Books on Darwin, ID
Re: “A sharp split on Darwin, design; Two authors’ takes on science and life,” Oct. 29 book review.
I was disappointed in Douglas Groothuis’ piece in last Sunday’s Post reviewing two new books on Darwin and intelligent design (ID). I kept looking for Groothuis to tell us what was new in Jonathan Wells’ book arguing for ID. He didn’t. I saw only tired arguments that have been soundly refuted and more whining about science being materialism. Groothuis tried to make out ID as a separate entity from creationism. In fact, it is a subset. Both were promulgated by the same people. After creationism was thrashed in court, the creationists regrouped and shucked off its most egregious claims and recast it as ID to improve chances in future litigation. That failed last December.
Finally, Mr. Wells attacks Darwin as being nonscientific. That’s ludicrous. It would be easier to argue that theology is merely an exercise by bookish pious people parsing a collective delusion.
Dave Stevens, Littleton
Colo. Mills, Lakewood
Steve Weil of Rockmount Ranch Wear is concerned that Lakewood’s city manager, Mike Rock, inappropriately criticized management of the Colorado Mills mall, a private enterprise (Oct. 29 Open Forum). Please don’t criticize Mr. Rock, an employee of Lakewood, without also criticizing his management, the Lakewood City Council. Rock only does what he is told, using the consent of his boss, the City Council. With few exceptions, Lakewood bends over backwards for special interests, mostly developers, and those with the most money and power. Taxpayer subsidies for Wal-Mart, Belmar, and the West Colfax redevelopment are touted as good for Lakewood because they are driven by market conditions.
Now, as market conditions suddenly turn against Colorado Mills, Rock and councilmembers will take the usual way out using denial, criticism, pointing fingers, and ultimately writing off any past mistakes at the expense of Lakewood’s taxpayers. Weil mentions Lakewood and limited government at the same time in his letter. Live here a while, Mr. Weil. You will soon see the humor, and sadness, in your observation.
Tom Carllon, Lakewood
Denver preschool tax
Re: “Questions dog preschool plan,” Oct. 29 Susan Barnes-Gelt column.
The usually thoughtful Susan Barnes-Gelt is way off base in urging a “no” vote on Question 1A, the Denver Preschool Program.
Mountains of solid research clearly show that quality early- childhood programs help kids start school ready to learn. Young children are quite simply our best public investment opportunity, and this proposal makes a ton of sense. Barnes- Gelt argues that we should invest in irrigation canals and trees instead. Sorry, but I want my tax dollars going to where they can do the most good, and canals aren’t high on my list.
The Denver community has lots of experience in both measuring and providing high-quality care, and I am confident that this program will give parents – and voters – what they want: an accountable use of public money, and a good start for all of Denver’s kids.
Gerrit Westervelt, Denver
…
I was saddened to see that Susan Barnes-Gelt opposed Question 1A, but the most disappointing aspect was that she used the city’s capital needs as the first reason to oppose it. A very modest increase in Denver’s sales tax to help more children attend quality preschools is the best investment we can make in Denver’s future. Are irrigation and park improvements really more important than our children?
Conservative estimates show that $1 spent on early childhood education can generate at least a $3 return on investment. Other studies show that the return on investment can be as high as $9. Whichever number you believe, it’s clear that preparing our children for a lifetime of success will save Denver money in the long term and give all children an equal start.
If we as a community don’t invest in our own children and their future, what’s the point of investing in anything else?
Linda Campbell Reilly, Denver
The writer is co-chair of the Preschool Matters campaign.
Denver Justice Center
Re: “An architect’s drive for excellence,” Oct. 29 Perspective article.
Looking at the picture of the new Denver Justice Center plans, I was reminded of the story “The Emperor’s New Clothes.” Just because some people may praise the design and think it is beautiful, it does not make it so. Modern buildings leave little to the imagination, and this design brings to mind prison walls. The structure should be complementing surrounding buildings and not stick out like a sore, red thumb. Maybe the inside design has some merits, but the rest seems to be a dud.
There is something wrong when people give so little thought about aesthetics and try to pass it off as a work of excellence.
Ingrid Boettcher, Aurora
China and business
Re: “In China’s shadow,” Oct. 29 Perspective article.
Any business opportunity Colorado may have in China is purely accidental and transitory. China has demonstrated that it wants access to our technology and our markets, not the other way around. What happened to Motorola is a good example. In order to gain access to China’s market, Motorola was required to establish not only a manufacturing facility but also a development facility in China. Thus the Chinese learned how to build electronics. Now, the next-generation cellphone is being developed for the Chinese market by the Chinese, and the U.S. will be only a secondary market, to be fed leftovers. In a similar manner, China has accessed our aerospace technology, nuclear, consumer products and other technologies, and in the process overwhelmed us in those areas.
Ed D’Silva, Loveland
Vote right, left and center
Re: “Independent voters don’t help,” Nov. 1 Al Knight column.
Al Knight attempts to denigrate voters without a party affiliation by stating that independent voters “may be persuaded that the tide is running in the direction of the Democratic Party and they need only decide one thing: whether to hop aboard the bandwagon or not.”
Generalizations such as the idea that independent voters are somehow less informed or make more capricious decisions in elections than party-affiliated voters are typical of political party hacks on either side who prefer to put easy-to-digest labels on people based on their views. If you support gay rights, you are anti-family and anti-religion. If you support strong reform to limit illegal immigration, you are a racist.
The fact is that ill-informed voters span the political spectrum. Those with party affiliations just seem better informed because they parrot what is spewed by Rush Limbaugh or Air America.
Mike Ogden, Denver
…
I am hopping mad! I have received, yet again, another “paid” political announcement on my cellphone. Let me state at the outset that I am on the “no-call” list; however, as is repeatedly pointed out to me, political calls can’t be blocked due to issues surrounding freedom of speech. But these calls are not free (to me) when they come to my cellphone: I pay for the minutes. I have been told to not answer, but when one has children, calls often come from restricted or unrecognized numbers. As a parent of teenaged children, I am not going to let these calls go unanswered because I am concerned about my children’s safety. As a result, I end up with additional minutes of use on my cellphone and no recourse. I am forced to pay for political announcements and political advertising and I have no way of blocking these calls.
I believe that this has crossed the line of free speech. If there is an involuntary payment, however small, attached to these messages, they are no longer free. The people making these political announcements cannot be allowed to infringe on my privacy when I ultimately pay for the call. It is almost as if my only recourse is to cancel my cellphone service during the election season. Hmm, I bet Verizon would be on my side if I did that …
It is time for this to stop.
Peter Hornbein, Littleton
…
Every election season, we hear that if you don’t vote, you have no right to complain. There may be reasons to vote, but this is not one of them. Here’s an analogy. Suppose we agree to play poker, and you win $100 from me. Do I have a right to complain? Of course not. By agreeing to play, I am declaring myself “in the game,” so I have to accept the outcome (assuming you didn’t cheat). This is like voting; I am trying to win, realizing that I might lose. After all, I might have won $100 from you, instead of the other way around.
But suppose you invite me to play poker with you, but when I refuse, you me relieve me of $100 anyway. Then, of course, I have the right to complain. In fact, I can get you arrested, and force you to return my property. The usual saying has it exactly backwards: If you do vote, you have no right to complain.
John Schola, Littleton
In the blue corner …
As people head to the polls to vote in one of the most important elections of our time, I would urge them to consider the following four big reasons to vote for Democrats this year:
Democrats can balance the excesses of the generally extremist Republicans currently in charge, making our government more representative of our population’s views and responsive to our needs.
Democrats understand that the world isn’t black and white, and are driven to honestly understand it so that their positions will fit the facts.
Democrats care about future generations, and will champion policies that keep our legacy from being a dismal one.
Democrats recognize that we face imminent global crises due to our excessive consumption of resources, and are willing to work with the rest of the world to deal with them.
For most of my life, I voted for Republicans because they believed in less government so people could be creative. Then they seemed to switch sides, making the government into the very monster I feared. It turns out that the Democrats are the ones fighting for us, and now more than ever we need to help them do it.
Bradley Jarvis, Arvada
… In the red corner
I am voting Republican this election for the following reasons:
I am a lifelong Republican, and I still agree with the Republican Party’s stance more than I do with the Democrats.
We have a two-party system in this country. Not voting or voting for a third party like the Constitution Party, even if I agree with them on many issues, is a vote for the opposing party.
Republicans believe citizens can think for themselves and can manage their own money and lives; Democrats believe people need the government to do most of their thinking.
The Republican Party continues to take a stand for the sanctity of human life, upholds that marriage is between one man and one woman and that our constitutional freedoms come from our Creator.
Republicans are more willing and ready to firmly address the issue of illegal immigration.
Republicans recognize that the world and our country are becoming more dangerous and have the fortitude to take the necessary steps to protect us.
I feel safer and more secure with Republicans in office because I know we’re endeavoring to do what is right for America and Colorado.
D. Cone, Lakewood
TO THE POINT
President Bush’s loud, giddy optimism shown in his recent campaign-hopping to disparage Democrats is nothing more than political “rapture of the deep,” due not to oxygen deprivation but reality deprivation.
Edward Campbell, Littleton
I was stunned to see a tabloid story on the front page of The Post, “Backers hail 9/11 theorist’s speech” (Oct. 30). I expect to see something about a lady giving birth to a Martian tomorrow.
Roy Ellis, Castle Rock
Let’s see. Seven hundred miles of fence along one of our borders. Too few troops in Iraq to maintain order.
Am I seeing a theme here?
Audrey Brodt, Littleton
Democracy at risk: numerous national news reports suggest the potential for election fraud and error is enormous in this November’s election.
What are we willing to do to ensure that our votes are recorded accurately?
Harlan Feder, Glenwood Springs
To have your comments printed in To the Point, please send letters of no more than 40 words to openforum@denverpost.com (no attachments, please) or 1560 Broadway, Denver, 80202. Writers are limited to one letter per month.
TO REACH OPINION EDITORS
Phone: 303-820-1331; Fax: 303-820-1502; E-mail: openforum@denverpost.com (only straight text, not attachments)
Mail: The Open Forum, The Denver Post, 1560 Broadway, Denver, 80202 or PO Box 1709, Denver, 80201
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.
