President’s veto of Iraq spending bill
Re: “President, top Dems to parley; Veto sets stage for possible compromise,” May 2 news story.
President Bush’s prompt veto of the Iraq spending bill signaled his willingness to play politics with the future of our armed forces in Iraq. Of course he has accused Democrats of doing the same. The Democrats should refuse to send anything back to him but the same bill (maybe with special projects removed), which would force the president to begin planning the withdrawal of troops now.
Then we could implement the rest of the Iraq Study Group’s suggestions, establish diplomatic talks with neighbors in the region about planning the security of Iraq, and come up with a solution that will guarantee that Iraqis maintain control of their national resources and have the right to govern themselves without outside influence.
We could start establishing responsibility and accountability for the deceit and corruption involved in our invasion and occupation of Iraq. After the Bush administration leaves office, we can return to being a nation governed by our Constitution and the Bill of Rights, as our framers intended, and truly be a nation of the rule of law, liberty and justice.
It would be the perfect end to this nightmare of deceitful madness.
Mark D. Benner, Colorado
…
On the same day President Bush vetoed a bill establishing a deadline for troop withdrawal from Iraq to begin, the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq was reportedly killed. Whether or not this is true does not matter. The leader of one of the groups causing the most problems in Iraq was killed or was potentially killed by someone other than the U.S. military.
Perhaps it is time to consider that the groups best able to deal with the problems in Iraq are the Iraqis themselves. The United States’ interests might be best served by removing our troops from Iraq as quickly as possible. This move would allow the U.S. to provide support to the groups we support in Iraq and let them deal with their country.
The nation of Iraq will be far more stable if we allow them to determine their own destiny than if we continue to force our will upon them.
Jerry DuBois, Aurora
Sexual harassment in the workplace
Re: “Teen jobs beset by unwanted advances,” April 30 news story.
It is nice to learn that, after all these years, something is being done to address sexual harassment and help young workers. In 1963, when I was 15, I was fired from my first job when I told the owner not to touch me as I bent over a sales counter and he grabbed me from behind. I had nowhere to turn with my complaint. I was paying my tuition and school expenses and saving for college, so I got another job and started all over.
Twenty years later, as an adult professional worker at a Colorado municipality, I was harassed by a male worker who was well-known to management and human resources as someone who had inappropriately approached women throughout the organization. Nothing was done and I had to handle the matter myself, informing the man that I would notify the police if he bothered me or any of the women I supervised again.
As most women will testify, these complaints are often brushed off or taken very lightly. Imagine the difficulties young men and women face when they are sexually harassed. Embarrassment, pain, threat of loss of employment – all difficult matters for an adult to deal with.
Children who work do so because of economic necessity and deserve the same protections guaranteed to adults. I applaud the efforts of those who would protect our precious young men and women from predators and harm in the workplace.
Anita Oswald, Boulder
Rail options for I-70 into the mountains
Re: “‘Maglev’ trains may be key to congestion,” April 29 editorial.
In your editorial, you suggest a high-speed maglev train as a spectacular way to usher travelers to Denver. You also speculate that such technology might solve the present gridlock on Interstate 70 in the mountains west of Denver.
In 1998, a high-speed monorail system was widely advocated to satisfy both of these desires. This monorail technology had been chosen over the three maglev technologies now under consideration by RTD and several other more conventional transit system technologies. Its performance was based on a Spanish system designed and tested to transport visitors to the Barcelona Olympics. In Colorado, a modified version would have served 17 station stops from DIA to the Eagle County Airport in Gypsum with average speeds of 125 mph. The performance characteristics of this system so severely threatened the capabilities of highway modifications planned for I-70 by the Colorado Department of Transportation that it was ridiculed and not further evaluated in the Programmatic Environmental Impact Studies for the corridor.
In your article, you correctly mention the limitation of conventional rail vehicles due to extreme grades and curvatures along I-70. You, however, accepted “frictionless” motion purported by maglev advocates even though magnetic drag forces are greater than frictional forces at speeds under about 180 mph. In addition, maglev suspension systems consume electrical power even standing still, whereas wheels do not. When these and other serious disadvantages of maglev are considered, the high-speed monorail proposed in 1998 is still the better transit solution for travelers arriving at DIA, regardless of their destination, and even better for travelers wanting to get into the mountains for business or recreation.
If it is wise for RTD to consider gee-whiz options like maglev, why is it not even more prudent to look at the best solution that was selected almost 10 years ago?
Jack B. Stauffer, Evergreen
Talking impeachment
Thanks to letter-writer Clay Berger (May 1 Open Forum) for pointing out that Bill Clinton was impeached for perjury during judicial proceedings – which is indeed a felony, and an impeachable one at that. Is it any wonder, then, that the current administration does not want anyone to testify under oath regarding any number of ongoing investigations?
Terry Shields, Parker
The right to health care
Re: “Two arguments why health care is not a right,” May 1 Open Forum.
One of the arguments always used against the single-payer system is that it rations health care. All health care is rationed. It’s just a question of how it’s done. In the single-payer system, health care is rationed by need. In our system, it’s rationed by the ability to pay. In a single-payer system, you might wait for a few months for a test. Here, you might wait forever.
There is a group of doctors who think that health care isn’t rationed here. Maybe they could get together and promise excellent and timely health care to the poor, underinsured and uninsured. I suspect they would find out that this plan doesn’t work too well.
Maybe the U.S., like almost everyone else in the world already has, can figure out how we can all solve this problem together. If life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are rights, that implies a right to health care. Without your health, these other rights are just words.
Steve Ring, Evergreen
…
As one of those Americans without health insurance, I’d like to ask letter-writer Susan Williams (May 2 Open Forum) not to presume to speak for us as a group. Being without health insurance is not, as she equates, being without health care. I pay for my care out of pocket. I am not “dying quietly,” as she claims the uninsured are. I’m able to afford health care because government mandates have not yet forced me to pay into a pool where my premiums would support others with unhealthy lifestyles.
Doug Anderson, Littleton
Online extras
For more letters to the editor, go to blogs.denverpost.com/eletters
To send a letter to the editor
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
