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
Nudity and sexuality
Re: “Those in the buff often aren’t,” July 11 David Harsanyi column.
Although not a nudist myself, I was shocked and offended by this obtuse and myopic editorial.
Harsanyi laments the “unfortunate … young souls … exposed to the horrors of the hairy, cellulite-ridden naked adult body.” Is he attempting to imply that only perfect bodies are acceptable, and anything less should be considered shameful? This notion is far more damaging to children than seeing other humans’ nudity. In a culture where hatred of one’s body is commonplace, it would be healthier if we taught our youths that the body is nothing to be ashamed of, regardless of its attractiveness.
As for the “sex thing,” is it really wise to teach our children that nudity and sexuality are mutually exclusive? Of course not! America’s inability to view the human body in a non-sexual manner is benighted and objectifying, telling our youth that the nude body is not worthwhile alone, instead implying that nudity is only reasonable in conjunction with a sexual admirer or partner.
Only once we let go of parochial ideas of embarrassment toward our bodies will society be able to cease objectifying men and women, instead viewing the body as more than a sexual device. If we are able to step outside of our fears of social taboo, even for a moment, we can learn a great deal from the nudists.
Lauren Golder, Conifer
Ethanol, the price of beer, and automobile safety
Re: “Switch to ethanol driving up the price of beer? D’oh!” July 11 editorial.
Your editorial about ethanol probably got some attention, but you could have done a public service by focusing on the more important issue relating to ethanol.
You could have said that we should scrap the ethanol plants because science has shown that producing ethanol requires massive amounts of energy and it produces as much global warming pollution as gasoline. You could have said that ethanol production also uses huge amounts of water, pesticides and fertilizer. You could have said that our government subsidizes ethanol production with $3 billion a year. You could have said that there is no energy benefit to using ethanol for fuel.
The world desperately needs a liquid fuel as a replacement for oil, but ethanol isn’t the answer. More correctly, it isn’t the answer in the way it’s currently being produced. Can you explain why ethanol is being produced and subsidized? Is it just a good example of the power of lobbying? I know for sure that it’s a big mistake.
Janet Duncan, Loveland
…
Let me see if I have this straight. The environmentalists say we have to quit driving those big old SUVs. But the nannyists say that kids can’t ride in the front seat, must be in a car seat or, if big enough, strapped in. The days of four kids and a dog in the back seat of a ’36 Plymouth are gone forever. If you need to freight more than two kids, you need something bigger than a compact.
At the same time, we are committing a major portion of our food supply to corn ethanol. Congress is mandating that we increase our mileage 40 percent, while endorsing a fuel that gets 20 percent fewer miles per gallon.
I think my slide rule just burned out.
John Eppinger, Erie
The problem with feeding ducks in the park
Re: “Fifteen minutes of fun,” July 10 LifeStyle story.
Your article about what to do for fun suggested that readers “Pack a picnic lunch feed the ducks” at Washington Park.
Feeding the ducks at the park might be fun or lead to happiness for humans, but not for the ducks. Your feed harms the birds directly and tames them, making them and their geese friends vulnerable to attack from dogs and menacing humans. Yes, people do steal ducks and geese from the park, and they usually end up in a cooking pot. Feeding also may just be against the law. It’s certainly against park and wildlife regulations.
So let the animals stay wild, please. For real pleasure, turn your old bread into croutons.
Ken van der Laan, Denver
Subsidizing mass transit by raising parking fees
Re: “Boost in RTD fares urged,” July 10 news story.
Increasing RTD rates is a major mistake. If Denver and its surrounding suburbs are serious about limiting driving, public transportation should either be free or, at most, cost a nominal fee of perhaps $1. The more RTD raises its rates and cuts service, the more people (who can) will just use their cars.
The way to subsidize RTD should be to drastically increase the cost of parking downtown. Ten dollars an hour at a meter is not too much. A gas tax could also be imposed. When RTD rates increase, only the poor and middle class suffer. Put the onus on the rich. Let car drivers pay for RTD through taxes, parking fees and an increase in registration fees. This is a much more equitable solution and more people will use public transportation, resulting in fewer cars on the road and less pollution in the air.
Finn David, Denver
