U.S. war on drugs
Re: “Drug war trumps port safety,” March 12 Perspective article.
Mike Krause makes valid points in his article on the drug war and port safety. We lost the war on drugs the day we started it. We should let the free market run the drug trade. This would benefit Third World countries like Colombia, Ecuador, Bolivia, Peru and Afghanistan. At the same time it would generate massive tax revenues in the United States and eliminate the financial drain and human misery caused by the war on drugs.
Taking a low estimate of 500 metric tons of cocaine coming to America each year, that comes to 500 million grams of cocaine, before cutting it for retail sale. Apply a low price of $100 to each gram and you get $50 billion a year for the traffickers and zero for the government. If we legalized drugs, the price would drop, but with high taxes like on cigarettes, we could generate massive revenues.
Despite decades of drug war hysteria, illegal drugs pose much less of a health risk than the two great American drugs, cigarettes and alcohol.
We can’t legislate morality. People have used mind-altering drugs for thousands of years and will continue to use them, no matter how harshly we punish such use.
Thomas K. Carberry, Denver
The n-word
Re: “The n-word,” March 12 news story.
As should any white person with a conscience, I hate hearing the ugly word “nigger,” because I believe it points at me more than at any black person. The concept of nigger in its totality is our invention; no one was a “nigger” in Africa. White people have used the word and the concept of nigger to dehumanize, subjugate and destroy countless lives over many centuries for our own personal gain. I’m horrifed that this all was done on my behalf, and that I continue to benefit from the suffering of so many in the form of white privilege. I reject unequivocally the idea that the word “nigger” can somehow be redeemed; the word and everything it encompasses is white people’s shame and a kind of original sin that we inherit from our fathers. I can’t change the past, but I can refuse to accept and participate in the whole concept of nigger in the present day. Please stop pointing this word at me.
Michael D. Whalen, Denver
…
I am a Caucasian truck driver who drives 48 states for a national company. Having grown up in Dixie, I have heard the n-word all my life – sometimes by whites or non-African-Americans and sometimes by African-Americans. It has never meant the same thing coming from different ethnic groups. When spoken by non-black ethnic groups, there is no mistaking the racial implications, and there never has been. It’s always negative, and always racial.
As a trucker, I still hear the n-word frequently on the CB radio when I’m out on the road. I never hear it uttered on the CB radio by black people. Only a coward would use the n-word on the radio, where nobody can see who the speaker is. The anonymity provided by the microphone makes a perfect cover.
To quote Maya Angelou, from a lecture she delivered here at the Pepsi Center: “When a word is poison, it is poison – no matter who utters it.”
Jim Bell, Westminster
…
What is the difference between calling someone “black” or “nigger”? Or “white” or “cracker”? (Or fill in your racist label.) Most would consider the use of “nigger” or “whitey” as clearly racist. Why isn’t the other considered just as racist? It may be more neutral in tone but isn’t what it purports to describe exactly the same?
Next time you read a newspaper article on these subjects, substitute “nigger” for “black,” “cracker” for “white,” and whatever racist slur you desire for all the others. Does it change the meaning of the article? The feel? The message?
But nothing has been fundamentally changed in the article. Why the difference? Perhaps the article was always racist but you are simply used to the racist language used. Therefore it doesn’t shock you; it is simply “normal.” Yet an article on how many niggers or wetbacks or whiteys do a certain thing would be almost unthinkable.
The only way to end racism is to not classify individuals based on certain meaningless physical traits. This is within our power to do. Let us do it. It is far past time to throw this one in the trash heap of history.
John Conlin, Littleton
…
I had some hope that newspapers had finally grown up when I started reading this article. There, in plain print, was the proper spelling of “nigger.” But then the article lapsed back into that infantile euphemism “the n-word.”
No wonder people aren’t aware that the word’s meaning is evolving. They’re afraid to even write it! How can one have a serious adult discussion in baby talk? Younger people enjoy the attention they get by using those words. Older generations seem to enjoy the attention they get from being offended by words. Both are guilty of immature behavior.
David Hakala, Denver
“Body Worlds 2” exhibit
Re: “Face to face with taboos at museum,” March 12 Diane Carman column.
Dr. Gunther von Hagens has more in common with the legendary P.T. Barnum than with the Renaissance anatomists he apes in his black fedora. Barnum would surely admire his promotion of this traveling, human taxidermy sideshow.
Trying to dignify the exhibition with a piece of Scripture at the beginning and labeling it “art” are standard ploys guaranteed to overcome any remaining shred of spiritual disquiet Western audiences might still possess.
In our increasingly postmodern, naturalistic culture, we have no scientific hope beyond this life, so we must all become good little nihilist-existentialists and bravely face up to death – and pretend that it isn’t the ugly, vile affront to life that it is. So, we will pretty it up and call it art and education, our “real” gods.
To quote a bit more Scripture, “As a ring of gold in a swine’s snout, so is a lovely woman who lacks discretion” (Proverbs 11:22).
What we have here is the latest iteration of “scientific” immortality – I wonder, when Mom dies, will the good doctor do her up for me, in a rocking chair, knitting?
Joseph Morgan, Englewood
Government and media
Re: “Freedom of Information Act helps us all,” March 12 Perspective article.
While I agree with some segments of Christine Tatum’s article as they relate to failure of the “government” to release what might be considered information necessary and vital to the public interest, certain parts of her article need to be brought back into the proper perspective.
Tatum roundly chastises the Bush administration for weakening the Freedom of Information Act, criticizing former Attorney General John Ashcroft for tightening FOIA data release standards in October 2001. She fails to acknowledge that this action occurred in the immediate aftermath of the Sept. 11 disaster. I believe that had Ashcroft not quickly acted in this manner to help minimize the possibility of additional terrorist activity, he would have been drawn and quartered by not only this newspaper, but by the general public.
As the president-elect of the national Society of Professional Journalists, and a staff writer for your paper, Tatum should surely be aware of the need for a balanced article. She should have mentioned that on Dec. 14, 2005, President Bush signed an executive order expediting access to data considered to be available under FOIA. His action created the greatest liberalizing of the standards for information release since the inception of FOIA 40 years ago.
And finally, a large part of information on file and available for possible release within the government FOIA offices is data that were required to be sent by the private sector to the various agencies of the executive branch, and might be regarded as proprietary and thereupon confidential by those individuals or firms owning the data.
I worry that Tatum and millions of others believe that no information held by the government should be regarded as sacrosanct and therefore to be held confidential. The terrorists around the world applaud this attitude, because it simplifies their job. In the interest of our country’s security, there is absolutely no need for the public to know everything critical to that national security.
Marvin O. Maul, Colorado Springs
…
Christine Tatum seems to treat the war on terrorism as some sort of fiction that doesn’t really require any secrets being held in the security interests of the nation. In fact, the commentary by Tatum seems to pit “journalists” against the “establishment” and “government,” all the way through.
The problem comes with one of the closing comments: “Consider journalists a resource.” Journalists can indeed be a resource, but the journalists at most liberal-leaning papers like The Denver Post actually gate-keep the news in a worse manner than does the evil government. Every major study in the last five years has indicated that the press reportage, in general but particularly among the mainstream press, slants its news to the left. If journalists are implying that they represent the people’s right to know, through the Freedom of Information Act or other sources, then that implication is lost in the myriad times the press reports what it considers the people should know and withholds information that it doesn’t want the public to know.
In other words, instead of focusing on the establishment and the government, perhaps the press, including Tatum, should study its own biases in relation to the job it is supposed to be doing for the people and their “right to know all the facts.”
Mike Sigman, Durango
A true modern-day hero
Re: “Cops: Killing was bid to woo woman,” March 15 news story.
I was very touched at the brave actions of murder witness Tina Schmitzer, who ran into the street and cradled a homeless man as he was being stabbed to death. Her act of kindness did not end there – she took the homeless man’s dog into her own home, bathed, fed and provided veterinary care for this dog and even found it a good home.
Too many times the stories of bravery, heroism and acts of kindness are lost in the stories of murder and mayhem. Schmitzer risked her own life for a homeless stranger, and she should be applauded as a true modern-day hero and inspiration to all of us.
Lisa Graf, Highlands Ranch
Columnist Gail Schoettler’s story of a friend’s illegal abortion in 1970
Re: “Death sentence in S.D.,” March 12 Gail Schoettler column.
Gail Schoettler begins her column by telling a story about a friend who had obtained an illegal abortion and went on to explain what a hellish ordeal it was. I doubt that few from either side of the abortion issue, if they were honest, would be willing to describe an abortion as anything but hellish. Any time anyone makes the decision to destroy a human life inside or outside the womb, such a decision comes with a heavy price.
Whether one is talking about an illegal or so-called legal abotion, one can find a “hellish” experience in any abortion. Killing doesn’t come cheap. Hiding behind a law will not reduce the woman’s anxiety or lifelong feelings of guilt or regret.
Bob Dalton, Parker
…
I was very disappointed to read Gail Schoettler’s column. I thought it might describe how the hundreds and perhaps thousands of babies saved from the hands of the abortionists in South Dakota were relieved of their “death sentence.” Instead, Schoettler’s perspective was the same misguided and anti-life philosophy which has killed millions in our country for decades – except she added a twist: it was the 80 percent male legislature that is to be blamed for taking a stand for life.
Shame on Schoettler for being so sexist, and for labeling the “pro-life agenda” as “anti-choice.” And, more than anything, shame on her for being an intelligent woman who should understand care, nurture and life.
Schoettler was right about one thing: The sea change cannot happen too soon. It is happening now before our eyes. Many are beginning to see that people of Schoettler’s ilk are purveyors of death, destroying the most innocent in our society. The sea change is a philosophy of life and respect for human worth spreading across this country. We are a part of that sea change and we won’t stop until Roe vs. Wade is overturned and every person has a chance to live.
Michael and Carla Young, Parker
Personal responsibility and South Dakota’s recent law banning abortion
J.D. Moyers’ letter to the editor (March 12 Open Forum) regarding the young mother in South Dakota dealing with another pregnancy illustrates, I suspect, the view of many people opposed to abortion: If women would just choose to refuse sex, the abortion problem would be solved.
A decision to participate, or not, in sex is not always that simple. Some women are manipulated, coerced, sold, bargained with and forced to have sex. All women are bombarded with information that they are primarily sexual beings. Many a woman or girl is psychologically, if not physically, abandoned or unsupported after being impregnated. She is then alone to experience the body distortions, physical discomfort, social changes and psychological impacts of pregnancy. For a few the process of giving birth is a death sentence.
Providing women and girls the choice of giving birth after impregnation is the humane choice until each man provides maximum care and support for the person with whom he has sex. Compassion for the person most affected by pregnancy and birth, the woman, is clearly in order until men stand with the women in their sexual decisions.
Ted Hoyer, Littleton
…
In saluting South Dakota’s anti-abortion law, J.D. Moyers says, “Raising the child or giving him/her to someone who will care for the child are better choices than death.”
Set aside the question of whether or not a fetus, or unborn child, depending on your point of view, is the same as a born child. Set aside the knotty and uncertain issues involved in the pollyannish “solution” of raising the child or giving it away.
The fact is that “civilized” society, including devout Christians, has never believed that life is always a better choice than death. The most prominent example, of course, is the decision that death is preferable to life for the millions killed in warfare, including innocent children, born and unborn. The reason for this is the perception that killing thousands of other people might, and I emphasize might, preserve our own way of life.
But there is an obvious difference. In war, it is our way of life, our convenience, if you will, that might be at stake. In abortion, it is the way of life of another person, perhaps the way of life of a 15-year-old girl who has been raped, that is, not might be, at stake. Clearly, many “Christians” consider their own way of life supremely more important than the way of life of, say, the starving woman in the Sudan or this 15-year-old girl.
Jerry Lyons, Westminster
TO THE POINT: Short takes from readers
Will our governor – who is the governor of all the people of Colorado – offer equal time to the high school geography teacher since he met with the student?
Charles Stuart, Centennial
In a recent article, an interviewee stated that gay men use meth because they are “persecuted” by heterosexuals. If use of meth by gay men is the fault of hetrosexuals, who should we blame when people who aren’t gay decide to use meth?
Stuart Ball, Longmont
I heard on the news that President Bush is now a lame duck. Don’t tell me Dick Cheney has turned against him, too!
Steven Hannon, Lakewood
Outgoing Interior Secretary Gale Norton should have absolutely no problem transitioning to the private sector. After all, that’s who she’s been representing almost exclusively the past five years.
Richard Kaup, Golden
What is going on with all these phone books? I now have eight – all for 2006. What a waste of paper; I only need one. Where can I complain?
Mary Kach, Lakewood
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.
