Mile-high birthday party gone awry
The Broncos were embarrassed last Saturday night. Not on the field, where they demonstrated class, but in “Mardi Gras annex” – section 528 of Invesco Field at Mile High.
A ninth birthday outing for my son – a Denver resident but Patriots fan – quickly went awry in the first quarter as a drunken “fan” landed in his lap from the row above. What followed was a barrage of trash, beer bottles, mystery liquids and “F” bombs that rained on us throughout the game. Security was earnest, but overwhelmed.
My son’s first, and last, Invesco experience started to end in the fourth quarter as “gangsta” wannabes threatened to shoot a “fellow” Denver fan, and was over when a fight erupted in the seat next to my boy. Thanks to two Denver fans for aiding in our safe exit.
Broncos management, you have provided a quality product on the field; please ensure a safe and enjoyable experience for families.
Scott Crosier, Centennial
Samuel Alito’s Senate confirmation hearings
Re: “Roe vs. Alito,” Jan. 13 editorial.
The Post says it hopes that Judge Samuel Alito “can now view in a modern context, aware that after 33 years a large majority of Americans favor choice.” Looking at readily available polling data, I found the recent Gallup poll (at pollingreport.com) from the first week of January 2006, that showed this “large majority” to be 53 percent in favor of legal abortion, 42 percent against abortion, a few other responses, and a margin of error of 3 percentage points. It’s safe to call that a majority, but not a large one. If Alito’s a good judge, his decisions will be based on the Constitution, not a popularity contest. Anyway, what credibility does 33 years give a morally reprehensible practice? So we as a nation have a long tradition of slaughtering unwanted children, even as some Americans travel overseas to adopt. I remain hopeful that within my lifetime, the “modern context” of abortion will be that it “was” a barbaric practice.
Steven Hill, Denver
…
Judge Samuel Alito’s Senate confirmation hearing is basically a job interview, and the job Alito seeks is a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land. A successful job interview is about more than avoiding gaffes and missteps, it’s about demonstrating that you’re the right person for the job. Our senators and indeed all Americans need to know where a nominee stands on the issues that affect us. Alito’s evasive, noncommittal and reticent performance should be held against him.
A job interview is only part of the process, and since he gave us so little to go on during these hearings, we need to judge him on the strength of his résumé. As an appeals court judge for the past 15 years, Alito has shown that he would likely enable burgeoning presidential power, curtail workers’ and civil rights, and defer to industry on regulatory matters. Alito will shift the balance of the Supreme Court far to the right and the Bush agenda of eviscerating the Constitution will be complete. I urge Sens. Wayne Allard and Ken Salazar to reject Alito.
Erik Darzins, Denver
Existence of the “religious right”
Letter-writer Jim Sutton (Jan. 13 Open Forum) asserts that there is no such group as the “religious right.”
Well, such a group does exist, no matter what name Sutton prefers to attach to it. Some of this group’s characteristics include the convictions that God is in absolute agreement with them; that all that is wrong in the world is the fault of those who are not; and that they have not just a right, but a duty, to convert others to their way of thought. (This is also known as “evangelism,” which Sutton proposes as an alternative to “religious right.”) The difference between evangelicals and the liberals/progressives that Sutton derides is that the latter group is content to let others live with their beliefs, as long as they do not seek to impose them on others. The boastful nature that Sutton attributes to liberals is far more evident in evangelicals’ constant assertions that they – and only they – know the true will of God.
If Sutton prefers that this group not be labeled as the “religious right,” then I will oblige him. A more fitting name would be the “theocratic insane.”
Bradley R. Cook, Lakewood
Federal tax code
Re: “Tax guru looking out for you,” Jan. 14 editorial.
Nina E. Olson, the national taxpayer advocate for the Internal Revenue Service, as stated in your editorial, made some recommendations to Congress. Her top suggestion: Simplify the tax code. The best way to do that is to adopt Steve Forbes’ flat-tax plan. This would eliminate the 9 million words of the code, reduce taxes, lower or eliminate compliance costs and make the system fairer for lower-income families. The reason there might be fraud with the earned-income tax credit is that you must file an additional schedule. To determine whether you are eligible, IRS publication No. 596 is more than 50 pages long, containing 25,000 words of “help.”
Gerald Cudney, Lone Tree
Power of the people
So many people are talking about energy. “The president should push for conservation.” “Should we allow more drilling in our country?” “China is causing our gas prices to rise.” Buy a clue, people. It’s not our president’s duty to push for conservation; rather, it’s everybody’s responsibility. The government shouldn’t be spending tax dollars on energy programs other than green technology development.
China isn’t a threat by competing for the world’s energy supplies; it’s trying to feed its people. The only thing that is going to save our nation from relying on foreign energy and supporting rogue leaders like that lunatic in Iran is a shift in demand by the consumer.
The power is not in the ground – it’s in the people.
Aron Rosenthal, Denver
Sex offenders
I am one of the average citizens who is concerned about the problem of sex offenders being everywhere. There seems to be no meaningful solution offered by anyone, but I have read about a campus- type solution suggested by Greig Veeder, founder of Teaching Humane Existence, which treats sex offenders. Here, the offenders would be located well away from our neighborhoods under close supervision and yet be able to work and pay their dues. Wouldn’t this be a more common-sense alternative to doing nothing or expensive, taxpayer-funded incarceration?
Dale Ubil, Lakewood
How to prevent the next Abramoff scandal
Here we go again! Lobbyist Jack Abramoff has started to sing in hope of reducing his pain. And his confederates, members of Congress, are bailing out and giving ill-gotten cash to charities in hope that their cries of “I didn’t know” will be believed.
How many times will we, the voting taxpayers, put up with this sad charade? Could anything be done to stop or greatly reduce it? I think so. How about if we could eliminate or greatly reduce politicians’ need for large sums of campaign funds? If congressional representatives were elected for life or for 20- to 30-year terms, they would not have to prepare financially for a future election. We would only have cases of pure greed to deal with, and recall could take care of those. The very large cost of having congressional elections would almost be eliminated because individual elections would only be needed for recall, end of term, resignation or death.
John J. Simon, Aurora
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.
