Calling on education commissioner to resign
Re: “Resign, Dems tell top educator,” June 9 Denver & The West story.
My legislative colleagues, Sen. Sue Windels, D-Arvada, and Rep. Michael Merrifield, D-Manitou Springs, have never shared my enthusiasm or support for our state’s education commissioner, Bill Moloney.
So their call on him to resign as head of the state Department of Education didn’t come as much of a surprise.
What was more noteworthy was their vague reason for seeking his resignation: supposedly, a lack of leadership. I don’t buy it.
While we lawmakers are within our rights to call on just about anyone to quit office, the education commissioner answers to the state Board of Education, not the legislature. If the board has a problem with Bill Moloney’s leadership skills, it is the board’s place to take that up with him.
What’s really at issue here? It’s probably Bill’s views. In his years at the helm of the Education Department, he has proven himself to be a supporter of education reform.
He backed my 2003 legislation to let poor, at-risk children attend private schools of their choice.
He also is a true believer in accountability, such as the report cards his department issues to parents for each school in the state. He supports the use of standardized tests to track not only how well our kids are doing but also how well our schools are doing .
In other words, these are policies that long have given indigestion to certain elements of the public-education establishment and their defenders in the legislature, including Sen. Windels and Rep. Merrifield.
Why can’t they admit they just don’t see eye-to-eye with Bill Moloney on policy – and leave it at that?
Sen. Nancy Spence, Centennial
Easy steps to follow for firework safety
In Communist China, you can possess and enjoy fireworks – but not Denver.
Here, we are criminals if we celebrate our nation’s independence with the longstanding tradition and fun of fireworks.
But come July 4th, with bottle rockets bursting in air and fireworks going off everywhere, you’d never know they are banned.
So rather than preach that we’re all criminals, why not convey useful information?
Read and follow safety instructions on fireworks.
Designate an area away from combustibles in which to set off fireworks.
Keep a charged garden hose at the ready and use it to wet down nearby areas.
Drop hot, used sparklers in water-filled buckets.
Wear eye protection, leather work gloves, a cap, and tight, less flammable clothing.
As for burns, instantly cool them with water from the hose, then get ice.
Teach everyone to stop, drop and roll.
If authorities really wish to reduce the many forest fires and numerous injuries and deaths in house fires, why not first ban cigaretts, which cause far more of them?
Robert Gift, Aurora
War crime prisoners
The U.S. is holding men and boys from Iraq and Afghanistan in American detention for crimes that they may have committed on their native soils. If these men and boys ever get to trial, they will be tried under American law.
There are American men being investigated for murder and/or war crimes in Iraq. If charges are filed, these men will not face a trial in the country of their crimes or face justice of the victims’ countrymen.
Does anyone else see the hypocrisy of this?
Robert D. Grandy, Crowley
Media coverage of the killing of al-Zarqawi
We should all be deeply disturbed by the media’s (including The Denver Post) macabre celebratory fascination with the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Front pages were filled with bloody portraits and heralded the death as a final solution to war: “ELIMINATION.”
Facilitating the classless propaganda, the U.S. government PR machine provided the media almost real-time and instant access to military “bomb-cam” explosion footage and poster-sized printouts as kill verification.
Perhaps military technology has become a way to keep the easily stimulated video-game generation from asking the tough questions about how our country should properly conduct itself in any war.
If we as a country have chosen to further accept the erosion of military moral standards by turning a killing into a side-show spectacle, we should not be shocked when the enemy sees it acceptable to use similar shocking tactics by broadcasting theatrical beheadings and the hanging of corpses from bridges.
Either play by the rules or don’t cry over war atrocities.
Oscar Sanchez, Denver
Language barrier
Re: “Yo, order in English, will youse?,” June 9 news article.
My friend Vadim from Milan asked me: “What do you call a person who speaks only one language?” The punch line: “An American.” Vadim’s English is exceptional. He recently visited New York Cityand needed to take a bus to the subway to get into Manhattan. He tried to get assistance from his fellow passengers and asked how to get to “the metro, the underground, or the tube.” No one could figure out that he was trying to locate their underground transit system; they only knew “the subway.”
In many countries, being bilingual is the norm and is expected among educated people. The signs inside Swiss trains change from Italian to German and to French as you traverse through various regions of the country. Why are we so resistant to diversity? A sign that says “Order in English,” is insulting to so many people and it diminishes us to the world.
Jim Doody, Golden
Pro-choice candidate
Re: “No choice,” June 10 letter to the editor.
Lori Colina-Lee bemoans the lack of a pro-choice candidate on the gubernatorial ballot. I hope she’ll be pleased to find out that there actually is one: Dawn Winkler, who will be on the ballot in November on the Libertarian Party ticket.
Since, in a Democratic candidate, an “anti-choice” position is more likely to be a real conviction rather than a party-pleasing affectation, I would urge all those truly concerned with this issue to vote for Winkler.
Paul Scott Williams, Denver
Pro-choice candidate
Re: “Constitutional law, not cities,
governs guns,” June 8 letter to the
editor.
I would not expect that Anthony
J. Fabian, president of the Colorado
Shooting Association, would
alter his outlook, but he should
know that many Americans do not
believe in the so-called constitutional
protection of gun ownership.
Before national military and local
police forces were implemented,
a militia of armed private citizens
was necessary for the common
defense. These individuals
were expected to help defend the
young nation, and many believe,
for that reason, that the Constitution
still automatically gives them
that privilege.
Although I assume that the great
majority of legal gun-owners are
law-abiding citizens, I shudder to
think of depending upon them for
our safety. Of course, the police
cannot pre-emptively protect citizens,
or keep felons from getting
guns, so those who are so inclined
should be allowed to have (non-
AK-47 type) guns for their own legal
protection, and/or for hunting.
Of course, they do have the constitutional
right to continue kidding
themselves into interpreting
the Constitution any way they
want to.
R. Kiefer, Arvada
