To send a letter
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
Fax: 303-954-1502
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.
To reach us by phone: 303-954-1331
—————————————-
I have been riding RTD for more than 10 years. All in all, I have been a supporter of Denver’s public transportation. However, since the latest light-rail expansion, I am rethinking my position.
I have struggled with the inadequate schedules, new routes and inadequate, overloaded buses. I have tried to work with RTD to find a schedule and route that will allow me to get to work on time and safely. I was told that my commute would now be 76 minutes, versus the 45 minutes that it was before light rail. RTD suggested that I could drive to the park-n-Ride in order to shorten my commute. That would mean that I would go from not driving at all to driving at least 15 minutes each way. Even if I could get a parking space at the park-n-Ride, driving doesn’t sound like an eco-friendly option.
Taking another approach, I spent the better part of a day trying to find out if RTD had any bike lockers available at the Nine Mile park- n-Ride. RTD has a Bike Hot Line, but has directed all calls to a recording that says to call back at a later time and will not allow voice mail to be left. I found out from another source at RTD that this number has been redirected to voice mail due to the volume of calls, with no plans to change that. I guess they don’t want to answer bike questions. Forget about eco-friendly, that is just rude. I did find out that there are bike lockers at the Nine Mile park-n-Ride from yet another source at RTD, but no one could tell me if they are available or not until I go down to the Market Street or Civic Center Station.
At this time of year, riding a bike in the dark and bad weather doesn’t appeal to me even if the lockers are available, although I will probably check for the summer.
Is RTD eco-friendly? I think not.
Pat Knoy, Aurora
—————————————-
Not the first flap over a Colorado peace wreath
The controversy over the peace sign in Pagosa Springs reminds me of what happened in Sterling 36 years ago – December 1970. At that time, the Vietnam War was raging full-scale and I was a senior at Sterling High School. The student council put up Christmas decorations in front of the school, consisting of a large wreath in the shape of a peace sign. In addition to the wreath, we made a sign saying “Peace on Earth” that sat right in front of the wreath. We set the wreath on a ledge over the main doors to the school. The ledge was at least 15 feet off the ground, and we needed a big ladder to put the wreath in place.
The peace sign lasted about three days, until some adults took it on themselves to remove what they must have thought was an offensive eyesore created by the local left-wing student activists. It was during a basketball game, I recall, that we discovered that someone had climbed up to the ledge and took down the peace sign. We never found it. Fortunately, “Peace on Earth” stayed as the message we were trying to convey.
We thought it was vandalism to remove our peace-sign wreath. The local paper, the Journal Advocate, ran several competing paid advertisements from people on both sides of the issue. One side accused us of putting up the symbol of the anti-Christ. The other side supported our sincere effort to promote peace at the time of Christmas. Sounds like the comments coming out of Pagosa Springs now.
Thirty-six years ago, the country was split in two over the Vietnam War. We are now split over Iraq. The peace sign in Pagosa Springs stands in the same place it stood in Sterling 36 years ago. There is not much new under the sun.
John Lebsack, Denver
…
Bravo to the Loma Linda Homeowners Association for withdrawing its ludicrous objection to the peace-symbol wreath. The suggestion of an anti-Christ moniker in the peace symbol is simply a John Birch Society hyperbole (and quite amusing). What is incomprehensible is the attack on the peace sign in the first place by “some neighbors.” The peace sign is the ultimate support for the troops. Rather than supporting warfare, it begs for a peaceful end of a conflict, allowing troops to come home alive. Indeed, nothing could be more “Christian,” last I checked.
Jake Owsley, Boulder
…
The peace symbol that caused such consternation in Pagosa Springs was generated in the ’60 by activists to bring about nuclear disarmament. The flag positions used in semaphore signaling for Nuclear (both flags lowered 45 degrees from horizontal) and Disarmament (one flag straight up and the other straight down) helped design the symbol.
William R. McCullough, Loveland
—————————————-
Re: “CU naming med campus for Anschutz,” Nov. 28 news story.
I was disappointed to see the University of Colorado has decided to change the name of the medical campus located in Aurora to the Anschutz Medical Campus. Completely dropping the name of Fitzsimons is a disservice to the thousands of military men and women, and civilians, who benefited from the medical care provided over a span of nine decades. The Anschutz foundation is a wonderful benefactor to the university’s goal in achieving a world-class medical facility and should be (and is) recognized for its contributions.
The Post doesn’t give a clear picture of the campus’ name by stating that it is “called Fitzsimons after the old Army base.” Fitzsimons was named after an Army Medical Corps officer, 1st Lt. William Thomas Fitzsimons, who was the first American officer to die in World War I. It would befitting to honor both the Anschutz Foundation and Lt. Fitzsimons by naming the facility the Anschutz Medical Campus at Fitzsimons.
Jerry Heck, Parker
—————————————-
Dixie Chicks backlash
Re: “Riding out the storm; The Dixie Chicks hang tough to win over a new wave of fans,” Nov. 26 entertainment story.
Once again, the Dixie Chicks’ situation receives press, and once again the real reason so many country programmers stopped playing their music isn’t even mentioned.
I am one of dozens of country radio programmers nationwide who continued to play the Chicks’ music and support them after Natalie Maines’ 2003 comment on President Bush. My staff and I received the most vile kind of phone calls, but we continued to support the First Amendment rights of all citizens, not just the politically correct ones.
After three years of dust-settling, market research and study after study showing that the average country music fan was more than willing to let bygones be bygones, most fans were eager to hear from the Chicks again.
Sony Nashville released “Not Ready To Make Nice” as the first single off the new Dixie Chicks album, despite the earnest pleas from country programmers all over the nation. The final straw, though, was when all three of the Chicks started making public statements against country music and its fans. All three of them were quoted as saying they don’t need country fans and that they never wanted to be in country music in the first place.
The millions these women have in their bank accounts is because of the fans they so verbally abused. That is the reason so many country programmers chose to cease supporting the Chicks.
Penny Mitchell, Elizabeth
The writer is an operations manager for Jones Radio Network.
…
I was an avid fan of the Dixie Chicks when they decided to gain popularity with the British audience by telling them they were ashamed of our president. They exercised their right to speak out. My reason for boycotting them was because of what followed. They were openly critical of people who also exercised their right to speak out. Anyone who had negative comments to make about them was branded by the Chicks as narrow- minded and unwilling to accept their point of view.
In my opinion, which is a right extended to me by our constitution, I continue to view the Dixie Chicks as an opportunistic group who are more interested in their own political image than providing great music to their fans.
Merl A. Jennings, Creede
