Why today’s children aren t science-oriented
Re: “Keeping kids interested in science tough,” Oct. 12 David Harsanyi column.
David Harsanyi seems to be surprised that it is difficult to interest today’s young people in science.
Sir, you work for a newspaper that has a daily column about astrology but no daily science column. The mass media love to give publicity to pseudo-science, from UFOs to homeopathy. The evangelists attack tenets of basic science as “just a theory.” The leftists in our universities attack science as the handmaiden of capitalism and the Defense Department. The post-modernists in our universities attack the very foundations of science when they say there is no such thing as fact, truth or an objective reality.
In our present culture, is it any wonder our young people reject the very essence of science and, incidentally, the very essence of truth?
Gordon Lilly, Silverthorne
Here are four good reasons to vote against Amendment 40:
First, it forces out five of seven Supreme Court Justices all at once. Within two years of its becoming effective, 70 percent of justices on the Supreme Court and nearly 40 percent of the Court of Appeals judges (seven of 19) would be pushed off the bench.
Second, this drastic measure creates a backlog in Colorado’s highest courts by failing to address the unintended consequences and inefficiencies that result from forcing out nearly half of Colorado’s appellate judges at the same time.
Third, it pushes out good judges for no reason. Coloradans are well-served by our higher courts. This measure forces off the bench some of our state’s most knowledgeable and independent judges.
Fourth, Amendment 40 brings partisan politics into the courtroom. Some future governors will have the power to appoint a super-majority of the Supreme Court and more than one-third of Court of Appeals judges, ultimately stacking the deck with individuals who share their partisan views, be they conservative or liberal.
Gale Miller, Denver
…
Under Amendment 40, only one thing will change. It will not be the appointment process. It will not be the court’s decision-making process, and therefore there will still be decisions that we may or may not agree with. It will not change the fact that there are some judges who do a wonderful job and some who don’t. It will not politicize the judiciary any more than it is already politicized.
What Amendment 40 will do is provide the people of Colorado with fresh energy, fresh minds and fresh enthusiasm. Obviously some competent, hard-working judges will be replaced, but along with them will be the lazy, the arrogant and the uncaring. It’s probably true that some lawyers will not want to apply for a judgeship that is not tantamount to a lifetime appointment, but there are other lawyers who would be more agreeable to accepting a temporary appointment, and then, after a few years, going back to practicing law.
I think it is very interesting that Gov. Bill Owens just appointed seven new judges, six of whom were employed in various government jobs, and only one new judge came from the private sector (“Governor appoints 7 judges to district, county courts,” Sept. 19 news story). Government perpetuates government.
Michael Laden, Conifer
…
I am a mother of two young children, a former teacher, and have worked in child and family policy for the past several years. I am opposed to Amendment 40 because it would do absolutely nothing to improve our courts. In fact, it is children and families who would ultimately pay the price if experienced judges are removed and courts are further backlogged.
The majority of children involved with Colorado courts are living in complicated and often dangerous or high-risk situations that involve parental rights, abuse, neglect and substance abuse issues. The children and families involved in these complicated cases are well-served by a knowledgable and efficient justice system that has provisions in place to expedite cases involving children. Our judges are experienced, dedicated and well-respected men and women who have spent years gaining the knowledge necessary to do their jobs well.
Amendment 40 forces some of Colorado’s best, most knowledgable and independent judges off the bench for no good reason. When it comes to the well-being of children and families in this state, Amendment 40 makes no sense.
Please consider the unintended consequences of this measure and the potential impact on Colorado’s children and families, and vote “no” on Amendment 40.
Becky Miller Updike, Colorado Director, Every Child Matters, Denver
ap columns outside the opinion section
Re: “Focus on the Family misleads its ‘sheeple,”‘ Oct. 17 Cindy Rodríguez column.
Having just finished reading another sophomoric, ad hominem- filled, ideologically driven, polemical piece by Cindy Rodríguez, I must protest – not against what she says, or how she says it, or her right to say it, but against where she says it. Her columns belong in the opinion section, not in the features section. Your newspaper clearly lists heavily to the left and that’s your prerogative. However, slipping opinion columns into the sections of the paper that are supposed to be unbiased makes you guilty of the only sin Ms. Rodríguez seems to recognize – hypocrisy. Put her column where it belongs or require that she write appropriate material.
Joe Morgan, Englewood
Candidates’ morality
Bill Ritter holds himself out to be Catholic, yet, in many respects, his stands on abortion and fetal stem-cell research and other vital issues are contrary to Catholic doctrine. They are also closely in line with those of politicians who have been denounced by many high-ranking Catholic officials and who have been denied access to the sacraments, including the Eucharist.
In contrast, Ritter’s opponent in the race for governor, Bob Beauprez, is a highly qualified statesman and not a hypocrite. He is a native Coloradan with views that conform to those of the great majority of those in this part of the country and he deserves our support and our vote on Nov. 7.
Joan Patrick, Denver
CBI probe of Beauprez
Re: “CBI speeds campaign probe,” Oct. 15 news story.
I was disconcerted to read the response from John Marshall, Bob Beauprez’s spokesman, to the CBI investigation of possible Beauprez campaign illegality in accessing highly restricted National Crime Information Center data.
Any thinking person knows that when anyone says he cannot provide any more information because it would compromise a confidential source, as Marshall did, you know they did it. Will they be invoking the Fifth Amendment next?
I believe Beauprez is an honorable man, but I question his selection of campaign operatives.
Mark C. Pautler, Lakewood
…
Re: “Beauprez should speak up,” Oct. 17 editorial.
The Post seems more worried that a politician did something wrong than about Bill Ritter’s program of letting criminals off with light or no sentences . While perhaps he could have had problems with the convictions, the obvious crime of being in the country illegally was ignored and this criminal was released onto the streets of the United States to commit more crimes.
Perhaps a prosecutor needs to plea bargain some cases, but Ritter plea bargained 97 percent. That’s a little too much for me. That is a lack of going after criminals, especially illegal aliens who then commit other crimes.
Joseph Williams, Loveland
TO REACH US
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.
