and balanced argument regarding Tom Cruise’s criticism of using antidepressants to treat postpartum depression, Michelle Ancell displayed commendable restraint. Lacking this quality myself, I would have made several additional points:
1. Scientology is not science.
2. Tom Cruise is not a scientist, doctor, psychologist or psychiatrist.
3. While science has often changed course on questions of treatment, it has never suggested that clinical depression is the result of a vitamin deficiency or a lack of exercise.
Pursuant to item 3, I wonder what Cruise would prescribe for someone who is depressed and has a heart condition or is confined to a bed. How did Christopher Reeve (a celebrity far more worthy of celebration) manage depression?
Cruise’s remarks really underscore two issues. The first is the matter of his lamentable ignorance. The second is the belief that his celebrity grants him special dispensation to trumpet uninformed views predicated on pseudoscience and prejudice. One can only hope that his public holds him to a higher standard.
Warren Rubin, Arvada
…
There are serious concerns about psychiatric drugging, and this issue has become a widespread national and international concern, not merely a controversy among the few. Psychiatry is a pseudoscience that is not based upon objective fact and experimentation, as a normal science is required to be, but rather bases its “diagnoses” of “mental disease” on subjective opinion about behavior.
For years the American Psychiatric Association has stated that mental difficulties are brain-based or the result of an “imbalance” of brain chemistry, yet APA president Steven Sharfstein admitted in June 2005, “We do not have a clean-cut lab test” to confirm this theory.
Concerning so-called postpartum depression, psychiatrist Nancy Mullan warns, “There is a terrific plummet in hormones when giving birth which needs to be normalized. Blood sugar imbalances, nutrient deficiencies, low adrenal gland function, thyroid imbalance and copper and zinc deficiencies should all be tested for. The last thing you need is an antidepressant masking or messing with this.”
Mark Carberry, Denver
The writer is spokesman for the Citizen Commission on Human Rights of Colorado, which was established by the Church of Scientology.
—————————————-
Energy production and limiting pollution
Re: “States must take the lead on coal plants,” Aug. 4 editorial.
Having once spent almost five years deeply involved in the siting and permitting process for one of the largest and most environmentally sound coal-fired plants in the Rocky Mountain area, I am acutely aware of the merits and limits of pollution-control technology for fossil plants. Coal-fired plants can be made environmentally sound except in one respect. Fossil fuels produce vast quantities of carbon dioxide, which is the greenhouse gas thought most responsible for global warming.
Yes, we should conserve, and we should make use of both wind and solar power. But those measures will provide but a drop in the bucket. If we are really concerned about global warming, then we must turn to the one clean, reliable source: nuclear energy. It produces no greenhouse gases, only manageable quantities of nuclear waste.
Every garage should contain one car, for short trips, recharged by nuclear power plants. We could thus drastically reduce carbon dioxide emissions at two levels. Giant strides have been made in nuclear safety since the Chernobyl plant was built. Seventy percent of the power in France is generated by nuclear plants.
The public needs to be educated out of its irrational fear of nuclear energy.
Richard A. Stacy, Denver
—————————————-
Stem-cell research
It is an interesting dilemma for the moral majority and religious right that U.S. Sen. Bill Frist brings by his decision to support federal funding for stem-cell research: Should this group of highly moral and religious people continue to push for the throwing away of embryonic stem cells that are not needed at fertility clinics? Or should it support scientific research on these embryonic cells that might lead to saving or bettering the lives of thousands, if not millions of humans?
Let’s go through this again: throw the cells away or conduct research on them to try to better human existence. Wow, this is really a tough moral decision to make. I hope the moral majority can find their way through this difficult issue.
Jerry Donnelly, Thayne, Wyo.
—————————————-
United recovery plan
Re: “United’s ‘plan’ needs translation,” Aug. 5 Al Lewis column.
Al Lewis shows a fundamental lack of knowledge of United Airlines’ very real progress in restructuring, the U.S. bankruptcy code and the airline industry in general. Criticizing from the sidelines without understanding or accountability is easy. It is also irresponsible and does a disservice to the many United employees in Denver and throughout the organization who have worked so hard to make United a vastly improved company since we entered bankruptcy.
United was ready to file our Plan of Reorganization on Tuesday of last week. We made the decision, however, to temporarily hold that filing at the request of our Creditors’ Committee. This is exactly the kind of collaborative approach that we have pursued throughout our restructuring. Lewis’ attempt to give a negative spin to our efforts to work closely with a key stakeholder is misleading to your readers and out of touch with the underlying facts.
Lewis’ bluster about a possible liquidation is pure sensationalism. The U.S. needs strong network carriers able to compete both domestically and overseas. The work the employees of United have done to focus on our customers, improve operational performance, reduce costs and improve revenue position United to be one of those carriers. Lewis’ contention that there has been little reinvention of United is contrary to much of the reporting that has appeared in The Denver Post.
United will exit bankruptcy and will do so as a dramatically improved, competitive company. We will, however, do that on a schedule that meets the needs of the company and our stakeholders, not those of an ill-informed columnist.
Frederic F. Brace, Chief Financial Officer, United Airlines, Chicago
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 or PO Box 1709, Denver, 80201
