Union bill in legislature
Re: “Union cash talks via Dems’ bill,” Feb. 1 David Harsanyi column.
David Harsanyi calls House Bill 1072 “pernicious.” Really? First, the practical effects will probably be minimal. It would only apply in circumstances where a majority of workers had already voted for a union but wouldn’t otherwise have voted for a union shop. How often does this happen?
Second, HB 1072 might actually reduce levels of unionization in Colorado, because workers who want to be represented by a union but don’t want to pay for it would be less likely to vote for a union if it was in force. Third, lots of states already have laws that are equivalent to HB 1072, and none of them are suffering. In fact, the states with the most hostile union climates are in the South. There’s little else about their economies that we would want to emulate. Why should we copy them in this?
Jeffrey S. Zax, Boulder
The writer is an economics professor at the University of Colorado at Boulder.
…
David Harsanyi is after the unions and the politicians who are their allies: If they are successful, the business climate of the state might darken.
As far as I can determine, business operates to serve the public. This service is not often free. It depends on a public that has money to spend. As that money dries up, so does business. What unions have done in our history is ensure that larger and larger sections of the public have money to spend. How, Mr. Harsanyi, could that be bad for business?
Even President Bush admits the disparity between ordinary people and the moneyed is growing. That is a recipe for revolution. We can close the wealth gap through government intervention, or would you rather do it through collective bargaining?
George Schwartz, Aurora
Nuclear power’s worries
Re: “Uranium boom; New rush gains steam in the West,” Jan. 28 Perspective article.
This article states that “The nuclear industry’s efforts to recast itself as a supposedly clean source of energy – a spin echoed by the administration – has helped spark a uranium boom in the American West.”
On April 24, 2006, Greenpeace co- founder Patrick Moore explained, “Scientific evidence shows that nuclear power is an environmentally sound and safe energy choice.” He also reminded us that “Wind and solar are intermittent and unreliable.”
After listing some fears associated with nuclear power, your article proposed no cleaner way to keep our power on at night.
Doug Anderson, Littleton
Electoral College system
I read with disbelief Howard Botnick’s letter to the editor on the Electoral College (Feb. 1 Open Forum). Botnick speaks of a true democracy being “one person, one vote, and the majority winner is the one who is elected.” His interpretation of this is that the Electoral College is bad because Al Gore lost.
The problem with state Sen. Ken Gordon’s idea [to allocate Colorado’s electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote] is that it goes against the Constitution. They need to change the Constitution if they want to do away with the Electoral College, not simply disregard the voters in Colorado by giving their votes to the winner nationwide. I doubt that voters in Massachusetts would have been very happy if they had this in the last election and their electoral votes ended up going for President Bush.
Jim Kutsko, Denver
Neighbors’ fears logical
Re: “Thinly veiled prejudice,” Jan. 28 Colorado Voices column.
Stephen Terence Gould, who calls himself an “independent scholar,” offers what he deems an example of “homophobia” by resident homeowners and parents who objected to the City Council’s approval of a shelter for homeless HIV patients across the street from a recreation center and grade school.
Mr. Gould acknowledges in his column that the concerns expressed by the residents were about safety, not homosexuality. This concern is genuine and not irrational. Unlike gay HIV patients who generally contracted their disease from unprotected gay sex, homeless HIV patients generally contracted their disease from dirty drug needles. It is therefore a fact that a substantial number of the residents of the proposed shelter are likely to be current or former drug addicts. It is also an unsurprising and unfortunate fact that drug addicts are often criminal and often consort with criminals.
It is thus perfectly natural and logical for parents to conclude that the proposed shelter may draw drugs, drug users, crime and criminals into their neighborhood right across the street from their children’s rec center and grade school. Whether it actually does that remains to be seen; my point is just that the parents’ concern is a legitimate subject for discussion.
Mr. Gould dismisses this concern of the homeowners and parents as thinly veiled prejudice, and indicts those who voice such concerns as “homophobes” who should be not only outvoted (as they were) but silenced, too – by having incendiary names hurled at them in a newspaper if necessary. This is not fair, not accurate, not supported, not constructive, and certainly not the work of a “scholar.”
Glenn K. Beaton, Englewood
The best wings in town
Re: “We want wings!” Jan. 31 food story.
In Wednesday’s paper, you reviewed the “best wings” in the area. An interesting article, but not inclusive. The best wings we’ve ever had are at Wingman Wings. The original one at Northglenn is fabulous, good everything: wings, service, sides, and super clean. If you haven’t tried it, you should.
Clyda Elginer, Pagosa Springs
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.
Archives: Missed your favorite columnist or the latest Mike Keefe cartoon? Archives available at The Denver Post Online (www.denverpost.com)
