Is there really bias in city contract hiring?
Re: “Addressing bias in city contract hiring,” Sept. 20 Open Forum.
As a member of a “progressive” organization, Bill Vandenberg predictably supports Denver’s steps to end “discrimination” in its business contracting programs. He labels a couple of Republican politicians as “anti-civil rights” and decries their alleged denial of economic and educational opportunities for women and people of color. That assertion is both wrong and tiresome, and Vandenberg’s codespeak really means that progressives seek equal outcomes.
The aforementioned victims have the same opportunity as any person of any gender or color to advance their lives, including their business relationships. The same public school educational system that brought current qualifiers to Denver’s contracting table are there for everyone. Vandenberg alleges that because women and people of color are supposedly the majority of Denver’s population, they deserve the majority of the city’s business contracts. According to that twisted reasoning, because there are so many more Caucasians at the University of Colorado, they should make up the majority of members of the football team. It doesn’t work that way – everyone can try out, but only the best-qualified athletes make the team.
Any applicant to Denver’s business programs with talent, training, experience and financial backing has a fair shot at a contract. The contract should go to the business that meets the requirements and can best benefit the citizens of Denver. Doling out contracts according to diversity standards – although it makes progressives feel good – is by itself nothing more than thinly veiled discrimination.
Alan E. Deegan, Castle Rock
Should congressional page program be retired?
In light of recent events involving Rep. Mark Foley and the rumblings that the page program may be suspended or terminated, I would like a chance to voice my opinions about the situation and the frustration I feel. While Congress mulls what to do about the scandal, the page program sits in limbo. As a former Senate page (1992-93), I have spent these last few days both in shock and horror at the situation in Washington and am upset that the page program has now come under scrutiny.
My appointment as a page was the most incredible honor of my life. I gained valuable leadership skills, developed character, self-sufficiency, an informed worldview, and was given a glimpse of the inner workings of American democracy.
Why should a group of bright, talented and driven individuals be denied this amazing opportunity because of the actions of our elected officials behaving badly? The page program is one our country’s oldest and proudest traditions and long after this scandal has faded from our minds, young adults will continue to serve in our Capitol and learn firsthand the process of democracy. I urge our members of Congress and fellow citizens to stand up for this honorable program in the name of both past and future pages.
Rachel E. Crawford, Denver
…
The self-proclaimed “party of personal responsibility” appears to be imploding as a direct result of avoiding personal responsibility. If I may be so bold as to coin a phrase, the Foley Factor is a notable example.
Given a choice between taking the high road and practicing what they preach, or a low road of blaming alcohol, gays and (of course) Bill Clinton, Republicans have clearly made their choice: It’s the latter.
Apparently, when confronted with facts, the mantra for Republicans is admit nothing, deny everything, then make counter-accusations.
For God’s sake, get out and vote. For better or for worse, our country is still a role model. Please, for the sake of our children, let’s show the rest of the world that we deserve to be respected as a better role model, not one that makes excuses.
Tommy Holeman, Boulder
…
Re: “Voter doubts go beyond Foley’s follies,” Oct. 4 Jim Spencer column.
Jim Spencer states he’s “cynical enough to believe Perlmutter, Salazar and Paccione would not be raising Cain if Foley had been a Democrat and Democrats controlled Congress.” That’s a moot point. The reality is Foley is a Republican and they control Congress. This is the tipping point where non-party-affiliated voters like myself might just vote Democratic because these GOP clowns can’t stoop any lower.
Jerry Witt, Wheat Ridge
In appreciation of retiring Rep. Joel Hefley
Republican Joel Hefley, a member of Congress from our 5th Congressional District in Colorado, is retiring after serving 20 years in the U.S. House of Representatives. Although I have not always agreed with Hefley’s stand on every issue, I have come to respect him as one of the most honest members of Congress today. For example, as chairman of the House ethics committee, Hefley did not let powerful House Majority Leader Tom DeLay off the hook when DeLay’s actions were questionable. Hefley has proved himself to be a man of principle, one of the few Republicans to sponsor a wilderness bill, and withholding endorsement for the candidate from his own party to take his seat in Congress. I, a lifelong Republican, am proud that he has represented me in Congress and worked toward leaving a legacy of traditional Republican conservative values.
Dick Scar, Buena Vista
Marijuana amendment
Re: “Amendment 44: The Marijuana Initiative,” Oct. 1 pro-con Perspective articles.
Mason Tvert’s pro-Amendment 44 column trumped Thomas Gorman’s scare tactics. Tvert is right that the opposition can’t explain why there should be a double-standard between pot and alcohol. Gorman’s response that there are more alcohol users proves nothing. I’d suggest a deeper reason for the double-standard: It’s about who is using a particular substance.
Gorman makes it pretty clear he has a low opinion of marijuana users, that these people are destroying “Colorado’s future leaders.” That’s prejudice in that it stereotypes marijuana users as unmotivated losers. And when he argues Amendment 44 will “attract drug users as a new tourist base or residents,” that’s bigotry.
Paul Dougan, Broomfield
The tough questions
It goes without saying that our thoughts and prayers are with both the families of the victims of the recent school shootings and the families of children across the country as they continue to head into school each day. However, I am highly disappointed with the media’s coverage of the school shootings in both Colorado and Pennsylvania. It is the media’s job to ask the tough questions. The tough question in these cases is not “Why did he shoot those innocent children?” when referring to Charles Carl Roberts IV and Duane Morrison. Is there anything in either man’s childhood or recent history that we should accept as an explanation of or justification for their behavior?
No. The more appropriate question, and the harder one to ask, is why did both of these men decide to excuse all the male students and keep only female students to terrorize? What is it in our society that makes them think that the appropriate victims for their rage is innocent girls? This question is hardest to ask because it makes us look at more than just the individuals involved in the shooting but at ourselves, and at society at large.
Roberts entered the Amish school house with sexual lubricant and bound his female victims together, as if acting out a scene straight out of a pornographic film. This comparison has yet to be made, but we have no hesitation comparing the shooting to Columbine, a shooting in which gender made no difference and in which it was essentially children harming other children.
Indeed, it is time for the media to step up and ask the hard questions. Because if not them, who? And if no one, what’s to stop this tragedy from occurring again and again?
Cara Morlan, Denver
TO REACH US OPINION EDITORS
Phone: 303-954-1331
Fax: 303-954-1502
E-mail: openforum@denverpost.com (please send only straight text, not attachments)
Mail: The Open Forum, The Denver Post, 101 W. Colfax Ave., Suite 600, Denver, 80202
