What should be done about Amendment 41?
Re: “Legislators set to read your mind,” Feb. 8 David Harsanyi column.
The majority voted to add Amendment 41 to our state constitution. Why are small numbers of politicians now trying to change the wording to benefit their selfish interests? A small number of citizens may be negatively impacted, but this is the case of all laws. Let’s protect the majority adhering to the amendment as passed by the people.
Ray Barbour, Parachute
Editor’s note: Amendment 41 requires the legislature to set up an ethics commission and allows it to pass other legislation to facilitate implementation of the amendment.
…
Re: “Make Amendment 41 work in the way voters intended,” Feb. 9 guest commentary.
Martha Tierney’s assertion that Amendment 41 “was born out of a thorough drafting process that invited and received review from numerous stakeholders” is belied by the sheer magnitude of public anger and disbelief its unintended consequences have generated.
I doubt that the “stakeholders” consulted included Colorado’s higher education system, Colorado Department of Transportation employees with graduating high school seniors, or the innumerable civic organizations (such as the Rotary Club of Delta) which give thousands of small (but greater than $50) scholarships to deserving students. Had these stakeholders been consulted, the amendment either would have been clarified to allow Nobel prizes and college scholarships or it would have been soundly defeated at the polls.
Ms. Tierney lamely says that “now is the time for common sense.” No, the time for common sense was when the amendment was drafted. Amendment 41 is only the most recent example of the harm done when we abandon representative government and turn the legislative drafting process to individuals with some personal ax to grind. The General Assembly may not perform well at all times on all issues, but like democracy, even if it is a bad system, it is preferable to the alternatives. When we bypass our representatives, we end up with poorly written, ambiguous and overly broad laws like TABOR and Amendment 41 which, after adoption, have a huge unintended consequence of generating endless and expensive litigation, diverting our attention from the real problems.
Jim Brown, Delta
Editor’s note: This letter was written before a Denver district judge ruled that families of state government employees can still accept scholarships despite the wording of Amendment 41.
…
There is so much talk lately about clarifying voter intent with regard to Amendment 41. The funny thing is no one assumes voters voted exactly as they intended. I would argue that if we respect the intelligence of voters, then we must assume they knew exactly what they were voting for. But either way, if we want to clarify their intent, we should ask them to do so by way of another vote. After all, asking political representatives to clarify the language of this amendment for voters is a bit like putting a fox in charge of a henhouse.
Finally, while no one likes to see a deserving student lose out on the possibility of a college scholarship or award for outstanding achievement, we must remember that the law often benefits the greater good sometimes at the expense of a few. No doubt some kids are unfairly hurt by the provisions of the amendment, but is it too much to worry that the political greasing that gave rise to 41 in the first place would be redirected by this supposed “clarity” to a new loophole: the children of the well-connected?
E. Valeri, Denver
The facts behind Pelosi plane “controversy”
Re: “Controversy over Pelosi’s choice of aircraft,” Feb. 14 Open Forum.
I don’t know about the rest of the country, but I for one am over the fake controversy ginned up by certain right-wing media elements over House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s alleged aircraft request.
The fact of the matter is that the House sergeant at arms, who is responsible for the speaker’s security, requested a plane that could fly non-stop from Washington, D.C., to California for security purposes, which necessitates a larger plane. While it is true that former Speaker Dennis Hastert used a smaller jet for his travel, it is also true that the plane used was capable of reaching his district in Illinois without refueling.
Why is this controversial? It’s not unless you are looking for a convenient way to smear a Democratic speaker of the House. Even Tony Snow, White House press secretary, has gone on record as saying that this brouhaha is “unfair to the speaker.”
Now can we get back to talking about important things like, oh, I don’t know, Iraq?
Mitch Woolhiser, Denver
State junk-mail ban
Things to remember before you decide you want to put an end to bulk mail :
1. Bulk mail is a huge revenue source for the Post Office. Without it, you are going to pay more for your first-class mail. A lot more.
2. Small local retailers love bulk mail because they can target just their specific neighborhood at a low cost.
3. Are you sure you don’t want those “buy one dinner, get one free” coupons anymore?
4. Bulk mail never interrupts your dinner like telemarketing did. It never ties up your phone, and is completely free information.
5. You can’t start your fireplace with Internet spam.
Ted Paske, Arvada
Threats against Iran
After four years of terrible news about the Iraq war, I’m really scared by President Bush’s threats against Iran.
If we attack Iran, we’ll have a much more sophisticated military to contend with, and other regional countries doubtless will lose patience, and may join Iran against us. Where will we find the military resources to invade Iran? Will we move our troops out of Iraq and into Iran the same way we did with Afghanistan?
My message for the president is that two wrongs don’t make a right. If you attack Iran, we’re in serious trouble.
Mary Phillips, Denver
Former Rev. Haggard
Re: “Haggard says he’s not gay,” Feb. 6 news story.
Hallelujah and praise the Lord! Ted Haggard is once again 100 percent heterosexual! We knew it could be done. And all gay people are also 100 percent heterosexual, because, as Rev. Tim Ralph said, “It was the acting-out situation where things took place.” We have seen the light and heard the word. This is all it took for these experts on human sexuality to set the world straight again.
Joe Felice, Aurora
…
Ted Haggard’s protestations that he is “completely heterosexual” are beside the point. His problem has never been homosexuality; his sexual orientation is entirely his own business. Rather, as a public figure, his problem is hypocrisy. Will we hear next that, after three weeks of counseling, he is “completely honest”?
Pamela Sherer, Aurora
Colorado Voices
Like to write and have something to say? Then we invite you to apply for Colorado Voices, a column-writing program we created in 1999 as a forum for contributors from across the region.
Send us two sample columns, 600 to 700 words each, along with a cover letter describing your background, your interest in Voices and whatever else you think we need to know.
Deadline for entries is 5 p.m. on Tuesday, Feb. 20. Send them to us by e-mail at
voices@denverpost.com, or by mail to Mary Idler, Denver Post Editorial Page, 101 W. Colfax, Suite 600, Denver CO80202. Provide your address, phone numbers and e-mail address.
Typically, our Voices write every other week for three months. Once published, you’ll get a modest honorarium, impressive clips and bragging rights.
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)
