Readers defend a scruffy QB
Re: “Shave and a haircut?” Jan. 15 Open Forum.
Letter-writer Gayle Merves, who criticized Broncos quarterback Jake Plummer’s appearance, is an example of people who have issues with nonconformity. They have a preconceived idea of how things should be, based on upbringing/belief. Plummer is not a role model. Regarding the public, Plummer is a professional athlete; the rest of his life is his own. How he chooses to look is his own business and his right. Obviously, there are those who have a strong attachment to certain cultural beliefs. Such attitudes are limiting and belong to an old (former) world. However, we are free to choose, and if that violates conformity or cultural norms, so be it.
Wanda Beliz, Colorado Springs
…
Gayle Merves’ letter unnerved me, as does all the criticism that Jake Plummer has gotten this season over his “scruffy” looks. While I agree that he does look scruffy, apparently people didn’t pay adequate attention to The Post’s Jan. 8 article (“Plummer’s true grit lies beneath his scruffy looks”). Jake is what he is – just a normal boy from Idaho who doesn’t put on a persona just to please the public.
Do we remember Darryl Strawberry? One of the sharpest dressers in the sports world and certainly a role model for young ones – but he couldn’t stay away from cocaine. Jake isn’t spending his money carelessly on drugs, fast cars or wild women. He is just a regular person who really doesn’t seem to care what people think of his looks.
He has gotten us this far in the season with the Super Bowl right around the corner, and people are complaining about his looks?
Andrea Martinez, Thornton
…
I’m completely perplexed by the clamor over Jake Plummer’s looks. It seems as though our society has taken 10 steps back toward the rigid conformity of the 1950s. In an age of excess, greed and arrogance, it’s refreshing to see an athlete whose sole purpose isn’t buying jewelry and driving a Cadillac Escalade. I am impressed not only by Jake’s actions, but by his individuality of his outward appearance. In today’s society, shallowness and superficiality take precedence over actions, and the obsession over imagery is only perpetuated by talk show hosts and sportscasters. Coloradans would do well to follow Jake’s character instead of standing in judgment of appearances.
Liz Feeney, Denver
…
The statement that Jake Plummer is a role model for many boys and girls may or may not be true. He is indeed a public figure. As parents, we must also consider teaching our children to have role models in all areas of life – teachers and family members, etc. Equally we must remind our children and ourselves that to judge a person by their looks, their clothing or the condition of their hair is very shallow. Also, many times, it is an inaccurate way to assess a person. The Post’s Jan. 8 article indicated that Jake Plummer has many attributes personally as well as professionally.
Jake, your looks are not “insulting to all fans.” Our family says: Go, Jake! Be who you are and, by the way, good luck against the Steelers on Sunday.
Peggy Webb, Fort Collins
…
Jesus Christ had a beard and long hair and, forgive me for saying, could appear a bit “scruffy” in some depictions. Though I am surprised that God allowed him to look this way, he turned out to be a pretty good role model for a whole lot of people. Seems to me that Jake Plummer is in good company!
Dave Oeser, Evergreen
Supreme Court nominee’s
confirmation hearings
Re: “No reason to block Senate’s Alito vote,” Jan. 17 editorial.
This editorial was déjà vu. The Denver Post is “hoping” again: “We hope Alito will moderate his views … .” This was eerily like your endorsement of Bush during the last election: “So the president has our endorsement for a second term, even as we call on him to steer a more moderate course that is in keeping with his campaign appearances, but not his first-term performance.”
When will the media wake up? These neocons are not about to adopt a more moderate viewpoint on anything, no matter how much The Denver Post “hopes.” It’s time for Democrats and all people who still have a conscience to demand a filibuster on this judge. If not now, when?
While Karl Rove and his flock want to make illegal immigration the main topic for this election, I “hope” to turn the spotlight on the corporate media, who have made “news” nothing more than “disinfotainment.”
Tom Satriano, Golden
…
In its editorial, The Post writes: “We tend to agree with Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., who said on Sunday, ‘This is a man I might disagree with. That doesn’t mean he shouldn’t be on the court.”‘
Huh? What kind of logic is that? This is a lifetime appointment. You give very good reasons why the Senate should block Alito: reproductive rights, privacy and executive power. Alito sits on the wrong side of all three of these vital issues.
Why is this not considered an “extraordinary circumstance”? Alito will likely vote to overturn Roe vs. Wade. He supports the unitary executive theory, which exaggerates the power of the president. What happened to advice and consent? What happened to separation of powers? What happened to checks and balances that were written into our constitution?
Bob Koch, Aurora
…
Regardless of party affiliation, everyone should be concerned about Samuel Alito’s nomination to the Supreme Court. As noted by John Aloysius Farrell’s Jan. 15 column (“Another turn of a century”), Judge Alito stands with Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and John Roberts as favoring the rights of the wealthy, corporations and government over the right of the individual.
What does this mean for you? Imagine being required to submit to not only a credit and drug check when applying for a job or loan but also having to give a complete medical history. What about being fired by a company wanting to cut health care costs because you weren’t able to quit smoking according to their schedule?
Throw in the belief that the executive branch has “imperial” powers and that a signed statement by the president negates any laws in which he disagrees. The courts have struck down overreaching provisions of the Patriot Act. Remove judicial oversight, and the executive branch will have unmitigated power. Imagine having to give DNA in the interest of national security. Imagine torture of disrupters, be they anti-war activists or Minutemen on patrol on the Mexican border. Imagine the constitutional crisis if Congress finally wakes up and provides oversight.
Still can’t see it? Imagine if the president’s name was “Hillary.”
Marilee Louis Posavec, Littleton
…
History all over again
Re: “Another turn of a century,” Jan. 15 John Aloysius Farrell column.
John Aloysius Farrell accurately points out the parallels between the politics and policies of our present-day Age of Terror and the “Gilded Age” of the late 1800s. And while the prospect of the Supreme Court reverting to an obstructionist and reactionary court of last resort is disheartening, the light at the end of the tunnel is that once all branches of government are hostile to the rights and welfare of the people, the soon to be pent-up energy of the masses will begin to push through the blockage on the local, state and ultimately federal levels.
The progressive policies of the ’60s and ’70s sparked a conservative backlash and mobilized conservative organizing and political action. Conservatives might think they have put a lid on an “activist” court and government, but as history indicates, they may have merely sown the seeds of their undoing. The wheel will turn again and the excesses of conservative activism will be rolled back. It might take a generation or two, so conservatives needn’t panic – there’ll be plenty of time for money and power to be siphoned upward.
In the end, a conservative Supreme Court might be the best thing to happen to grassroots progressive organizing and activism since, well, the turn of the last century.
John Wilkens, Boulder
…
Home-schooling
Re: “Why I home-school my children,” Jan. 15 Colorado Voices column.
Tess Riley did an excellent job of listing all the right reasons to home-school, and I applaud parents who adhere to the rigor to do this job right. But then she detailed her reason – “the cruelty of children to children” – and I found myself angry and appalled. Though she is naive to believe that she can honestly protect her children from the “big bad world” by keeping them out of it, she is certainly free to parent as she chooses. But I was livid at her presentation style, which suggests her reason is actually a superior reason to home- school and that somehow her children will be able to operate in some utopian plane she feels students within school systems could not attain due to competition and negative feedback.
This is a family newspaper, so I can’t describe in accurate words how stupid I feel this notion is. It worries me that educated people think it is possible or even desirable to avoid the real world. If Riley is so worried, she likely won’t have her kids participate in sports or team- based activates, where competition and perhaps negative feedback are normal and often a growth opportunity.
Terry Rudd, Fort Collins
…
America’s terrorist threat
Re: “The Battle of America,” Jan. 15 John Andrews column.
John Andrews’ column was right on target. The War on Terrorism is the greatest threat to our American way of life. What we see and hear daily from the mainstream media and the left-wing Democrats in Congress is a direct parallel to what Britain faced going into World War II.
The likes of Kennedy, Durbin, Biden, Kerry, Leahy, Pelosi, Feinstein, et al, are the Neville Chamberlains of our government, their heads stuck in the sand, totally oblivious to the real danger of radical Islamists, not only to America, but to the entire world. Sadly, they prefer to play politics instead of standing up for the security of our country.
Like him or not, President Bush is the closest thing America has to Churchill. He clearly sees the danger to our country and has had the fortitude to make the tough decisions required by his oath of office.
Withdrawing from the War on Terror is no option. The American public had best wake up quickly or we will all be wearing scruffy beards or burkas and be subject to religious police.
Dee Laird, Montrose
…
John Andrews’ parallel of President Bush’s current battle against terrorism and Britain’s stand against the Nazi Luftwaffe assault on London is a weak argument for supporting this administration’s response to Sept. 11 by invading Iraq. It appears that if you are not a lemming of the Bush administration, you are an elitist out “to destroy the United States as a nation.” I wonder if Andrews still believes Dick Cheney’s rhetoric that Iraq was responsible for Sept. 11. Iraq and al-Qaeda were not synonymous before our invasion. Bush, Cheney and Rumsfield may have the right string but they’ve got the wrong yo-yo.
If Winston Churchill displayed the incompetence in meeting the Nazi threat that the Bush administration has shown in meeting the terrorist threat, Churchill would have forgone the Germans and attacked Russia.
Hal Lenhart, Lakewood
…
John Andrews claims Islamic terrorists want to “drive us from democracy and civil liberties” and are aided by Democratic critics, but President Bush is achieving that agenda just fine on his own. It’s ironic that this column comes during a judicial confirmation battle when conservatives like Andrews cry for strictly interpreting the Constitution and respecting the will of legislative majorities. Yet Bush acts as though the law and Constitution don’t apply to him. When he signed the law passed with overwhelming congressional support that outlawed the torture of detainees, Bush quietly reserved the right to bypass it under his powers as commander in chief. This means Bush believes he can waive the restrictions, and raises questions about whether he intends to follow the law. Bush’s warrantless wiretaps already show that the law comes second to presidential power.
While the mortal threat may come from terrorists, the threat to our constitutional democracy and civil rights comes from the Bush administration.
Andrew Ross, Denver
…
Parenthood vs. careers: What about equality?
Re: “Motherhood vs. advancing a career,” Jan. 15 Open Forum.
Every time the newspaper runs an article about working mothers, I brace myself for the barrage of letters from self-righteous stay-at- home mothers.
I just graduated from college and as I prepare to launch a career, I keep waiting for someone to explain why I, and not my male counterparts, have to choose between work and home. Education is supposed to push us closer to equality, yet only I am expected to give up my career or risk being labeled selfish and materialistic.
Last Sunday’s letter-writers take it a step further when they imply that a woman cannot work full- time and be a good mother. What about the women who have no choice? I’m not talking about the tough sacrifice of giving up a Hawaiian vacation, but about the millions of women who have to work because their family needs that income to survive. My mother was one of those women and I couldn’t be more proud. She didn’t have hours to prepare fresh and healthy meals every night, but my sister and I are happy, successful, and – shocker of all shockers – neither of us is obese.
Jennifer Brown, Denver
…
I am constantly amazed that as women we are so quick to condemn the choices that other women make every day. Who decides who stays home, who should work for income because they have to and who should have a “career” because they choose to? Is it only low-income or single women who should be taking their children to child care? Isn’t being a full-time mom also a valuable career choice? Instead of defending your own choice as the only right one, why not assume that every parent wants what is best for their child and that they know what that is? Why not support the idea that families have choices, and smart, healthy children thrive in many different environments?
Gretchen Davidson, Centennial
…
Insights and reactions to
“Brokeback Mountain”
Letter-writer Bill Hannah (Jan. 15 Open Forum) asserts that he won’t see “Brokeback Mountain” because he can’t relate to it. If Hannah only sees movies he can immediately relate to, then I guess he probably hasn’t seen “Star Wars” (since he’s never participated in intergalactic battle); “Titanic” (since he wasn’t on the sinking ship); or “E.T.” (since he did not befriend any aliens as a child). Part of the magic of film is that it can transport us to other worlds, other cities, or simply into other situations, and help us for a moment to envision a life other than our own.
I’m not gay and I’ve never had to struggle with the discrimination and emotional turmoil that gay men and women face – but watching “Brokeback Mountain” allowed me to spend two hours understanding what it might feel like. After all, the movie is ultimately not really about being gay – it’s about how difficult it is to live in a world that doesn’t accept you for who you are. And that is something that nearly anyone can relate to.
Allison Niekerk, Denver
…
I am not puzzled at all as to why the closet homophobic gentlemen don’t want to see this film. They are afraid, first of all, that even being seen in line for it could result in someone mistaking them for a gay man. Perish the thought. Then, of course, if they did see the film they might actually feel something for the characters’ dilemma. That would make them gay for sure. We all know how easily folks can be “recruited” to be gay. Being straight is a fragile thing. It must be carefully guarded.
The best thing about Diane Carman’s Jan. 8 column (“‘Brokeback’ dares us to take heart”) was that she wrote it and you printed it. The next best thing were the letters of response you published from those annoyed by what she said. Fear is an amazing thing, best thrust toward others. Facing one’s own fears is way too much, at least for the letter-writers you published.
Gary Giem, Denver
…
Contrary to what some of your letter-writers seem to believe, masculinity is not an exclusive trait of heterosexual men. The movie “Brokeback Mountain” didn’t invent this truth, it merely reveals it to a larger audience. Furthermore, it’s a mistake to think that the healthy portrayal of masculine gay men somehow emasculates straight men. While it may be true that the world was easier for some straight guys when gay men were just silly, effeminate queers (as they are often portrayed on television), the value of Annie Proulx’s story and the movie made from it is to the countless young gay boys who prize their masculinity yet mistakenly believe that because of their orientation they must somehow compromise it.
Wes Hempel, Berthoud
…
A reader’s omnibus review
Re: Jan. 15 Perspective section.
Sharon Sherman’s story of a miner’s daughter (“Coal dust embedded in miners’ veins”) was beautifully composed, poignant in every regard. That is writing.
Christine Johnson, Community College of Denver president, provided an excellent critique of remedial education’s necessity (“Prepare students for college, future”). Read it and weep.
Tess Riley, a stay-at-home mother, is invested in her children and isn’t embarrassed to say why (“Why I home-school my children”). Bravo.
Patrick Holmes gets it right right off the bat and admits his urban planning pals have invented so many acronyms (LULU, BANANA, NOPE) that even they no longer know what they’re talking about (“Wrestling with slurbs and exopolises”). Certainly an incisive diagnosis, while graciously ignoring the duration of the plague.
Ed Quillen, ever cute, less frequently cogent, doesn’t know we’re at war (“Those poor, helpless victims”). Perhaps that’s the way it is in Salida, although I noticed telegraph lines and a Pony Express station there. Flash: We were attacked by radical Islamist fascists on Sept. 11. Flash squared: The Constitution, and Congress in multiple resolutions, gave President Bush all necessary power to act against them, regardless of who or where they are.
John Andrews’ “Battle of America” hit the nail on the head. There is no equivocation or mystery here. Hopefully it’s a wakeup call rather than the whistle of the last train leaving.
Bud Markos, Grand Junction
