State Board of Education
Re: “Let’s ‘close’ state education board,” March 19 guest commentary.
Tony Lewis, executive director of the Donell-Kay Foundation, wrote, “It is time to close the State Board of Education – as New Mexico, Florida and Ohio have done – and reconstitute it in a form that moves beyond political bickering and partnership to one that is truly concerned with our children’s future.”
The way I see it, “political bickering” is another word for democracy. If it stifles what needs to be done, that is not good; but people disagree – that is democracy. It is not perfect, but it usually works.
Mark S. Kern, Boulder
…
Tony Lewis may or may not be right in his suggestion to reconstitute the Colorado Board of Education as governor appointees. It is crystal clear to me, however, that members of that body willing to devote an entire meeting on micro-managing a single teacher in a single high school in a single Colorado school district don’t possess the requisite mentality to serve in such a capacity.
Robert Hofmann, Golden
Is George W. Bush’s constancy a valuable asset – or is he ignoring reality?
Re: “Staying the course,” March 19 John Aloysius Farrell column.
Constancy is a valuable asset for a leader, as John Aloysius Farrell points out. Singled out as the key to a leader’s attitude, behavior and decision-making, it leaves room for doubt and fear. Irrevocable constancy may well disguise stubbornness and righteousness which move forward come hell or high water. Given the debacle in Iraq and the futility of this war on terrorism, I believe a leader needs more valuable traits, gifts and moral stability.
Constancy, in the hands of an incompetent, is a surefire script for disaster, division and devastating ripples which touch on every aspect of governing. In a pinch, competency is more important.
What America has caused in Iraq demands our staying for the long haul until Iraq can stand on its own. The sadness of war’s toll on human life, and spread of hate, animosity, fear and injustice, will be our burden to carry. The sadness will give way to futility and disgust should the Iraqi people choose tribal loyalty to national consensus. It will take form under the guise of democracy. Hopefully, it will teach a lesson which stares us in the face. Given cultural, religious ties and historical remembrances of hate and fear, the people will choose the safety of their own kind rather than trust in the fidelity and good will of others similarly minded. May the long haul be better planned than the war itself.
Mark Franceschini, Denver
…
I am disappointed that John Aloysius Farrell has been swept away by a simplistic admiration for President Bush’s “constancy” on the Iraq war. When a president leads his country down the wrong path, constancy is not a virtue.
The constant in Iraq has been the arrogance and bad judgment of the Bush team. Its continuing mistakes are killing our soldiers.
The one Bush insider with war experience, Colin Powell, was ignored when he tried to teach the lessons of Vietnam. His “Powell Doctrine” warned that the U.S. should not go to war without overwhelming force, strong public support and a clear exit strategy. Instead, Donald Rumsfeld sent too few troops to maintain order, Bush squandered public support with misinformed and illogical reasons for invading Iraq and the administration had no strategy beyond shock and awe.
The president has stayed the course by refusing to fire anyone on his tragically incompetent war-fighting team. Now, Iraq is our latest quagmire: a war we cannot win and a war we cannot leave.
This is constancy. But it’s certainly no virtue.
Bill Becker, Golden
…
Congratulations to columnist John Aloysius Farrell for finally listening carefully to a George W. Bush speech and writing about it without injecting his own political bias. How refreshing!
Percy Conarroe, Longmont
…
Concerning John Aloysius Farrell’s Sunday column inexplicably praising the dogged constancy (some unpatriotic types might go so far as to call it obstinacy) of the president in regard to his Iraqi misadventure, an old Ralph Waldo Emerson quote seems especially apt:
“A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.”
David B. Eichenberger, Littleton
Psychics and skepticism
Re: “A spiritual medium at large,” March 19 Style story.
Grief counseling is serious business. That’s why gullible readers were done a disservice by your puff piece on so-called medium Rebecca Rosen. Had The Post done even minimal research, it would have found that Rosen’s trick is called “cold reading,” which has been practiced by magicians and supposed mind readers for ages to convince their subjects they could talk with people who have died. It’s a sham.
You’re a newspaper, not a tabloid. If you choose to ignore science and facts – and journalistic balance – to promote psychics, mystics and faith healers, a warning to your more naive readers is warranted.
Walt Barnhart, Littleton
…
I was happy to see the story on Rebecca Rosen and was hoping someone would interview this amazing woman. I had seen her a couple months ago on “Entertainment Tonight” and was impressed.
When she came to Colorado, I made appointment since I had lost my soul mate to pancreatic cancer and wanted to connect and make sure he was OK. I know she was communicating with my husband. She knew he was funny and the words she said were exactly words he used. There was no way she could have had knowledge of the things she was communicating to me. I was so relieved to get to “communicate” with him. I had such a sense of peace when I left. I am grateful she taped it, also, because of all the messages she was relaying – it was so overwhelming and I knew I couldn’t remember it all.
I am very happy she chose to move to Colorado. I hope she is successful here, because she certainly deserves it.
Pamela Parker, Westminster
Critical thinking and state’s school system
Re: “Bennish case shows our school system is broken,” March 19 John Andrews column.
The Jay Bennish case shows our school system is broken? How about the idea that the extremists have no clue what is really going on? Between the ranting of John Andrews, talk-show host Mike Rosen and lawyer David Lane, where has the civil dialogue gone? Everyone seems to have their own agenda. No one caring about what really went on in the classroom, just how it could be used to promote their personal agenda. That is what makes me worried and sad for the country and political system I love.
Come on, people, respect one another’s points of view. That’s what this country was founded on – democratic dialogue.
Have you ever wondered why we have fewer people involved in the democratic processes in this state? Sadly, in this case it’s the extremes yelling and we the public have to listen to this noise. It’s tearing us apart.
Ernie Diller, Denver
…
John Andrews writes, “‘Critical thinking,’ you need to know, is a code phrase for post-modern intellectual relativism, disallowing all truths including the self-evident ones of our founding.”
Perhaps Andrews should stop repeating conservative talk-show pap and do some critical thinking of his own. In a graduate management program I recently completed, one of the required texts was “Critical Thinking” by Richard Paul and Linda Elder. Two passages from this book are worth considering when judging the accuracy of Andrews’ view of critical thinking:
1. “In short, absence of intellectual humility is common among all classes of people in all walks of life at all ages. It follows that active or passive resistance to the challenge of critical thinking is the common, not the rare, case. Whether in the form of a careless shrug or outright hostility, most people reject the challenge of critical thinking.”
2. “If we become either a subjective relativist of a dogmatic absolutist, we will lose our motivation to develop as a critical thinker. As a subjective relativist, we will come to believe that everyone acquires ‘their own truth’ in some inexplicable relativist way. As a dogmatic absolutist, we end up following wherever our ‘faith’ leads us. In both cases, there is no real place for the intellectual work and discipline of critical thinking. Both render it superfluous. Both free us from any intellectual responsibility.”
We in the United States, and especially in the U.S. government, need more critical thinkers who are up to the “intellectual work and discipline” required.
Keith Stinebaugh, Golden
Illegal immigration
Re: “Catholic bishops urge calm in debate on immigration,” March 19 news story.
The article detailing how local Catholic bishops are encouraging their parishioners to support immigration reform, i.e. amnesty for illegal aliens, contains a quote at the end that must be addressed. Mar Munoz states that “people living in the shadows” – in other words, illegal aliens – “have a right not to live in fear.” What he obviously left out was the end to his thought – that they have the right not to live in fear of the law. We are a country of laws and hopefully someday the federal government will begin to enforce our immigration laws.
Rhonda Roseto, Westminster
Demolition permit process
Re: “Denver deserves a demolition review law,” March 19 Susan Barnes-Gelt column.
Susan Barnes-Gelt argues that Denver needs a demolition permit process to protect historic buildings. What she doesn’t mention as a reason to review a demolition applications is the stability of a neighborhood.
While we prevent humans interrupting the lifestyles of ubiquitous mice, reindeer and decrepit old buildings of marginal architectural or historic value, we encourage the destruction of viable communities with little but local objection. I refer to the destructions of the Auraria and Arrowhead neighborhoods and the attempted destruction of Globeville and other willy-nilly projects which replace viable human communities with projects of such stupidity that they beg logic. Displaced residents of the destroyed Auraria neighborhood continue to hold reunions to this day. The slum that replaced the living Arrowhead neighborhood didn’t last 25 years. Globeville thrives today despite warnings by the planners of 1975 that it was doomed.
At what point does urban planning begin to recognize that its purpose is to provide viable human settlement?
Tom Morris, Denver
Judging the tenure of outgoing Interior Secretary Gale Norton
Re: “Gale Norton’s legacy; Judge her tenure fairly,” March 19 Perspective article.
Patricia Limerick and Tim Brown’s article on Gale Norton’s legacy raised by omission an important point. The authors note that Stewart Udall’s accomplishments as secretary of the Interior show that he was a driving force for conservation who also expanded energy development on public lands. It is very telling that nowhere in their lengthy article do the authors lay out any conservation accomplishments by Norton, the outgoing secretary.
Many have been critical of her tenure because Norton focused so extensively on oil and gas development that many Rocky Mountain public lands have been transformed from “multiple use” lands to single-use oil and gas fields. This is not, as the authors suggest, driven entirely by market forces, but by a lack of balance and conservation leadership. Under Norton’s leadership, oil and gas leases have even been issued for areas proposed for wilderness protection.
Norton had as many opportunities as other secretaries of the Interior to promote conservation through the considerable mission of the Department of the Interior, yet she chose not to. The legacy she leaves behind is unbalanced and speaks for itself.
Ann J. Morgan, Denver
The writer is vice president for public lands for The Wilderness Society.
…
In Patricia Limerick and Tim Brown’s defense of Secretary Interior Gale Norton and her “legacy,” I can agree on one thing. Being secretary of the Interior is a difficult job. But whatever conflicting issues she had to face, one of her major tasks should have been to protect our public resources.
Limerick and Brown should have talked to the hard-working biologists and other scientists for the Bureau of Land Management, the National Park Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Bureau of Reclamation. I suspect that more than 90 percent of them would conclude that Norton did not protect these resources. Many have left the government in disgust. Whether she ignored the science and its conclusions on the health of Park Service personnel and wildlife as she did in Yellowstone National Park and the use of snowmobiles, or allowed political staffers to edit and change scientific documents, or “streamlined” to take away review of projects by the public or other federal agencies, I suspect her term and legacy will go down as one of the most damaging to our public lands.
In my opinion, the criticism Norton is getting is justly deserved. These are supposed to be our public resources, not Exxon’s, that she has helped to destroy.
Wayne Wathen, Highlands Ranch
TO THE POINT: Short takes from readers
Those advocating drug legalization don’t seem happy with 10 percent of people among us now being deranged. Would they be happy with 70 percent of deranged minds around us after legalization?
Lou Daunora, Lakewood
Why will smoking be legal in Colorado casinos but illegal in bars? Is it because of the revenue the state collects from the casinos? The health hazard is the same in both places.
Richard Welch, Denver
Given the two full pages of advice on how to cope with the major storm that wasn’t (March 20 Denver Post), it’s time again to remember the weatherman’s theorem: “The intensity of the storm is inversely proportional to the intensity of the ballyhoo.”
Jim Muhm, Englewood
Instead of giving our state legislators a pay raise, let’s cut the time they spend trying to run our lives. How about limiting the legislature to 90 days instead of 120 or reduce the number of bills they can sponsor from five to three?
David Aitken, Denver
Now that the war in Iraq has reached three years, we should ask ourselves:
a) Are the Iraqi people more secure and better off?
b) Are U.S. citizens more secure and better off?
c) Is Halliburton better off?
Robert Fink, Arvada
President Bush says we are not only in a war of arms, but “a war of ideas,” and he thinks he’s just the man to lead the free world into intellectual combat. Does anyone else see a problem here?
Rich Cantillon, Centennial
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.
