U.S. population growth
1.3 billion people. At 100 years, my little calculator runs out, but I think 300 million is plenty.
We can’t have enough water, oil, food or anything else for the numbers of people continued growth will bring. We can continue to grow economically without continuing to grow in population.
Dave Miller, Sedalia
…
While it is true that Mark Udall, my congressman, has been interested in environmental problems for some time, he has studiously avoided addressing the largest one of all: excessive population growth. Now that we have passed the 300 million mark on our way to somewhere between 500 million and 1.3 billion by the end of this century, one has to wonder how Udall assesses the damage to the environment that will result from this continuing population explosion. Eminent demographer Joel Cohen points out that over its history, the human population experienced an average growth rate that is a tiny fraction of the current rate of growth. He also states that the world (and the U.S.) cannot easily and comfortably accommodate an unlimited number of people at any desirable level of material, mental and civic well-being. Does Udall think growth will have no impact on the environment? What is he doing to steer immigration policy in a direction that will help curb the deleterious effect of population on every aspect of the environment?
Gordon J. Johnson, Broomfield
Focus on the Family’s flock of followers
Re: “Focus on the Family misleads its ‘sheeple,”‘ Oct. 17 Cindy Rodríguez column.
Thank you, Cindy Rodríguez, for your column. You probably riled hundreds or perhaps thousands of “sheeple” with your attack on James Dobson – so much so that they will herd themselves to the voting booth and bleat in unison.
It is quite obvious you have an ax to grind and don’t understand the “religious teachings” you claim this organization “manipulates.” You seem so upset that Focus on the Family has so much air time and influence. Tsk, tsk, the bleating sheeple will come out in force in a few weeks and vote for such awful things as the sanctity of marriage between one man and one woman. Heaven forbid, the people of Colorado wouldn’t want to “get married, stay married and procreate.” How could these simple sheep not see your greater wisdom?
I am proud to say I fully support James Dobson and Focus on the Family and want to personally thank him for standing for marriage and for family. He is a national treasure and a hero.
Michael Young, Parker
…
It seems to me that Cindy Rodríguez nailed James Dobson and his organization. Considering that Focus of the Family offers itself as a group based on the most gentle of theologies, its hypocrisy and pious self-serving are mind-boggling.
I don’t doubt the sincerity of Focus supporters, but before they write that next check, I would hope they take some time to examine with open minds and hearts the operating history of this organization as it relates to a narrow and often intolerant message that doesn’t seem particularly Christian in scope. Perhaps a greater percentage of those millions in donations could be used for actual works of good rather than for political posturing and control.
Ed Kallio, Grand Junction
Amendment 39 and Ref. J: classroom funding
Re: “Amendment 39 merits a ‘no’ vote,” Oct. 9 editorial.
The Denver Post editorial board got this right, but there are two reasons that should be emphasized: First, if Amendment 39 or Referendum J were intended to improve CSAP scores, the inclusions for the 65 percent would include valuable early-intervention literacy programs in elementary schools, like Reading Recovery, and would exclude athletics. Second, kids can’t learn if they don’t feel safe or if they aren’t safe. Our elected school board members are better positioned to determine the priorities of their district – especially individual school security needs that can’t wait. After the shooting in Platte Canyon High School, everyone can agree that we must immediately boost spending on school security. Amendment 39 and Referendum J would unnecessarily tie the hands of our school boards just when we need the flexibility of their local expertise the most.
Support local control, early literacy programs, and increased school security; vote “no” on 39 and J. Good motive; bad method.
Kory Nelson, Parker
Post’s endorsements in legislative races
Re: “Post endorsements in state House races,” Oct. 8 editorial.
The Post’s endorsement for the open House District 37 seat is based on the candidate’s position on health care. Further investigation would have discovered that Spencer Swalm’s proposal is based on health savings accounts and the power of the marketplace. The insurance-agent candidate would directly benefit financially from his proposal. The control of the marketplace by the large pharmaceutical and insurance companies has contributed significantly to the current crisis. Swalm’s opponent, Angela Engel, has a more comprehensive plan, emphasizing affordable and accessible health care plan, with unique solutions for all Coloradans.
Engel’s background as a teacher, administrator and policy analyst prepared Engel to be an effective member of the legislature.
Harold Thyfault, Centennial
…
The Post wrote that Joan Fitz- Gerald has “fairness and willingness to listen.” You must mean the kind of “fair” I get on my work evaluations. Just this year, I witnessed Fitz-Gerald sponsor a bill commonly held as anti-Catholic, yet she claimed was fair. It was so unfair, it sent the Catholic community up in arms like never before over a proposed bill.
Her cohorts could not support her personal motivations, either, and the bill was killed. If Fitz-Gerald had been willing to listen to her Catholic constituents or political cohorts, the bill may have successfully been reshaped.
Jacob Welp, Denver
…
I’m disappointed by your endorsement of Amy Stephens for state House District 20. Had you talked with Jan Hejtmanek, you would have found a thoughtful, fiscally conservative moderate with a sound grasp on the serious issues we all face: water, eminent domain, growth, education and jobs.
You mentioned Ms. Stephens’ “realistic views on water and health care” but neglected to say that she has made no sound proposals on water issues and would “challenge” insurers to cover more preventive medicine; that’s little comfort for the uninsured.
We need smart thinking from someone like Jan Hejtmanek, who will work for comprehensive solutions and represent all Coloradans.
Diana Jackson, Colorado Springs
Denver Art Museum
Now that all the pictures have been hung, the sculptures have been arranged and dusted, and the new wing of the Denver Art Museum is open for inspection, the critics have been quite vocal. I would remind them it is not a total loss. It can always be used as a bad example. I would also remind these critics the external features do have one redeeming value: the Denver Public Library is no longer the ugliest building in town.
Joe Y. Keller, Centennial
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
