Still angry about lack of resolve after Sept. 11
As the fifth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attack on America approached, I read the articles from magazines and newspapers across the nation, heard stories on the radio and watched programs on television, and I find myself getting angry all over again.
I’m angry that others aren’t still steaming mad that, on that day, our nation was ruthlessly attacked by foreign enemies. I’m angry that American flags no longer fly from the porches of the homes in my neighborhood. I’m angry that we have reduced the memory of that day to a few days every year near the anniversary.
I’m angry that we have reduced the attack to bickering among the far left and far right political behemoths, who want nothing more than to place blame on one another. I’m angry that we aren’t allowing our military forces to do the job they were sent overseas to do. I’m angry that there were 87 nations represented by those killed in the twin towers alone, and there are not 87 nations standing side by side to wipe out the terrorist organizations that continue to spread tyranny every single day.
I’m angry that Americans are more worried about feeling “safe and protected” than in standing up to an enemy force who is not concerned with changing our way of life, but only in destroying everything we value. I’m angry that more Americans aren’t angry that these enemies came over here and attacked us, attacked us, attacked us – and they continue to attack us from within by pitting us against ourselves.
I’m angry that more Americans are concerned with Brad and Angelina than with the fact that our enemies are still strong and are plotting, without resting, to attack us again.
We should all be sticking our heads outside and yelling, in the words of the movie character Howard Beale, “I’m as mad as hell, and I’m not going to take this anymore.”
Get angry, America, and stand up and fight the enemy!
Ken Maynard, Colorado Springs
Abortion fight on the South Dakota ballot
Re: “Anti-choice forces go too far in S.D.,” Sept. 8 guest commentary.
The proposed law in South Dakota would prohibit all abortions for any reason, including to save the life of the mother. I would like to ask every anti-choice zealot this question: Do you agree that it is better for a woman to die than to have an abortion that would save her life? This proposed law makes the agenda of the radical right on this matter perfectly clear: Women are disposable. It is all right for our mothers, our daughters and our sisters to be sacrificed to extremists’ political goals. Make no mistake, power is the issue here. The zealots are seeking control over every aspect of our lives. Legally murdering women is only the first step.
Mildred B. Carlo, Pueblo
…
I find it interesting that Jan Nicolay, Maria Bell and Sarah Stoesz are so inflamed at the abortion law in South Dakota. They complain that it does not allow an exception for the health of the mother or in cases of rape or incest. They speak of the extreme nature of this law. However, if a fetus is viable, i.e. late second and complete third trimester, they do not see any compelling rights that the child might have to life, and act to see “how far extremists will be allowed to push their social agenda.” In their minds, the right to choice is supreme. Extremism begets the same.
Susan Maas, Parker
How will history view the war on terror?
President Bush continues to confuse Americans by intertwining al-Qaeda with Iraqi insurgents. Just as former administrations neatly, and erroneously, attributed insurrections around the world to Communist Russia trying to take over the world, Bush ensures all terrorist acts are conveniently placed under the al-Qaeda umbrella.
Fifty years after the start of the Cold War, we now can admit that most of the hot spots during the Cold War were nationalist movements where the U.S. support of the status quo forced the opposition to side with the only other supplier of arms: the USSR.
Fifty years after the beginning of the Cold War, we see the mistakes we made by assigning broad umbrellas and saying either they were with us or against us.
Fifty years from now, Mr. President, we won’t be asking why no one acted. We will be asking why no lessons are ever learned from history.
Elaine Hood, Conifer
Two birds, one stone
One faction of Americans wants to deport all illegal aliens or at least punish them for breaking the law. This faction believes they are sucking the state’s coffers dry of revenue needed for schools and hospitals.
The other faction does not think it is pragmatic to round up and deport everyone, and it thinks the immigrants provide needed labor.
A seemingly unrelated issue is the future of Medicare and Social Security for retiring baby boomers. We don’t have enough youngsters to pay into the system to fund the expenses of the retired.
Let’s compromise. Establish a program where each illegal is working towards citizenship or is here working as temporary labor, both being legal. Place an additional tax on the wages of all these folks for the next five years. That money will go to state and local hospitals and schools. The punishment for their crime of entering the U.S. illegally will be the extra tax burden they carry. Even with this, they likely will be making more money than they did back home.
Meanwhile, by bringing another 10 million citizens into our 20- to 30-year-old labor pool, we are filling the gap and providing a tax base for the Social Security and Medicare shortfalls of the future.
Elaine Hood, Conifer
Culture battles
Re: “Culture wars continue,” Sept. 3 Ed Quillen column.
Ed Quillen’s column had lots of “cute” lines. It also had lots of cheap shots. But the distressing thing about it was his apparent rejection of the need to address some really serious problems.
Dick Lamm has been roundly criticized for his comments about the low graduation rates of some minorities. In fact, he has been accused by some of being a racist. This about a man who marched for civil rights in Selma.
Whether Lamm is one of Quillen’s flawed “dominant,” I don’t know. But what I do know is that he is no longer alone in expressing his concerns – concerns which Bill Cosby so passionately expresses. If this country is going to continue to be the kind of country that is so attractive to so many from the rest of the world, we need to maintain a culture which prizes education, hard work and the rule of law.
H. Michael Hayes, Westminster
Dueling designs for Denver’s Union Station
Re: “Dueling developers; Two teams unveil contrasting plans for Union Station redevelopment,” Sept. 8 business news story.
The proposed plans for the development of Union Station certainly do represent dueling ideas for the future of downtown Denver. Union Station Partners presented a ho-hum plan that adds more opportunity to make money off tourists and conventioneers while further detracting from the big sky feeling of Denver’s skyline. Continuum Partners’ plan includes economic opportunities that, in part, improve the livability of downtown for Denverites. As a longtime Denver resident, for me the choice seems obvious. The city understandably wants strong economic benefit from development downtown, but the end goal of any economic development in the city should be quality of life for those who live and work in the city. This is a duel that I hope Continuum will win.
A. Lynn Buschhoff, Denver
TO REACH OPINION EDITORS
Phone: 303-954-1331
Fax: 303-954-1502
E-mail: openforum@denverpost.com (only straight text, not attachments)
Mail: The Open Forum, The Denver Post, 101 W. Colfax Ave., Suite 600, Denver, 80202
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.
