[an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive]
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
Speakout

February 2007 | Main | April 2007

March 31, 2007
Bias clouds the issue

By Ari Armstrong

I seem to have a bad habit of picking losing battles. I fought against Referendum C and the minimum-wage hike, both of which passed. But I refuse to give up on my causes, and that includes my call for journalists to stop using biased language to favor legislation that, in my view, violates individual rights.

By Ari Armstrong

I seem to have a bad habit of picking losing battles. I fought against Referendum C and the minimum-wage hike, both of which passed. I supported the measure to legalize small amounts of marijuana for adults age 21 and over; it failed. The election cycle before last, every single candidate I voted for lost. I opposed last year’s successful legislative attempt to violate property rights — er, I mean, to ban smoking to save the children from cancer.

But I refuse to give up on my causes, and that includes my call for journalists to stop using biased language to favor legislation that, in my view, violates individual rights. On March 21, the Rocky published the following news lead: “Bar owners can still use cigarette sales to get around a statewide smoking ban after a measure designed to fix that loophole died in committee Tuesday.” (The headline was: “Cigarette sales can be used to dodge ban.”)

What’s wrong with that? For one thing, the term fix implies that something is broken. The term implies that the bill is a good thing, when in my view it’s terrible.

The point here is not who’s right about the bill. The point is that the Rocky’s news stories have no business actively promoting specific legislation. Journalists who wish to advocate policy changes should write for the editorial pages or the opinion columns overseen by the news side.

The term loophole carries a negative connotation. Everyone understands that a legal loophole is bad and should be closed. It seems that loophole is among the loopholes through which journalists often pass to avoid objective reporting. Using a paraphrased quote, the writer later attributes loophole to a supporter of the bill.

Here’s how I might rewrite the lead to cast the recent legislation in a bad light: “Bar owners can continue to use cigarette sales to mitigate a statewide smoking ban after a measure designed to worsen the imposition died in committee Tuesday.”

The news editors would reject such a lead for the same reasons they should have rejected the text that was used.

That said, the Rocky has done a decent job reporting various ramifications of the smoking ban. The paper has provided information about the elusive definition of tobacco “bars,” the casino exemption and the impact of the ban on theaters that run plays featuring cigarettes.

I do wish the Rocky and other papers had made a greater attempt to discuss the heart of the argument against the ban. People have the right to control their own property and associate freely. The owners of private establishments have every right to set smoking policy there, and patrons and employees are free to come or leave as they wish. The smoking ban is an assault on private property rights, and property rights are a centerpiece of a free society. Reporters didn’t try hard enough to find sources who share this perspective.

My side has enough trouble fighting (what I regard as) bad legislation without struggling against biased journalism on top of it. As this is the editorial page, I’ll close with an evaluation I’ve used before, during the unsuccessful attempt to defeat the measure that expanded gun registration-checks to private sales at gunshows: Freedom is not a loophole.

Ari Armstrong, a resident of Westminster, edits the Colorado Freedom Report (freecolorado.com). Posted by denver-admin at 12:01 AM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

March 30, 2007
Bill doesn’t balance oil and gas body

By Stan Dempsey

Unfortunately, efforts in the legislature this year to reshape the makeup and mission of the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission will not create the balance supporters are touting.

By Stan Dempsey

When we hear a group ask lawmakers to legislate “balance,” our vision is of a circus tightrope walker. Sometimes this high-wire act involves a unicycle and a long pole, but the expert on the tightrope knows balance is the key to staying upright.

Unfortunately, efforts in the legislature this year to reshape the makeup and mission of the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission will not create the balance supporters are touting. Quite the opposite. This legislation (House Bill 1341) will upset an equilibrium that has taken decades to achieve, tip the scales against the rights of mineral property owners, and further polarize the debate over responsible energy development in Colorado.

Among its most important duties, the commission settles technical and economic disputes between competing oil and gas property owners and companies. House Bill 1341 would require that most members of the commission have no background in the highly complex world of property rights and contracts inherent in oil and gas production and processing. It would also add the appointed heads of two state departments as ex officio voting members of the commission. How this attempt to reform a vital state commission somehow provides balance is very hard to see.

What I do see is an industry that is critical to the health of Colorado’s economy under attack. What other Colorado industry generates more than $20 billion in economic activity, 70,000 jobs and a steady stream of tax revenues and yet is subject to such criticism and misunderstanding as oil and gas? Yes, the pace of energy development has increased across Colorado and the Rockies, but so has America’s demand for domestic energy to fuel a growing economy.

Energy producers in Colorado comply with a wide spectrum of regulations designed to protect public health, safety, the environment and wildlife. This complex, often overlapping web of local, state and federal regulations is based on decades of interaction between government, the public and the industry. But House Bill 1341 would reduce the level of technical expertise on the commission while at the same time increase the complexity of the issues to be considered. Some balance.

Another proposed change would allow the new commission to prohibit development of natural gas in certain undefined situations. This idea has two problems: First, these minerals are private property that the state cannot take without just compensation. There’s no way to tell whose property would be deemed “politically incorrect” and taken under this new law. Second, Colorado’s economy — and that of the West — is growing, with increasing demands for clean-burning fuels to generate electricity for homes, businesses, computers and hybrid cars. Arbitrarily restricting supply will only lead to shortages and higher prices. We understand that some people who live in communities where development is occurring don’t believe the COGCC listens or responds to their concerns.

We also know that regulations governing our business must continue to evolve to protect public health and the environment, and to reflect constantly changing technology. We will continue to work with state, federal and local officials, and concerned citizens to identify genuine issues, create solutions, and support a strong and effective COGCC able to do its job while holding every company to high standards of operation.

The COGCC faces many challenges as it balances private property and contract rights, the need for affordable, reliable supplies of energy, and protection of the environment, safety, wildlife, and other community values. House Bill 1341 does not balance the commission’s role. Instead, it skews the process and will likely lead to bureaucratic gridlock and higher energy prices. Colorado energy producers and consumers deserve a thoughtful, measured approach instead of this new, untested regulatory scheme.

Stan Dempsey is president of the Colorado Petroleum Association. Posted by denver-admin at 12:01 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

March 29, 2007
Military wife protests disloyalty

By Margaret Fox, Sedalia

As a 76 year old lady, I have lived through the Depression, WWII, Korea, the Cold War, Viet Nam, the Black Hawk Down incident, 9/11, the Marine Barracks bombing in Lebanon, and the war in Afghanistan and now Iraq, plus countless other incidents. I am now in a state of extreme anger and frustration with the anti-american press, including your paper.Sedalia

This Speakout has not been edited

By Margaret Fox, Sedalia

As a 76 year old lady, I have lived through the Depression, WWII, Korea, the Cold War, Viet Nam, the Black Hawk Down incident, 9/11, the Marine Barracks bombing in Lebanon, and the war in Afghanistan and now Iraq, plus countless other incidents. I am now in a state of extreme anger and frustration with the anti-american press, including your paper.

On page 22 of the RMN on Tuesday, the 22nd, you have an article of a survey done by ABC News, USA Today, the BBC, and ARD German TV. These are all, I repeat, all left wing publications and stations. Next to that article you have a picture of a little girl, looking frightened at a weapon held by a US soldier, as though she fears she is to be shot or harmed in some way.

I am a military wife; my husband served for 30 years in the service. It was a time of stress, fear, and chaos. The Cuba incident in the 60's, when my husband would be on alert for weeks at a time and I was left to deal with the children, emergencies at home, cars to be fixed, etc all took their toll.

But I knew that he was, along with thousands of others, protecting our country. It never occurred to me to criticize our President, our country, or anyone else for these situations. For a supposedly "news" publication to misrepresent our brave men and put them in harms' way by supporting the enemies of our country is unconscienceable, malicious, and smacks of a lack of patriotism to me.

I abhor and despise the, in my opinion, traitors who constantly tear down our beliefs and our constitution and encourage the enemy! (Jane Fonda and Cindy Sheehan, for instance) To claim that you support our troops but not the war in Iraq is mendacious.

The only law that seems to still apply is that we cannot shout "fire" in a crowded room. Freedom of speech is just that--speech. Not expression, not burning the flag, not calling our country bad names, disrespecting the office of the President and rowdy demonstrations with rag-tag trashy looking people milling about on our streets, impeding traffic, and otherwise costing the taxpayers money for controlling the mobs and cleaning up after them.

The liberal and socialistic communities delight in this, and are pushing their agenda for the downfall of our Republic. Read the Constitution! This is not a democracy!! We are a Republic!!! If you do not know the difference, look it up. Read history! No democracy has prevailed in the history of the world. They have all fallen and dictators, thugs, murderers, and incompetent rulers take over.

What does it take to get through to the hoi polloi (look it up) that they are the problem, not the solution. Those who do not own property should not be in charge of the government, as they have no vested interest in anything other than what they can get by their vote--and the rest of us pay for it!!

It is time for the general public to stop whining, demonstrating, painting themselves up like savages and generally causing problems for the rest of us. Look at both sides, try to think rationally instead of emotionally, and do what is best for our country. Remember the words of John F. Kennedy- "Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country".

The majority of us can only pray that reason and sanity will return someday soon, before it is too late.

(Also, this is endorsed by my husband, Martin Fox, Colonel, USAF Retired) Posted by denver-admin at 12:01 AM | Comments (16) | TrackBack

OK to offend Christians, but not Muslims

By Dave Petteys Roxborough Park

A couple of years ago Target banned "Merry Christmas" and substituted " Happy Holidays", being politically correct, not wanting to offend the "non-Christians". They even banned the Salvation Army from placing their traditional bell ringers to collect charity for the poor, [after all, that's the government's job, not that of faith-based organizations, right]?

This Speakout has not been edited

By Dave Petteys Roxborough Park

A couple of years ago Target banned "Merry Christmas" and substituted " Happy Holidays", being politically correct, not wanting to offend the "non-Christians". They even banned the Salvation Army from placing their traditional bell ringers to collect charity for the poor, [after all, that's the government's job, not that of faith-based organizations, right]?

In today's Investor's Business Daily, (3/20/07, page A-2) there was a note that Target "has reassigned Muslim cashiers at some Minn. Stores after they objected handling sales of pork such as bacon." So we have a situation where Target doesn't mind offending Christians, but bends over backwards NOT to offend Muslims!

We also remember recent articles concerning Muslim cab drivers at the Minneapolis airport who refuse to transport alcohol and dogs. In the secular view, continual accommodation and tolerance to any "legitimate grievance" is the order of the day. Soon, they may refuse to transport women not in burkas and not accompanied by their husbands, instituting Taliban style Islam right here in the good old US of A.

Kowtowing to this humiliation stems from the "progressive" notion that our society and culture are no better than any other. Our precious gift of liberty and prosperity is taken absolutely for granted and not appreciated, certainly NOT worth fighting and dying for! After all, multiculturalism, civil rights and tolerance of absolutely everything are the prime virtues!

What the secularist apologists refuse to see is that the continual demands by the Islamics will not cease until they have carved out little Islamic Republics all across America, with complete independence from American jurisdiction and the institution of Shari'a Law.

The "Progressive" apologists will argue "we gave sovereignty to Native American tribes, why not Islamics?"

Some secularist apologists say "if they want Shari'a Law, let them have it!" But what secularists refuse to grasp is instituting Shari'a Law requires non-believers to live in a Dhimmi status (second class subordination to Islamics). I would wager to say the secularist apologists aren't anticipating paying the 10% zigat (tax) to the local mosque complete with the monthly slap in the face (to remind them of their inferior status).

Nor do they realize this constitutes a surrender of the Rule of Law to the whims of the local Imam and his black clad Hamas style militia. Where will the secular "prime virtues" be then? I wonder if the secularists realize they are trying to commit suicide? Posted by denver-admin at 12:01 AM | Comments (19) | TrackBack

Morals can be had without God

By Jon Takata, Thornton

I don't believe House Speaker Nancy Pelosi advocated that we abandon moral judgement when she said that "we don't need moral judgement from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs." It does not mean to abandon all moral judgement!

This Speakout has not been edited

By Jon Takata, Thornton

Regarding "Pace finds guidance in God's moral law "Rocky Mnt News, pg 44, 3-22-07, its that same old crap again! Not God and religion but the references to God and moral issues. I don't believe House Speaker Nancy Pelosi advocated that we abandon moral judgement when she said that "we don't need moral judgement from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs." It does not mean to abandon all moral judgement! The writer from Centennial has twisted the meaning of Pelosi's call. Why can't God and religion be looked at outside the realm of the United States Constitution. The First Amendment says Congress shall not recognize any one religion over others. There is a basic reason for this!

I thank our founding fathers for the First Amendment, these people with Neo-Christian backgrounds and values knew that in order to create a living new nation the people must be allowed religious freedom to worship in their own way.

Religious freedom and taxation without representation were the primary reasons for the creation of our country and the risks taken in the first place. Our monetary system, coinage and paper currency should say in the "USA We Trust." and not in "God We Trust". Our money is backed by the USA with goods and services! Our Pledge of Allegience had more meaning prior to the 'Under God" being added. The words "The People" would have had more logic, meaning and understanding. Yes, lets believe and trust in God but lets believe in ourselves and in the USA under the Constitution.

I thank our founding fathers, especially for the First Amendment. They were able to understand and comprehend, when adding the Bill Of Rights, something we just can't seem to comprehend or accept in the 20th and 21st century. The Bill of Rights was critical not only for the passage of the Constitution but also to protect individual rights against the government. Even now, regardless of the First Amendment all non-Christians gladly respect and participate in the celebrating of Christmas with Christians.

Now again, when the Christmas season nears, we will have the heated controversy of "Merry Christmas" or "Happy Holidays". There are many Christians that cannot unerstand why people will not say Merry Christmas to expresss the season and yet will not question why we even have a Christmas.

Morals can be had without God. Posted by denver-admin at 12:01 AM | Comments (11) | TrackBack

Japan's WWII behavior

By Howard B. Walitt, Grand Junction

A recent George Will column, concerning the film, Letters, is a pathetic apologia for those who would forget or deny history. Mr. Will, a man of great intellect and historical knowledge, should be ashamed of himself for writing this column.

This Speakout has not been edited

By Howard B. Walitt, Grand Junction

Re: "Comfort women' deserve some justice," Ellen Goodman's column published on 17 March 2007.

Following is my letter, recently published by The Grand Junction Free Press, regarding an issue related to the one discussed by Ms. Goodman.

"A recent George Will column, concerning the film, Letters, was published in the competing Grand Junction daily newspaper. It is a pathetic apologia for those who would forget or deny history. "Mr. Will, a man of great intellect and historical knowledge, should be ashamed of himself for writing this column. It is sad that he (as well as Clint Eastwood, director of the "Japanese perspective" film about the Battle of Iwo Jima in World War II, Letters) should succumb to such regrettable political correctness when dealing with the most unrepentant barbarians in the twentieth century, the Japs of 1930 -- 1945. (While it is no longer acceptable to use this term about our Far Eastern ally, that is the nomenclature used during their years of Banzai bestiality and Bushido.) It is now 60 years since the end of World War II, and the government of Nippon, and precious few of its citizens, has never acknowledged, much less apologized for, its frenzied barbarism during the 1930 - 1940s period of history.)

"Japanese school texts gloss over or fail to mention the almost unparalleled atrocities perpetrated by the nationalistic and imperialistic Japan of that age, which sought to create its euphemistically benign "Greater East-Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere."

"Lest we forget, as the Japanese would have the world do: the rape of Nanking (China); unprovoked attack on Pearl Harbor (Hawaii); Bataan Death March (Philippines); "comfort women" (Korean sex slaves for Japanese soldiers); POW slave labor (e.g., Thai/Burma railways; Japanese mines and factories); Unit 731,and other sites (lethal germ warfare experiments, using POWs and Chinese civilians, in Manchurian "labs"); and on, and on ...

"Nearly 75 years after Japan began its foul and bestial campaign of aggression and conquest in Asia and the Pacific, they have yet to confess to the unspeakable misery, death and ruin that they wreaked on the world. It is unfortunate that it is politically incorrect to mention these historical facts because Japan is now an ally, a cultured people, a valued trading partner . one of the "good guys." [For those with a strong stomach, an instructive read is, The Rape of Nanking, The Forgotten Holocaust of World War II," Iris Chang, Basic Books, 1997.] As a nation, they should be regarded as a pariah state, until they openly admit, both to their own people, as well as their victims, the sadistic inhumanity for which they bear total culpability."

"Yes, history is written by the winners, but that does not make it less true." Posted by denver-admin at 12:01 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

March 28, 2007
Consumer access to low-cost gas

By Bradley "Buzz" Calkins Jr.

Currently, House Bill 1208, which has passed through the legislature on its way to the governor's desk, would repeal a portion of the Colorado Unfair Practices Act, specifically relating to below-cost fuel sales. If this bill is signed, it will jeopardize many retailers' futures and more importantly Colorado consumers' access to low-cost gas.

By Bradley "Buzz" Calkins Jr.

For over 35 years we at Bradley Petroleum have prided ourselves on being the leading low-cost gas retailer in the Rocky Mountain region.

Currently, House Bill 1208, which has passed through the legislature on its way to the governor's desk, would repeal a portion of the Colorado Unfair Practices Act, specifically relating to below-cost fuel sales. If this bill is signed, it will jeopardize many retailers' futures and more importantly Colorado consumers' access to low-cost gas.

The lobbyists representing the large grocery chains and hypermarts, Wal-Mart and Costco, have been actively deceiving the public into believing that this legislation will promote competition and lead to cheaper gasoline prices when, in fact, these changes will have the absolute opposite effect, leading to a net loss for the consumer in both the short, and more importantly, long term.

These big-box retailers want to repeal the portion of the law that forbids them from bundling products. In other words, under the new law, they would be able to sell gasoline below cost as long as they made up the difference in another area of their store.

The discounted gas price is offered only to those who purchase a certain amount of other products. For example, a consumer may save "x" cents a gallon on gas, but will pay more than usual on other purchases. If this bill is signed, consumers will be paying more for groceries. It's easy to see why the big-box retailers want to use this gimmick. It makes their stores much more profitable and leaves consumers thinking they paid less when they really paid more.

It has been argued that large independents like Bradley will keep them in check even though the last few Mom and Pops will be forced out of business. The problem is that we cannot compete when they are allowed to bundle their services. When even the biggest gas station/convenience store matches their price and takes a loss on gas, it does not have a large enough store to make up that loss on other purchases. In the end, even the most efficient competitors like us will be forced to close, leaving the large majority, if not all of the market, to the grocery stores and hypermarts. Then, prices will go higher because of the lack of competition.

There are few, if any, industries more competitive than gasoline retailing. We at Bradley welcome the competition from the big-box retailers; we just want it to be on a level playing field. In a true free-market economy we can continue to give Colorado consumers the best-quality, low-cost gas for years to come, but not with the current legislation. Don't be deceived into thinking you are paying less for gas with their discounts because overall you are paying more.

Bradley "Buzz" Calkins Jr. is a manager at Bradley Petroleum Inc. in Centennial. He has a master's in business from Northwestern University's Kellogg School of Management and is a former professional race-car driver. Posted by denver-admin at 12:01 AM | Comments (10) | TrackBack

March 27, 2007
"In the year of our Lord"

By Robert E Forman, Lakewood

I'm am "debating" the idea of dropping "In God We Trust" from our coins and currency - and replacing that phrase with another one, a better one, a far better one that will stand up to any and all constitutional challenges because the phrase I am proposing is IN the US Constitution.

This Speakout has not been edited

By Robert E Forman, Lakewood

I'm am "debating" the idea of dropping "In God We Trust" from our coins and currency - and replacing that phrase with another one, a better one, a far better one that will stand up to any and all constitutional challenges because the phrase I am proposing is IN the US Constitution.

"In God We Trust" is NOT in the Constitution.

"In the year of our Lord" IS.

Think about it. Think how utterly "delicious" it would be if our coins and currency was dated EXACTLY as the US Constitution is dated.

Envision the face of Washington, Lincoln, Jefferson on the front of the coin - and in a circular arc around the top and right side were the words "In the year of our Lord 2007" or "In the year of our Lord 2008" etc.

"In God We Trust" is NOT in the US Constitution and the ACLU and the Americans for the Separation of Church and State "people" MAY have a "point" depending upon the whims of various federal judges and justices.

But "in the year of our Lord" is IN the Constitution - NOT in the Bible. Quoting six words that is IN the Constitution can hardly be "unconstitutional" - Because the Constitution, by definition, is constitutional and is not unconstitutional.

The "irony" is that a good many people insist that the US Constitution contains absolutely NO reference to ANY deity whatsoever. But since "in the year of our Lord" is IN the Constitution, that puts them in a Catch-22.

Either they admit they are ignorant - or they admit they lied.

But for my purposes, it matters not that they are liars or are stupid fools.

The fact IS this: Our Founding Fathers dated the supposed Supreme Law of our nation with the words "in the year of our Lord." It clearly should be permissible and constitutional to date our coins and our currency in the EXACT SAME MANNER: "In the year of our Lord 2007".

As a side note, I will offer a slight change to Pledge: Drop "under God" and START the Pledge with "In the year of our Lord 2007, I pledge...."

I know that some people have a problem with putting any reference to God on secular coins in the first place, and with "pledging allegiance" to a country that is becoming more morally corrupt day by day.

But few Christians will deny that the US and Israel have both been blessed by God. Our country may be forsaking God, but God has blessed this country enormously over the years since 1776 and perhaps before.

I am personally not opposed to "In God We Trust" or "In the year of our Lord" - just as our Founding Fathers were not opposed to putting "In the year of our Lord" on the very document that created this nation in the first place.

But if the ACLU and others ARE opposed to "In God We Trust" - fine. Let us quote the US Constitution and put "In the year of our Lord" on our money instead. Posted by denver-admin at 12:01 AM | Comments (13) | TrackBack

Winter-damaged concrete

By Ron Tapler, Concrete Doctor Corp

This year has been exceptionally hard on concrete. Old school says you should pull and re-pour damaged concrete. Which is much more expensive than some other alternatives, Look into repairing concrete before spending money on replacement. Reputable companies in the repair industry can tell you whether your concrete can be repaired or whether it is too far gone.

This Speakout has not been edited

By Ron Tapler, Concrete Doctor Corp

This year has been exceptionally hard on concrete. From roadways, parking lots, shopping center walkways, to porches, patios, and driveways. One common problem for most is that the open cold joints and cracks have allowed water to travel beneath the slabs. When this happens with our extreme weather conditions, the water freezes beneath the slabs, and forces the concrete apart and often up. This causes uneven heaved concrete, classified as liability trip hazards, An inconvenience for homeowners when the snow shovel hits the edge of the concrete and the handle ends up in your gut.

Commercial properties that have these types of concrete issues could find themselves liable for injuries. When it gets warmer and the water melts and flows under the concrete slabs it can wash the soil away and can also react with the expansive soils which are prominent within our region. If you are allowing water into the cracks and joints of your concrete, you are undermining your slabs,

Old school says you should pull and re-pour damaged concrete. Which is much more expensive than some other alternatives, Look into repairing concrete before spending money on replacement. Reputable companies in the repair industry can tell you whether your concrete can be repaired or whether it is too far gone. Preventive maintenance is the best medicine, before it is too late. All concrete is originally poured, if done properly, so that water flows off and away. Open cold joints and cracks need to be filled, surface deterioration should be addressed and even concrete in good condition should be sealed and hardened to preserve it. Done right with the right equipment and commercial grade materials. The solutions are generally simple for people who do this kind of work, If a repair company can add 5 to 10 years longevity, they've done their job.

One more important thing, curb appeal. If you put your home on the market and there are open cracks, deteriorated surfaces, weeds growing through the driveway, then your curb appeal is less than satisfactory. A home needs to have an appearance that it has been well maintained. Don't let a potential buyer walk away because the first impression was bad before they even entered the house. By the same token, there are circumstances where a new pour is your best bet. But remember the one guarantee all contractors can give you is that concrete will crack, it's a matter of when and how bad.

Should you do it yourself or hire a professional? As homeowners, we ask this question often. Homeowners many times will try to do their own concrete repairs. You need to evaluate how much equipment costs, the labor involved and how long will it last. And then there's the question... "Am I using the right product?" If preparation is not done properly, materials will not adhere, or at least for very long. Then it will be time to dig it all out and try again. Most do-it-yourself-jobs I've seen using products available through home improvement stores, will usually last a year or so. A professional repair job, I've seen last ten or twelve years, extending the life of the concrete and delaying the inevitable cost of replacement. The small investment now of hiring a professional, will save you hundreds of dollars in the long run,

There are many types of repairs available these days. If you have cracked concrete or open joints, get them filled with an a expandable caulking to keep water out. if you have concrete that has surface deterioration it's not necessarily destroyed. A lot of these slabs can be repaired and resurfaced. If you have concrete that is in good overall condition, have it sealed and hardened. This will make the concrete much more impenetrable to everything, including oil stains. When you use salt, use it sparingly and when it has melted the ice and snow, broom it off the concrete surface. Salt will slowly deteriorate concrete surfaces, especially if it sits on the concrete undisturbed. Repair contractors can not guarantee your concrete will look like new when repairs are completed, but it will look maintained. Some pay closer attention to aesthetics than others. The overall objective is to create longevity and delay the cost of replacement. Posted by denver-admin at 12:01 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

March 26, 2007
South Platte River water conflict

By Arnold Good, Fort Morgan

I have served on subsidiary Boards of Directors within the senior system and can speak from both sides of the South Platte River conflict.

I respectfully submit to you as our elected leaders, there cannot and will not be peace and recovery on the South Platte system in NE Colorado under the current standards of river administration.

This Speakout has not been edited

By Arnold Good, Fort Morgan

To all who honorably serve in the executive and legislative branches of Colorado government:

I have farmed in Morgan County for thirty years with a variety of land/water assets. I am a stockholder in a senior direct flow ditch and reservoir system under which the wells are subject to a decreed augmentation plan. I have junior wells that are not associated with direct flow rights and are presently seeking court approval of a proposed augmentation plan. Non-irrigated farmland is also a significant part of my operation. I have served on subsidiary Boards of Directors within the senior system and can speak from both sides of the South Platte River conflict.

I respectfully submit to you as our elected leaders, there cannot and will not be peace and recovery on the South Platte system in NE Colorado under the current standards of river administration. In 2001 when the Colorado Supreme Court stripped away most of the State Engineer's discretionary powers, the influence passed from the engineering to the legal community. Water Court proceedings have become driven by objection and the subsequent rulings by stipulation, and all with very little statutory precedent.

Important questions that Colorado officials who make and interpret our laws must address are as follows:

1.Is 'presumed injury' a sufficient standard by which to require/demand a remedy? The burden is presently on well owners to provide a remedy for 'presumed injury'. Should it not be the burden of the 'presumed injured' party to first quantifiably prove the injury both in place and time? Under the current system, 'presumed injury' is a spreadsheet calculation almost void of any real, actual, and measured historic river behavior.

2.Is the Water Court presently interpreting and applying 'injury' and 'remedy' in full compliance with the 1969 water statute? Was the augmentation legislation that was passed in 1969 intended to have 'retrospective application' in regard to injury, or was the intent 'prospective' in nature; and to what extent has that intent been applied correctly and consistent with river behavior? I have a senior augmentation decree that makes 'prospective application' of injury, and I also have a proposed augmentation decree that makes 'retrospective application' of injury. The statute has not changed, but it is continually being conformed to the needs of those who are 'presumed' to be injured.

3.Does the Water Court, at the insistence of the objectors, have the jurisdiction to require that applicant well owners must prove to have water resources in place now to remedy projected future 'unproven' injury? This system is neither equitable, consistent, nor workable. There is a growing and metamorphosing monster designed and fed by objection that is based on a gross misapplication of science which is destined to crush the South Platte River economy.

On February 28th several applicant well owners filed a 'Writ of Prohibition' with the Colorado Supreme Court questioning the interpretation and application of the Water Court on some of these critical issues. We were summarily rejected within twenty four hours without reason. Upon announcement to the Water Court of our petition, an objecting attorney smugly commented to his colleagues in the room: "This is just a handful of desperate farmers who have thrown enough money at some disinterested appeals lawyer to stop their inevitable execution!"

I have hired an attorney to monitor the court proceedings and to intervene if necessary to defend my vested property rights. As a Colorado taxpayer I contribute to the salaries of the Attorney General's staff to insure that the State Engineer's office is properly represented. I have hired a law firm to litigate my augmentation plan before the Water Court. Lastly, I have indirectly retained an attorney to defend my senior direct flow/reservoir rights and to convict my applicant wells of attempted murder (inflicting permanent debilitating injury) and to demand the death penalty (permanent curtailment). The system has set me up to take myself down!

Mr. Governor, I appeal to you as our state's chief executive, to use all the power at your disposal to lead and influence the legislative and judicial branches of our government to reform this broken system. Respectfully sir, will you please ask the questions posed above? The Supreme Court has rejected our questions and denied us a reason for their rejection, only you sir and your influence with the legislature can stop the bleeding and institute change. There can be peace and their can be health and vitality in the South Platte River basin, but first there must be change that is consistent, equitable, and workable for all water users. Posted by denver-admin at 12:01 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Mitt Romney, the remedy for America

By Joseph Haynie, Fort Collins

Reminiscent of the 1960 elections, many Americans have disqualified Mitt Romney, an otherwise worthy presidential candidate, whose wholesome persona is unheard of in today's political arena, on the grounds that his Jesus is different from their Jesus.

This Speakout has not been edited

By Joseph Haynie, Fort Collins

America, the land of opportunity, founded on the principle of religious freedom, has reached a new low. Reminiscent of the 1960 elections, many Americans have disqualified Mitt Romney, an otherwise worthy presidential candidate, whose wholesome persona is unheard of in today's political arena, on the grounds that his Jesus is different from their Jesus. The public has allowed a man's religion to clout their judgment. Alas, theology, not policy, seems to be the deciding factor for the presidency.

It is plain to see that this man does not fit the commonplace misconceptions of Mormons. He does not have horns; I am sure he eats a lot of oatmeal; and it is apparent that he has but one wife - ironically enough, of all the Republican candidates he is the only one that has hade only one wife. So then, what is the brouhaha all about? Mere faith, not a qualification thereof, is of most importance.

It is sad to see that one's religious persuasion has now become their biggest hindrance in their quest for the Oval office. I resent headlines and news commentary that speak of Mitt the Mormon. They should instead read of Romney the remedy. Here is a highly educated man who has made a career out of turning around problems. The failure that was to be the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City was avoided by Romney who, in the midst of a scandal and financial fiasco, took over and made the winter games one of the most profitable in history, transforming a $379 million deficit into a $100 million profit. This marvelous feat was done in four years. Coincidentally, presidents serve four year terms. Given his track record, and the current economic circumstances we face, just imagine what he can do for our country.

Romney's rational and reasonable opponents - those who see past his religion - are critical of his political history. It is true that Romney has flip-flopped on social issues, most notably, gay rights. In 1994 he offered his support to the Log Cabin Republicans, a gay fraction of the Republican Party, stating his strong support of gay rights. However, in recent years, he has been an outspoken opponent of gay marriage, the pinnacle of the rights issues. Unfortunate, but true, Mitt has messed up.

This leads us to ask: how long should political black marks be relevant? Hilary Clinton, the Duchess of the Democratic Party, was a member of the Young Republicans and a sympathizer of Marxist thought. Why is she not wearing a scarlet letter? Is the use of illegal drugs by Democratic superstar, Barak Obama, relevant, or even pertinent, to his political aspirations? Apparently Chappaquiddick is irrelevant to Edward Kennedy's political profession, having become an infrequently mentioned footnote in his long senatorial tenure. The same can be said of Robert Byrd and his affiliation and leadership roles in the Ku Klux Klan of West Virginia. The dark secrets and flip-flopping ways of these individuals are far more dastardly than Romney's evolving stance on gay rights. Do you see the double standard? John Q. Public and all the others voters should be relieved that there is finally a presidential candidate who sports a relatively clean political slate.

President John F. Kennedy obviously managed this scenario gracefully and successfully. America judged him by the content of his character and not the credos of his church. Let us apply the same standard to Mitt. Let us see what he can bring to the table. If his history tells us anything, he's definitely the man, or, shall I say, remedy, for the nation. Posted by denver-admin at 12:01 AM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

Finding safe transportation on a holiday night

By Jared Hedman, Littleton

Like many other people, I was trying to find a way to celebrate the holiday weekend with friends. We decided to try and keep things quiet by simply heading to a local bar in Highlands Ranch. I was able to convince my friends that if we were going to go out, even for just a short time, we should call a cab to and from the bar. Just to be safe.

This Speakout has not been edited

By Jared Hedman, Littleton

I am writing to you in regards to a recent experience I had over the St. Patricks holiday weekend. Before I begin the letter, I need to state that several years ago; I was involved in a DUI stop and was later found to be driving under the influence.

Of course I regret that but I am happy to say that no person or property was harmed in the incident. I learned my lesson and have been striving to not let that happen again. Thus why this last weekend's events really aggravated me.

Like many other people, I was trying to find a way to celebrate the holiday weekend with friends. We decided to try and keep things quiet by simply heading to a local bar in Highlands Ranch. I was able to convince my friends that if we were going to go out, even for just a short time, we should call a cab to and from the bar. Just to be safe. They agreed and when we got home from dinner, we called Yellow Cab to come and pick us up from our house. Needless to say, about an hour and 15 minutes later, we decided to call Yellow Cab back and cancel the request. We simply decided not to go out for the evening, but I can see how that could really frustrate people and cause them to decide to take the risk and drive. We however were not going to risk it and by the time you've waited over an hour for a cab, you just simply don't want to go out anymore. Not to mention that Yellow Cab could give us absolutely no timeline. We just wanted to go about 5 miles, that' all.

This event, which I hate to say isn't the first time it's happened, is what really frustrates me. Everyone knows the current term which states that a DUI can cost you upwards of $8,000. I'm curious what happens with that money. I realize all these over bearing funds like MADD receive a ton of money from each DUI, but what good comes from that. Advertisements telling us DUI's are bad; we already know that. I'm sure the cities and municipalities love the income from DUI's, heck, its easy money for them. But let's face the truth, they are doing nothing proactive for the problem, it's all simply punishment after the fact.

In my mind, a large percentage of all the money from those convictions should be going to things like mass transit assistance during high risk nights and weekends. Possibly helping cab companies with busy nights, etc. They should be running bus routes on weekends like this that run late at night and are heavily posted. Here's an idea, like many people out there, I pay an HOA. Why wouldn't our HOA's work with companies like RTD and offer specialized transportation service on nights like this. For instance, virtually every neighborhood has a school of some sort in it; why not make those stops along a special route on nights like St. Patricks. I'd be more than happy to walk a block to my local school and take a bus to the entertainment districts in my area. If you advertised this service correctly weeks before such weekends (possibly even in the lovely HOA newsletters), people would surely use the benefit.

In the end, it really aggravates me that our city, state, and local governments are doing absolutely nothing (at least that's the appearance), to help this issue in a proactive measure. They would rather setup checkpoints that setup special bus routes. Our cab companies are virtually unregulated and appear as though they are not using modern technologies to help make their services more efficient. My friends and I tried to do the right thing but it's apparent that it's not the easy thing. Quite possibly why so many people choose not to do the right thing. It's just another example of how people are content with the way things are rather than making a necessary change to make a system better.

I'm glad that my friends and I decided not to take the chance and risk a night out on the town, but I'm disappointed that we could not enjoy the night safely. Posted by denver-admin at 12:01 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Play based on Leonard Peltier's autobiography

By Richard J Two-Elk, Denver

I submit that "My Life Is My Sundance", at first a book now a play being presented locally, insults the Sundance ceremony of the Lakota. It stereotypically reduces the annual blood prayers and sacrifices of thousands of Sundance participants for health and welfare of their loved ones, to words of one man and his "personal" struggle to escape his past.

This Speakout has not been edited

By Richard J Two-Elk, Denver

The play, "My Life Is My Sundance", currently being presented at the Boulder Museum of Contemporary Art, 1750 13th St., Boulder, is based on Leonard Peltier's autobiography by the same title. However, this Lakota would like to suggest CAUTION, since it is NOT what it appears to be.

In the: Declaration of War Against the Exploiters of Lakota Spirituality http://www.elexion.com/lakota/rites/index2.html Lakota leaders speak out against those who "are selling books that promote the systematic colonization of our Lakota spirituality" and an "industry continues to saturate the entertainment media with vulgar, sensationalist and grossly distorted representations of Lakota spirituality...which reinforce the public's negative stereotyping...and which gravely impair the self-esteem of our children". They admonish that "this exponential exploitation of our Lakota spiritual traditions requires we take immediate action to defend our most precious Lakota spirituality...".

I submit that "My Life Is My Sundance", at first a book now a play being presented locally, insults the Sundance ceremony of the Lakota. It stereotypically reduces the annual blood prayers and sacrifices of thousands of Sundance participants for health and welfare of their loved ones, to words of one man and his "personal" struggle to escape his past.

Sundance is a Sacred Ceremony of fasting, not drinking water and making prayer for four days. Sundance is governed by traditional laws and leaders, and is comprised of blood prayers danced by the Sundancers. Given this, how can Mr. Peltier even suggest his life is a Sundance?

If Leonard Peltier is going to INVOKE the Sundance, then he, and those who present the book and play, must reckon contradictions between what he represents therein and the Sundance Ceremony among the Lakota.

In one instance from the book Mr. Peltier states, "I pray an eagle will fly off the flagstaff in the President's Oval Office and...while the President sits there...I pray that that eagle will stand there on his desk, stare into his eyes, and join its cry to the cry of the millions... around the world...appealing for my release. With all my heart I personally appeal to him for his consideration and for his compassion." http://www.thepeoplespaths.net/LeonardPeltier/LPextracts990309.htm

This contradicts, and conflicts with what Lakota people understand the essence of our Sundance ceremony to be, sacrifice and prayer for the good of others, NOT your SELF.

In the Sundance Circle and the prayers of the Sundancers, it is NOT common practice, Nor is it acceptable, to complain. However, contrary to this Sundance tenet, "My Life Is My Sundance" is one continuous complaint.

With words like, "My life is an extended agony. I feel like I've lived a hundred lifetimes in prison already." Nonetheless, leonard persists "...yes, I am a Sun Dancer. That, too, is my identity. If I am to suffer as a symbol of my people, then I suffer proudly...".

All I ask, as a Lakota and fellow Sundancer, is that he "suffer" with dignity appropriate to the calling rather than in boosting book and ticket sales.

In "My Life Is My Sundance", people are misled to believe his complaints of misery will somehow "educate an unknowing and uncaring public" to the plight of us "poor" Indians.

Were we all to share in the spoils of his book and ticket sales, I might be more inclined to "believe" his life is his Sundance that will do us all some good.

In closing, I request humbly, that you NOT support this insult to Lakota Spirituality and our Sacred Sundance by NOT buying the book or NOT attending the play, and instead help Mr. Peltier know the true virtue of the Sundance he's invoked, which is hardship, strength and Sacrifice. Posted by denver-admin at 12:01 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

To Colorado Senate: Pass H.B. 1304

By Flodie Anderson, President, League of Women Voters of Colorado

Since Amendment 41 was first proposed, the League of Women Voters of Colorado has been concerned about the scope of this "Ethics in Government" measure. Those concerns caused us to oppose it. In spite of its weaknesses, the amendment was approved by voters and is now part of the Colorado Constitution, and we are left to deal with its unintended - and sometimes absurd - consequences. These consequences are hurting people - NOW.

This Speakout has not been edited

By Flodie Anderson, President, League of Women Voters of Colorado

Since Amendment 41 was first proposed, the League of Women Voters of Colorado has been concerned about the scope of this "Ethics in Government" measure. Those concerns caused us to oppose it. In spite of its weaknesses, the amendment was approved by voters and is now part of the Colorado Constitution, and we are left to deal with its unintended - and sometimes absurd - consequences. These consequences are hurting people - NOW.

The broad scope of Amendment 41 as written has been interpreted by the Attorney General and others as creating harsh (and unnecessary) restrictions on the ability of elected officials to conduct the public's business, and on the ability of an estimated 400,000 government employees and their families to conduct their financial affairs in a reasonable and fair way. This consequence arises from the prohibition of all gifts from lobbyists to elected officials, and restriction to $50 per year of "gifts" to all government employees and their families. The inability to grant a scholarship to a person simply because that person is related to a government employee is one example of the unfortunate consequences that are hurting people who have little authority to compromise the public trust for private gain. The individual subpoena power apparently granted to members of the ethics commission, and the lack of accountability of commissioners open the door for abuses of the process that could irreparably harm the reputation and financial stability of many public servants.

The League has concluded that the General Assembly must take prompt and reasonable steps to address the absurdities of Amendment 41. Clarifying the amendment through appropriate enabling legislation is far preferable to enduring the piecemeal court challenge process or waiting until November 2008, when the people of Colorado can vote on another measure.

HB 1304, sponsored by Representative Marshall and Senator Ward, is both prompt and reasonable. The bill declares that the purpose of Amendment 41 is to prevent officials from violating the public trust for private gain. By defining many terms, such as "private gain" and "frivolous complaints," the bill limits the application of Amendment 41 to only those situations in which a government employee or elected official might indeed be violating the public trust for private gain. This bill limits the scope of the Ethics Commission to only those complaints that are not frivolous, and makes its decisions subject to the authority of the Colorado Supreme Court. The bill also limits the individual subpoena power of Ethics Commission members and allows advisory opinions in advance. If passed, these provisions would be in place quickly, at least by mid-May. As amended before House passage, HB 1304 respects the voters' action by asking them to retain HR 1304 in the 2008 election.

The core mission of the League is to encourage citizen participation in government. As it stands, Amendment 41 may ultimately hinder participation in government at all levels if the General Assembly does not take prompt steps to address these problems.

As HB 1304 moves to the Senate, we strongly urge the members to put aside their frustration at the passage of Amendment 41, and show leadership in addressing the best interests of the people of Colorado. We also hope that this issue will remind elected officials and the public that the constitution should be a document guaranteeing basic rights, not a set of "super statutes." Posted by denver-admin at 12:01 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

March 25, 2007
Jim Bridger plant's pollution

By Tom Bell, Lander, WY

PacifiCorp’s Jim Bridger Power Plant near Rock Springs is one of the largest industrial sites in Wyoming and, unfortunately, one of the largest sources of air pollution in the nation.

By Tom Bell, Lander, WY

PacifiCorp’s Jim Bridger Power Plant near Rock Springs is one of the largest industrial sites in Wyoming and, unfortunately, one of the largest sources of air pollution in the nation.

According to PacifiCorp’s own monitoring data, emissions from Jim Bridger exceeded permit limits for opacity thousands of times in the last five years. (Opacity is a measure of the density of pollution being released and is an indication of the amount of breathable particles, colored gases, and other light-reflecting and absorbing chemicals in the plant’s emissions.)

These pollutants can cause serious human health problems, can be harmful to wildlife, and can contribute to local and regional haze.

The federal Clean Air Act requires major sources of air pollution like Jim Bridger to obtain an operating permit that spells out emission limits and monitoring requirements. Emission monitoring information is available to the public and, under the “citizen suit” provision of the Clean Air Act, citizens may take legal action to stop violations of an air pollution permit.

It is against this backdrop that the Wyoming Outdoor Council and the Sierra Club have filed a federal lawsuit to stop violations of the opacity limits in the permit for the Jim Bridger Power Plant.

PacifiCorp Energy President Bill Fehrman claimed in a press release on Feb. 21 that the Wyoming Outdoor Council/Sierra Club lawsuit “has no merit and does not involve a risk to the health and welfare of the citizens of Wyoming.”

This statement is both cavalier and untrue. PacifiCorp’s own monitoring reports submitted to the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality show the opacity violations, and opacity is regulated to protect public health.

PacifiCorp’s news release also claimed it has plans to spend millions of dollars to upgrade pollution control equipment at Jim Bridger. While we applaud these efforts, we also believe they won’t fix the opacity violations.

What’s a possible solution? Baghouses have been shown to be an excellent method for minimizing opacity, thereby achieving compliance with the Clean Air Act, protecting the health of citizens, and reducing pollution haze. (Baghouses employ an electrostaticuse a filtration system that removes solids from gaseous exhaust streams, primarichiefly through the use of long, small-diameter fabric tubes called “bags.”)

It’s interesting to note that PacifiCorp has proposed baghouses for its Hunter and Huntington Power Plants in Utah, yet so far has not proposed the same upgrade at Jim Bridger.

The Wyoming Outdoor Council and the Sierra Club entered into the lawsuit only after good-faith negotiations with PacifiCorp broke down in February.

The two groups are seeking full and prompt compliance with the current opacity provisions in the Jim Bridger operating permit, and penalties payable to the federal government for past opacity violations. Citizens of Wyoming — and indeed the entire Rocky Mountain West — deserve the best air quality protections available.

Tom Bell founded the Wyoming Outdoor Council and High Country News. He is a member of the Wyoming Outdoor Council and the Sierra Club. Posted by denver-admin at 12:01 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

Ten Things You Should Know Before Buying a Rabbit

By Michelle Jansick

I have two lop-eared bunnies named KC and Shane. They live inside and even have their very own room. Anyone who comes to our house is forced to watch a video of my bunnies "happy dancing" through the back yard to the tune of "Hey, Hey, We're the Monkees".

This Speakout has not been edited

By Michelle Jansick

I'm one of those annoying people who treat their pets like kids because they don't have any actual human children of their own. My husband has feared for quite some time that someday I will be known as "the crazy rabbit lady." He has a legitimate concern.

I have two lop-eared bunnies named KC and Shane. They live inside and even have their very own room. Anyone who comes to our house is forced to watch a video of my bunnies "happy dancing" through the back yard to the tune of "Hey, Hey, We're the Monkees".

If you are thinking about adding a 'fuzz-butt' to your family, then here are some things you should know...

1.Rabbits are NOT good pets for children under the age of 8 years old. Many parents think that bunnies are perfect pets for kids because they are little and cuddly. But most bunnies don't stay little and cuddly. They can grow to be quite large (my mini-lop is as big as a cat). Most rabbits feel frightened when they are held; they prefer to stay on the ground. They have sharp toenails that can scratch and sharp teeth that can bite. Bunnies are fragile creatures who need to be treated in a gentle manner. Young kids tend to squeeze bunnies too tight and cause serious injury to their furry friends. (By the way, it's NEVER okay to hold a bunny by its ears). Bunnies prefer quiet, calm surroundings and they get stressed out around rambunctious children.

2.Rabbits can die of fright. A bunny can die of a heart attack if a dog barks at him even if the dog doesn't bite him. Although there are a few rare exceptions, the general rule is that dogs (even little ones) and rabbits don't mix. Cats are also natural enemies to bunnies, so make sure to keep them apart too.

3.Rabbits can be litter box trained. Some bunnies are better at it than others, but most of them can learn to use a litter box in just a few days. If you're worried about the smell, try aspen litter in pellet form; it absorbs the odor and is safe for rabbits. (Studies indicate that pine shavings, cedar shavings, and clay cat litters can cause health problems in rabbits.)

4.The life expectancy of an indoor rabbit is 8-12 years, but outdoor rabbits generally live less than half that long. When temperatures get into the 80s and above, many outdoor rabbits die of heat exposure. (It helps to freeze water in a big soda bottle and put it in their cage for them to lean against.) Predators are also a major threat to outdoor bunnies.

5.Female rabbits have an 80% chance of dying of ovarian cancer if they are not spayed. Spaying or neutering your rabbit (at age 6 months) will help to prevent overpopulation, health problems, and behavioral problems. ALWAYS make sure to take your bunny to a vet who is very familiar with rabbits; otherwise you'll be wasting your money and endangering your pet.

6.Hay and green vegetables are an important part of a rabbit's diet. It's okay to feed a rabbit some pellets, but timothy hay and vegetables (such as romaine lettuce and parsley) play a crucial role in keeping a rabbit's digestive system healthy.

7.Rabbits need exercise. We all know that dogs need exercise and yet many folks see nothing wrong with confining a bunny to a little cage day after monotonous day. Let your bunny stretch his legs daily by letting him run through your house or yard. (Keep a close eye on him so he doesn't chew electrical wires, dig under the fence, or get carried off by a hawk).

8.Rabbits need regular maintenance. Bunnies need to be brushed frequently, especially when they are shedding. They need their toenails clipped on a regular basis. It's important to check for common health problems such as ear mites and misaligned teeth. It can be hard to tell when your rabbit is sick, so familiarize yourself with his normal behavior and take him to the vet immediately if you notice anything unusual.

9.Bunnies bond in pairs. A single bunny can get very lonely and bored. Consider getting two bunnies so that they can keep each other company. Don't assume that one bunny will automatically get along with another bunny (unless they are both very young); if you put two bunnies together in the same cage they will probably fight. Research how to introduce two bunnies to each other. Remember to get one or both bunnies spayed/neutered.

10.Rabbits give kisses to show affection. If you have a happy, healthy bunny then don't be surprised if he licks your hand to say "I love you". Each rabbit has a personality of its own and they can be wonderful companions.

The more you know about rabbits, the better owner you will be. For more tips about how to be a great rabbit owner, please see the website www.rabbit.org. Posted by denver-admin at 12:01 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

Preaching to the public

By Jack R. Van Ens, Arvada

A Baylor University study ranks Episcopalian author and teacher, Barbara Brown Taylor, one of the 12 elite preachers in the English-speaking world. Now some of her colleagues are miffed because Taylor left the pulpit of an Episcopalian church in Georgia.

This Speakout has not been edited

By Jack R. Van Ens, Arvada

A Baylor University study ranks Episcopalian author and teacher, Barbara Brown Taylor, one of the 12 elite preachers in the English-speaking world. Now some of her colleagues are miffed because Taylor left the pulpit of an Episcopalian church in Georgia.

She has moved on to become a world religions professor at Piedmont College in the Peachtree state. She also teaches Christian spirituality as an adjunct professor at Columbia (Presbyterian) Theological Seminary.

This gifted writer's first book The Preaching Life won a large readership who admired Taylor's deft style, tongue-in-cheek humor about pettiness within any congregation and memories of her training for ministry at Yale Divinity School. She followed up with ten books, largely collections of sermons, which tempt most preachers to filch an apt illustration that makes their preaching compelling.

Now Taylor, once dedicated to preaching in a local church, has spun an argument for leaving the traditional parish. She currently serves a church without walls, heads preaching conferences, moderates classroom discussions, and fulfills book contracts.

Leaving Church: A Memoir of Faith reads as Taylor's confessional. She tells why she exchanged a local parish for preaching to a "far larger congregation of humankind."

She found local churches too confining, denominations to which they are tied overly argumentative, and parishioner expectations unrealistic. She asks, as if out of breath, "With just seven days in a week, where is the time to be a good preacher, teacher, pastor, prophet, celebrant, prayer, writer, foot washer, administrator, community activist, clergy colleague, student of scripture, and wholesome exemplar of the gospel?" Many commiserate with Taylor who felt a step behind the furious pace effective parish ministry demands. The race is unfair because preachers who sprint in it never catch up.

How ironic that Taylor, whose books of sermons and memoirs eager preachers snap up, has left their turf. She's mentored many clergy who desire to honor the Apostle Paul's challenge to his protégé Timothy: "Preach the word, be urgent in season and out of season, convince, rebuke, and exhort, be unfailing in patience and in teaching" (II Timothy 4:2). Taylor's patience ran thin for local church ministry as her vision expanded beyond it, so she went into teaching.

The 16th century Reformer John Calvin pinpointed four offices the Christian Church recognizes which fulfill requirements for ordained ministry. Clergy preach, elders lead, deacons show compassion and professors scholarly search after the mind of Christ.

Taylor has exchanged a local church pulpit for a wider pulpit of teaching within a church without walls. She's a counterpart to John Wesley who rode on horseback into the frontier, erecting pulpits in cornfields and along riverbanks. A proper matron acquainted only with a traditional steepled church asked Wesley where his primary church was located. He retorted, "Madam, the world is my parish!"

What's the primary reason Taylor no longer preaches as pastor in a local church?

She adamantly wants to preach on topics forbidden in traditional parishes. This is what I heard her say as a headline speaker at Calvin College's 2004 Festival of Faith and Writing. In her Saturday, April 24th lecture "Way Beyond Belief: The Call to Behold - a preview of her then unpublished book manuscript about leaving the local church -Taylor warned of stern consequences facing preachers who offer the whole Gospel loaf, rather than tasty morsels worshippers easily digest.

Using her long, lithe hands for elegant gestures perfectly framing punch lines, Taylor threw up her hands, frustrated because in a short time preachers learn what parts of the Bible parishioners don't want to hear from the pulpit. With an endowed chair and tenure, she is more easily able to offer in sermons the whole Gospel loaf.

For instance, this summer at the Evangelical Presbyterian's General Assembly in Georgia, I portrayed Jonathan Edwards, emphasizing how he regularly dealt from his pulpit with 18th century wars at his doorstep. Colonial settlers faced off against Native Americans with whom the French aligned themselves.

In a precept afterwards, pastors admitted how dealing straightforward with the war in Iraq proved too complicated and controversial. So they skirted it from the pulpit. One preacher said he shied away from "political hot potatoes boiling over in Iraq." He sounded oblivious to the fact the Bible treats war as a moral category Jews and Christians can't avoid.

Barbara Brown Taylor has escaped the pressures of these contradictions. She got sick of finessing the Gospel and found a pulpit outside the local church where she can sound more like Jonathan Edwards. She shows how Christ speaks to prickly issues that churches would rather duck.

A few years ago, I quizzed my former professor of Hebrew who served with distinction on Princeton Theological Seminary's faculty for almost half a century. I asked him whether the quality of students had suffered at Princeton since my era during the Vietnam War. Then the most gifted went into law, medicine or ministry.

The quality of students is still top-notch, he answered but wondered if, after 40 years of denominational death spiraling, local churches had much to offer gifted candidates for parish ministry. Talented Barbara Brown Taylor has moved beyond a local church for a pulpit reaching to a church without walls. She preaches when teaching. Posted by denver-admin at 12:01 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

March 24, 2007
Deaths at Denver Zoo were a tragedy

By Keri Kugler , Arvada

I am tired of reading criticism over the death of Jorge the jaguar at the Denver Zoo, and the accusations that zoo keepers are jailers and zoo's are terrible places. What happened at the zoo was a tragedy all around.

This Speakout has not been edited

By Keri Kugler , Arvada

I am tired of reading criticism over the death of Jorge the jaguar at the Denver Zoo, and the accusations that zoo keepers are jailers and zoo's are terrible places. What happened at the zoo was a tragedy all around. A keeper lost her life, an endangered animal had to be killed. Unfortunately, it looks like we may never know why a keeper and a jaguar were in the same area. Ashlee Pfaff had worked with big cats before coming to the Denver Zoo and had both education and training in dealing with large predators.

Zoo keepers at the Denver Zoo (and at all zoo's) care very deeply for the animals they take care off. They work difficult jobs and long hours because they care about animals and are driven to protect the biodiversity of the planet and preserve endangered species. They strive to provide the best care possible for the animals they work with. They often are caring for animals that were orphaned, kept illegally as pets, or were smuggled out of their homelands. In other words, they are often caring for animals that would have died if there were not compassionate zoo's to take them in. They work to inspire a sense of awe and wonder in children so that future generations will have a personal connection with wildlife and a desire to protect them. They often have advanced degrees and specialized training to do the work they do. Many of them could be making much higher salaries in other industries, but they choose to work for lower pay in a non-profit organization all because of their love of animals.

We do not know who the keepers were that responded to the emergency that day, or who had the terrible task of shooting a beloved animal, but I sure all that were involved are torn apart at both the loss of a co-worker and the loss of an animal in their care. I am certain that the responders would have done anything they could have to end the situation using tranquilizers, just as they would have done anything to end the situation without the death of a co-worker. But tranquilizers take time to work and in the minutes that they took to work, more keepers could have been injured or killed. No one involved was trying to punish the jaguar, they were trying to save the life of a co-worker and protect others. Also, please remember that they were responding in an emergency situation and had to make life and death decisions in seconds. I can't imagine the grief that those who responded that day are going though and can only offer my deepest sympathy to all involved.

Keepers have many responsibilities and one of them is to protect each other and the public. It is easy for someone who hates zoo's in general to use this tragedy to stand on their soap box and claim that the keepers who responded should have just let a co-worker die. But that is unreasonable, I wonder if they would feel the same if the public was in danger, especially one of the many school children who come to the zoo to learn about how to protect wildlife. Would those people still say the zoo should have let people die? This was a tragedy and it is terrible and shameful to attack those who love animals enough to devote their lives to caring for, and saving them. I sincerely wonder if any of the critics who have responded with letters in various papers about this tragedy do nearly as much to serve animals as any of the zoo's employees do. Posted by denver-admin at 12:01 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Care for "just a rabbit"

By Jen Olbricht, Lakewood

All of sudden on the left hand shoulder right next to me, I saw a tiny terrified bunny hopping along getting ready to dart into traffic. Being that traffic was going so slow, I had a good view of where he went and of course, he chose to hop right underneath my car.

This Speakout has not been edited

By Jen Olbricht, Lakewood

Today I was driving along I-25 in the fast lane, going about 3 miles per hour during rush hour. All of sudden on the left hand shoulder right next to me, I saw a tiny terrified bunny hopping along getting ready to dart into traffic. Being that traffic was going so slow, I had a good view of where he went and of course, he chose to hop right underneath my car. I stopped so as not to run over him, but noticed he didn't come back out. So I started creeping along and realized he was staying underneath my car. I gradually pulled over onto the left hand shoulder next to the fast lane and bunny stayed with me, obviously looking for shelter and safety. Eventually, I was all the way over on the shoulder and was about 1 foot from the concrete wall and bunny alternated between staying under my car to hopping in between my tire and the wall. I have no idea how this bunny got onto the highway in the first place because it was just north of Co Blvd., where there are basically 2 concrete walls and 4 lanes of crazy traffic. What I do know is that this bunny was absolutely terrified and his only solace was to stay right by my car for protection. I wasn't sure if he was wild or not and would allow me to get out and grab him but when I opened the door he skittered away so I knew I better stay inside or risk scaring him back out into oncoming traffic.

I had absolutely no idea what to do. I guess I could have just driven off like I am sure thousands of other heartless people would have done, but he was under my car and if I had driven away, that would surely have been an automatic death sentence. Instead, I naively thought perhaps Denver Animal control would deign to get involved to help an innocent creature. Couldn't have been more wrong. The first time I called them was around 4:15 pm. The woman was pretty decent and told me that she didn't know if they could help but she would have an officer at least come out to see. The only real way to help this poor fellow would have been to stop traffic for 5 minutes (which since it was hardly moving would have been no problem really) and try and catch the rabbit or scare it across and onto the exit to escape. Since I work for a stray cat group, I already had the necessary nets, gloves, carriers, etc in my car, it was just a matter of getting traffic to stop for 5 measely minutes so he wouldn't dart out and get squashed. Anyway, the woman told me to wait and she would see about getting someone outthere. By 5:15 nobody was there so I called back. This time, I was put on hold for literally 30 minutes. When I finally got to talk to someone, it was Officer Martinez. Now this guy is clearly in it for the animals. I recall an episode with Officer Martinez about a year ago on a cold night when we had a volunteer discover a litter of abandoned and crying newborn kittens trapped in a small hole. When we tried to get his help on this he told us to just leave the kittens and forget about them. Huh??? (We got the kittens eventually and they survived). I figured he would be no help with the bunny but I explained my situation anyway. Of course he says "oh there's no way we are gonna send an officer for JUST a rabbit". " Why don't you just drive away?" I explained that the bunny was under my car and if I drove away I could drive right over it or scare it right back into traffic. He snorted and said that I should just use a broom to push the rabbit out from under my car and then drive away. I tried to explain that the only direction to push the rabbit was into oncoming traffic and I asked him if that is what he would do (not to mention, who drives around with a broom in their car???). He said absolutely that's what he'd do. I explained again that I would literally have to push the rabbit out into traffic and he said "well we are not sending out someone for JUST a rabbit so you may as well just do it." I then said "look, am I going to have to get out and risk getting hit and just stop traffic myself? I am 8 months pregnant (which is true) and not sure if that is such a good idea but I do not know what other choice I have and if I get hit by a car, it will be on your head" His response: "well good luck with that" Click.

How is a sicko like this working for Denver's Animal Control? Are we that backwards? Shouldn't all of these officers possess at least a tiny shred of respect for the animals and people they are dealing with every day?

Next I called Denver police. They were no help either b/c they don't go out on animal related calls. But at least the woman was extremely nice and sympathetic and told me to be really careful and wished me good luck and said she felt so bad for the bunny etc.

By this time it was now 6:00, so I had been sitting there for 2 hours. I was pretty much out of options. The bunny hopped right up next to my door and there was a lull in traffic so I knew I had to take a chance. I grabbed my net and rolled down the window. Buuny just barely missed my net and out into traffic he went. He was immediately slammed into by a car and flew up in the air. He fell down, still alive but with an obvious broken back and tried to pull himself along with his front legs. He was then run over again and it was all over. I can't even begin to describe what it felt like to watch this. All I can say is AT LEAST I TRIED. While the people who are hired to protect Denver's animals sat by and told me to push him into traffic on purpose. I have no idea if this was someone's pet or a wild bunny. But I can guarantee you, if it was someone's pet or not, he did not recieve one single ounce of respect from Officer Martinez. I sure hope he gets his pension soon and moves on to something more fitting, like drinking beer and farting in front of the tv where he belongs. Shouldn't we help the process along??? Posted by denver-admin at 12:01 AM | Comments (9) | TrackBack

March 23, 2007
Keeping Samara in our hearts

By Lauren Harvey, Lakewood

As I hopped in the car, I was happy to see that Samara would be riding with us. I had hung out with Samara Stricklen only a few times before, always in large groups, but during those times she was so obviously likable that I was eager to become a part of her circle.

By Lauren Harvey, Lakewood

Monday night was Laura’s 18th birthday. She was the first of our group to hit the landmark age, so we were all pretty excited to take part in the advantages that adulthood brings. You know, all the important stuff, like buying Lotto tickets and uh ... voting. Actually, Laura was most looking forward to getting her ear pierced. So while the rest of the group gathered at a local park for her birthday picnic, we took a detour to the tattoo parlor.

As I hopped in the car with Laura, I was happy to see that Samara would be riding with us. I had hung out with Samara Stricklen only a few times before, always in large groups, but during those times she was so obviously likable that I was eager to become a part of her circle.

Perhaps too eager, as I spent the next 20 minutes cracking any joke I could come up with to win her over. Fortunately for me, Samara was not a person that you had to impress and, by the end of the evening, her number was securely stored in my phone.

I can’t tell you how thankful I am for that night.

When I was first asked to write about Samara, I felt completely unqualified for the task and, in all honesty, I still do. There are so many who were so close to her, while my friendship with her was barely in its infancy. But because I fear more than anything that people will move on and forget her — and because she was someone who deserves to be remembered — I want to tell you everything I know about Samara.

She wore a green backpack. And not the typical, forest-green JanSport pack. It was more of a jungle-green, bright and small, like something a little kid would wear. She didn’t bother with the name-brands that so many teen girls drool over. She wore comfortable shoes.

Her name is pronounced Sam-AIR-ah, not Sam-AR-ah. I never heard anyone call her “Sam.” I can’t be sure, but I don’t think anyone did. It’s too common, too short. At her funeral, I learned that her parents named her in reference to the biblical story of the Good Samaritan. They couldn’t have chosen a more perfect name.

She was beautiful. But an unconventional kind of beauty, not like the buxom blondes in magazines, but more like the mysterious girl in an indie film. She had bright eyes, dark hair that bounced in a pony-tail, and a cute smile. I’m sure every girl that met her was jealous and that every guy that knew her had a crush on her. It would seem impossible not to.

She had impeccable taste in music. She was funny. She could hang with the guys and laugh at jokes that most other girls would squirm at. Half of the time she was the one cracking them. Her humor was witty and smart, but her intelligence was the kind that came from interacting with people rather than with books.

She was, is, and always will be, loved. Of this, I am more positive than anything else. In the past week, I have witnessed those closest to Samara, the very strongest of characters, crumble under the tragedy of her death. I have listened to countless memories that others have shared and I have reflected upon a precious few of my own. I witnessed the vast number of people her life has touched — crossing over social cliques, schools and entire communities.

But in the past week I have also witnessed a community — torn with questions and grief — turn to bitterness. I watched as one television anchor after another read Samara’s story from a teleprompter, paused briefly, and then cut to commercial break. And as I listened to, and even felt, the anger that seems impossible to avoid at such a time, I realized that the resentment I felt was more about me than anything else. In the past, I was the person who could watch the stories of drunk-driving accidents and dismiss them during a commercial break. I was jaded to the heartbreak of losing a loved one to carelessness, and now it terrifies me that others will dismiss Samara’s death in the same way.

So now I am praying that you don’t disregard this event. I am begging parents to continue to warn your kids of the dangers of alcohol regardless of how annoyed they might get and how uncool you might feel. I am asking my peers to be smart about your decisions, to rethink your invincibility, and to be brave against pressures. And above all, please remember Samara because she truly deserves to be remembered.

Lauren Harvey is a junior at Bear Creek High School. Posted by denver-admin at 12:01 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

Bills would set back education reform

By Pamela Jo Suckla Chairman, State Board of Education

Some current educational issues are of vital concern to all Coloradoans. The State Board of Education is deeply troubled by four proposed pieces of legislation. Let me describe them as I did in a recent letter to Governor Ritter.

This Speakout has not been edited

By Pamela Jo Suckla Chairman, State Board of Education

Some current educational issues are of vital concern to all Coloradoans. The State Board of Education is deeply troubled by four proposed pieces of legislation. Let me describe them as I did in a recent letter to Governor Ritter.

If these four bills became law they would decisively overturn the educational accountability reforms that have been painstakingly built over the last fourteen years by Governors Romer, and Owens and bi-partisan majorities of the General Assembly. In addition to jeopardizing hundreds of millions of Federal Aid dollars, they would also fatally undermine the data base that is essential to the very promising longitudinal program recently signed into law.

Worst of all is that by going in this direction we would be turning our backs on the hard won growth and progress our state has shown over fourteen years within an accountability system that has won national praise as the most stable and inclusive in the country.

Here are some specifics on these bills: HB 07-1284 (excludes handicapped children from the state accountability system) Our state's leading authority on Special Education - Dr. Edward Steinberg - has described this bill as a "giant step backwards for children with disabilities." Additionally, it would involve the loss of 136 million dollars in IDEA funds and embroil our state with the United States Office of Civil Rights.

HB 07-1287 (allows parents to exempt their children from CSAP tests) In effect, this bill makes the state accountability test (CSAP) optional. Each school would thus have its own standard for who is tested. The impact would fall most upon "at-risk" and children in English Language Acquisition. Here again, Federal financial and legal implications would be immense.

HB 07-on bill paper but unnumbered (this bill eliminates):

  • A. CSAP Writing Tests for all grades;

  • B. All High School CSAP and CSAP-A (Special Education) tests in all subjects;

  • C. The state subsidized ACT test for 11th graders SB 07-106 (delays CSAP from April to May) This delay in CSAP testing will make no significant difference in student scores but it will cost the state millions of dollars and invalidate years of data that is crucial to the new longitudinal law.

    Colorado has come so far in education reform. We can't turn back now. Posted by denver-admin at 12:01 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

    Schools have failed to produce educated populace

    By Richard Becker, Broomfield

    The rise of high school remedial work for college freshmen and vocational students occurred despite increased spending on schools to "improve education" because schools have failed to create an educated populace.

    This Speakout has not been edited

    By Richard Becker, Broomfield

    The Rocky Mountain News story of 3-14-07 "Plan tackles ed funding" concerned increasing funding for education, and preventing dropouts, by freezing real estate tax cuts. Why? The rise of high school remedial work for college freshmen and vocational students occurred despite increased spending on schools to "improve education" because schools have failed to create an educated populace.

    A U.S. News & World Report of 9-1-75 notes that ".....money spent per pupil has more than doubled" from $484 to $1,255 K-12 in ten years. Using the inflation calculator (http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl) from the CPI website, the $484 per student in 1965 translates to $3,117.57 and the 1975 increase translates to $4,733.08 in 2006 dollars. And, teachers and school officials clamor for more spending for "literacy programs" to improve education as quality has declined despite increased spending to $7,000-$10,000 per student K-12! Part of the dropout problem is due to the inordinate focus of school on college preparation as the only presumed option that requires an academic high school education. It was naively assumed that students entering vocational schools had no need for an academic high school education because they would be "trained in vocational skills. Academically capable but not interested in college, they become bored and dropout due to lack of relevance.

    In reality, an academic high school education, equal to that of college preparation, has always been a prerequisite. Core knowledge in reading, writing and math is essential for acquiring the core knowledge of machining. Especially since 1977 when the current Computer Numerical Controlled machines tools were developed, where the computer digitally operates the machining process via stepper motors and other electronic devices replacing the manually operated controls of the past. A computer that has to be "programmed" by assembling two-digit codes representing the various machining functions written in the software.

    The need for remedial work became so great that the 2000 legislature passed HB 00-1464 ("Concerning students admitted to higher education") requiring high school graduates requiring high school remedial work in the core basics to complete that in community colleges. And, the Machining Technology nd other 2-year programs for the Associate of Applied Science Degree requires an assessment test to determine whether they were academically prepared. If the test showed they were not reading at the college level, they had to take REA 090 College Preparatory Reading also used to remediate high school graduates as college freshmen.

    If the K-12 schools are doing such a good job for the money already spent, how can high school students graduate with high grades required for college entrance, and still require College Preparatory reading? Of course, Grade inflation. The same thing that showed up on the NAEP report where high school students enrolled in AP courses were getting high grades but testing showed they were deficient in reading, writing and math. Posted by denver-admin at 12:01 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

    Experiential criterion of divinity

    By Henry A. Hurst III, Aurora

    I would like to put Doug Leek's challenge "Find Out About Jesus For Yourself" (Letters 3/12/07) into a somewhat timeless perspective that I have discovered in my research of this subject.

    Remember whose experience and observations identified the authority by which Jesus of Nazareth did His work as The Christ, an authority man cannot comprehend on his or her own. The Apostles.

    This Speakout has not been edited

    By Henry A. Hurst III, Aurora

    I would like to put Doug Leek's challenge "Find Out About Jesus For Yourself" (Letters 3/12/07) into a somewhat timeless perspective that I have discovered in my research of this subject.

    Like Doug, many Christians feel the assualt on some longstanding tenets of faith such as in the recent James Cameron film, "The Last Tomb of Jesus". I do not think that Jesus' divinity is in question with this or His possible marriage to Mary Magdalene. Despite Christianity's reliance on the Resurrection and Ascension as proof positive that Jesus was and is The Lord, there is another criterion far more impactful in its presence that He was host to and giver of.

    Remember whose experience and observations identified the authority by which Jesus of Nazareth did His work as The Christ, an authority man cannot comprehend on his or her own. The Apostles.

    Matthew 13:11; Mark 4:11, Luke 17:21 cite an irrefutable criterion The Apostles witnessed literally within themselves. Jesus contended that The Kingdom of God, Kingdom of Heaven, exists within everyone, and showed IT to each one of The Apostles. The only condition on anyone wanting IT -this Knowing, was that they sincerely want IT and that they come as a child with the same openness and acceptance, in order to be shown The Glory within.

    This experience was not mysterious to them, nor was it the afterlife imagery many now mortgage their lives upon. This revelation is further described in a number of parables as well, in the Bible.

    Elaine Pagels, perhaps the leading authority on the Gnostic Gospels, has speculated that this experience (expressed more freely in these works) was what, in fact angered the religious and political establishment, not so much the assertions of Jesus' identity, "King of the Jews".

    The notion that individuals could intimately know within themselves that which has no beginning or end, threatened the control of the leadership. Access to the Divine was theirs to give, not His.

    The early church's tact of enforced sovereignty and personal accountability ensured "The Kingdom's" invisibility. Knowing would neither be needed nor possible for everyone accepting "The Mystery of Faith".

    History reminds us of the fate of heretics, of those not accepting.

    Presently, we all could enjoy a little Heaven. The threat to knowing is gone, but do we each continue to remain the blockage to our greatest asset in our seemingly rational, patient vigilance? Or can we step aside to feel the sincere thirst to know?

    The possibility is worth considering.

    Suffice it to say that knowing in this specific sense is not conjecture. Giver and Gift are essential. The Apostles knew both. The authority through which they came to know, was not in question after they immersed themselves in the experience. Make no bones about it. Posted by denver-admin at 12:01 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

    March 22, 2007
    Firefighters and cancer

    By State Rep. Mike Cerbo, House District 2, Denver

    HB1008 ensures that firefighters will have the opportunity to receive the Workers Compensation benefits that they are due when on-the-job exposures allow certain carcinogens to invade their bodies.

    This Speakout has not been edited

    By State Rep. Mike Cerbo, House District 2, Denver

    Peter Blake's article "Can passing bad bills help GOP?" in Saturday's Rocky Mountain News is heavy on political intrigue, but lacks the substance necessary to understand the plight of a firefighter who contracts certain job-related cancers. HB1008 ensures that firefighters will have the opportunity to receive the Workers Compensation benefits that they are due when on-the-job exposures allow certain carcinogens to invade their bodies.

    He writes that the bill is "detested by those who would have to pay higher workers comp premiums, namely the municipalities and special districts that employ firefighters." But the experience of other states shows little or no effect on Workers Compensation premiums due to payment of cancer claims by firefighters. Additionally, the Colorado Legislative Council's fiscal analysis of this Bill indicates that the number of new claims filed annually is expected to be minimal.

    The Bill is dismissed as "blatantly pro-union" while the only union to testify was the firefighters themselves. HB1008 is clearly a pro-firefighter Bill. Mr. Blake's statement that "nobody really knows what causes cancer" is not believable; everyone knows that many substances have been identified as carcinogens. These include the many cancer-causing chemicals to which firefighters are repeatedly exposed.

    Firefighters have a higher incidence of contracting cancer than the general population. Numerous nationally published and accredited studies show that firefighters are exposed to a variety of known carcinogens, as defined by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, during their work. Practically every emergency situation encountered by a firefighter has the potential for exposure to carcinogenic agents such as benzene.

    Despite this, firefighters never receive Workers Compensation for job-related cancer.

    Since cancer can develop as a result of multiple exposures over time to cancer-causing agents, the exact moment of injury is impossible to pinpoint, a key issue in a traditional workers comp claim. Even if a firefighter contracts cancer as a result of one specific exposure, the cancer is unlikely to be diagnosed until long after the memory of that routine chemical exposure has passed.

    House Bill 1008 would change this. Twenty-three other states have laws, like that proposed in House Bill 1008, which presume that firefighters contract job-related cancer due to their on-the-job exposure to carcinogens.

    While the impact to the medical treatment of sick firefighters is huge, the fiscal impact is miniscule. In the first 4 years after passing presumptive cancer legislation in Nevada, the state had a total of three claims. The state of Oklahoma had 22 claims paid in the 6 years after passing presumptive legislation, an average of less than 4 claims per year. The average cost per claim was $10,409.00 for a state of 12,420 firefighters. This means that it about $3.00 per year per firefighter to pay for the coverage of cancer in his/her profession statewide.

    Firefighters risk their lives daily to protect our homes, our families, and our land. They do so for the safety of Democrats and Republicans, employers and employees alike. They work in dangerous, uncontrolled environments. A fact of this job is that these men and women expose themselves to toxins that cause them to develop various forms of cancer. This is the risk firefighters take to help us in our hour of need.

    House Bill 1008 is a small step that we can take to protect firefighters in their hour of need. Posted by denver-admin at 12:01 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

    Aurora police investigation needed

    By Mark A. Golden, Aurora

    I just read an article in the Rocky Mountain News addressing the Aurora Police Association's request to have Aurora City Officials investigated for a possible criminal offense stemming from a letter the Officials sent to the Aurora Civil Service Commission.

    This Speakout has not been edited

    By Mark A. Golden, Aurora

    I just read an article in the Rocky Mountain News addressing the Aurora Police Association's request to have Aurora City Officials investigated for a possible criminal offense stemming from a letter the Officials sent to the Aurora Civil Service Commission.

    The News reflects that Jack DaLuz (a Captain with the Aurora Police Department) states that attempts the Aurora Police Association are making to have an alleged criminal activity investigated "reflects badly" on the department and the people who are trying to get an alleged criminal activity investigated. Jack DaLuz does not state the Chief of Police did not commit a crime only that the request "reflects badly". Is the Aurora Police Chief exempt from an investigation into possible criminal activity? To not investigate this allegation would now reflect badly on the Aurora Police Department.

    Your article down plays this event to make a possible class 4 Felony sound as though it is inconsequential. I feel that if the question has been raised and not denied, then an investigation through the District Attorney's Office should be mandatory and would put this issue to rest once and for all.

    If the City Officials committed a crime, then the investigation will show what crime they committed and then an appropriate penalty can be assessed. If the City Officials did not commit any crime then the investigation will show that, and the matter would be resolved. If no investigation is conducted then that, in and of itself, would reflect badly on the Department and everyone associated with it. Because it would then show that Aurora's Public Officials involved in this matter are privileged people and are exempt from the law.

    Keith Booten (a Detective with the Aurora Police Department) "called the union's investigation requests "completely tasteless and void of any semblance of professionalism, honor or integrity", but he does not state the City Officials are innocent either.

    City Councilwoman Molly Markert called the situation "really sad."", but she does not say the City Officials are innocent.

    I believe all of these people are more worried that requesting an investigation "reflects badly" on the Police Department while ignoring the fact that Aurora City Officials can possibly commit a Felony and can not be held accountable.

    Carol Chambers (Arapahoe County DA) should begin an investigation immediately and show either that a crime has been committed or that no crime has been committed. Not investigating this incident at this point would be an even bigger crime against the Department's reputation. Posted by denver-admin at 12:01 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

    Improving health care in Colorado

    This Speakout has not been edited

    By Stacey Hammond and Felicia Montano, Boulder

    As a media outlet for the public, the newspapers need to take a more active role in informing Colorado residents about problems in the current healthcare system. How can we take an active role in society if we are not educated or informed on the issues?

    This Speakout has not been edited

    By Stacey Hammond and Felicia Montano, Boulder

    As a media outlet for the public, the newspapers need to take a more active role in informing Colorado residents about problems in the current healthcare system. How can we take an active role in society if we are not educated or informed on the issues? One issue in particular, which we need to draw focus on, is chronic disease management.

    It is well recognized that the medical community is not meeting the challenge of chronic care patients. Healthcare outcomes in the United States underperform other industrialized nations and costs continue to escalate. Health care insurance is unaffordable to many employers and 46 million Americans are uninsured. 45% of the U.S. population has a chronic medical condition and half of them have multiple chronic diseases. This problem will only expand as the population over 85 years old increases 50% by 2010 and doubles by 2030. Medicare cutbacks in services and decreasing reimbursements to physicians are creating added burdens to patients.

    A new medical care paradigm that emphasizes comprehensive care instead of episodic treatment for acute care has been established and implemented at academic, healthcare institutions and large multispecialty practices with varying success. The vast majority of patients are not being reached. The current crisis in health care cannot wait for graduate medical education to train new physicians in this model. The current medical workforce needs to be encouraged and financially supported to adopt and integrate chronic care into their current practices and serve as a model for the ensuing generation of physicians.

    Introducing this concept of care to small private practices is difficult due to time and financial constraints as well as a resistance to change. In addition, small practices do not have the ancillary personnel to adapt the new paradigm into their practice. The physician's efforts are further frustrated as patients often do not have the financial means to obtain the medications, medical services and durable medical supplies necessary to optimize their health.

    In order to successfully empower patients to manage their chronic illness, they need access to continuing education that provides accountability and promotes change. In addition, comprehensive chronic care needs to be provided at one site to facilitate access and convenience, as well as, foster a personal, therapeutic and long-lasting relationship. Posted by denver-admin at 12:01 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

    Focus on mending families

    This Speakout has not been edited

    By Holly Hatch, Fort Collins

    My heart dropped in disappointment when I read the article "Children need both a mother and a father" published in the Rocky Mountain News on February 28th in the opinion section by James C. Dobson. If we are to make statements or judgments in discriminating against members of our society, we must look at the issue closely, putting aside bigotry, religious beliefs and focus on mending differences rather than separation.

    This Speakout has not been edited

    By Holly Hatch, Fort Collins

    My heart dropped in disappointment when I read the article "Children need both a mother and a father" published in the Rocky Mountain News on February 28th in the opinion section by James C. Dobson. If we are to make statements or judgments in discriminating against members of our society, we must look at the issue closely, putting aside bigotry, religious beliefs and focus on mending differences rather than separation.

    Focus on the Family founder and chairman James C. Dobson wrote this article in his attempt to persuade a larger public that children with parents of the same sex put the child at a disadvantage. He believes that "children need both a mother and a father, and neither can do the job as well alone." It is surprising to me that a man with the credentials and education he has, as he has a PhD, he holds such a narrow view on an issue that is finally making headway.

    Family life can be traumatic these days. There are many dysfunctional heterosexual families out there and divorce rates are skyrocketing, breaking up families and creating traumatic tension. So, if a homosexual couple wants a child why should we neglect the child the opportunity at having two parents who love them?

    I think the issue of Dobson's point goes beyond his work with children's hospital research and moves to a larger issue of his bigotry due to his astoundingly fundamentalist religious views. In the Focus on the Family mission statement Dobson says that his association's purpose is to defend "the God-ordained institution of the family and promoting biblical truths worldwide." It seems to me that his evidence is less based on scientific evidential studies and more on his religious and moral beliefs, which should never interfere with another person's right in any venue of life.

    In his article, Dobson says he's worked in adolescent studies, yet the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (AACAP) issued a statement in June of 1999 saying: " [THE]Outcome studies of children raised by parents with a homosexual or bisexual orientation, when compared to heterosexual parents, show no greater degree of instability in the parental relationship or developmental dysfunction in children." (There are over one dozen more associations like this one).

    I urge you, Mr. Dobson, to put aside your religious doctrine, and readers to think about the welfare of the child as not being confined to a mother and father, but to see that the love of any two parents will give the child a happy and healthy family life amidst a world of divorce, child abuse, and domestic violence.

    Holly Hatch is a CSU student active in the GLBT community in Fort Collins Colorado and has written numerous articles defending gay rights and promoting equal opportunity. Posted by denver-admin at 12:01 AM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

    March 21, 2007
    Let Army use the land it needs or let it leave

    By David Hughes, Colorado Springs

    First the ranchers in southern Colorado and adjoining states stopped permitting Army maneuvers over their lands in the 1960s, even when they were compensated for any damages.

    Then in 1970 the El Paso County commissioners voted to deny the Army permission to buy the slice of waterless land near Fort Carson’s firing ranges now called Rancho Colorado — which has been a sore spot ever since — as “residents” moved to it and then complained about the noise.

    By David Hughes, Colorado Springs

    First the ranchers in southern Colorado and adjoining states stopped permitting Army maneuvers over their lands in the 1960s, even when they were compensated for any damages.

    Then in 1970 the El Paso County commissioners voted to deny the Army permission to buy the slice of waterless land near Fort Carson’s firing ranges now called Rancho Colorado — which has been a sore spot ever since — as “residents” moved to it and then complained about the noise. Then the Pueblo County commissioners blocked Fort Carson from acquiring the land south of Fort Carson so it could have expanded training room. I was chief of staff at Carson then, and had the job of training mechanized troops. Even though the issue was over federal troops trying to use a federal reservoir to train for war, Pueblo viewed the reservoir as its private lake — to heck with the Army’s needs.

    That forced the Army to buy a costly place — including the huge costs for transportation of equipment to and from a place called Piñon Canyon south of Pueblo to have enough training room for both the active Army and the National Guard — which also has to have summer training areas — before they go to Iraq or Afghanistan again and again.

    Then Colorado Springs moved heaven and earth politically with the support of congressmen to get the Defense Department to station a large number of troops at Fort Carson, citing in part its Piñon Canyon training area.

    Then, when the Army started to acquire the land around Piñon Canyon, in order to train the much larger Army forces that will be at Carson, not only the ranchers objected, which is understandable, but Colorado’s legislature and its two senators are moving to block the expansion.

    The state of Colorado, Colorado Springs and El Paso County sure love the federal income pouring in from Fort Carson. But they are strangely silent on helping the Army acquire the land it and its soldiers need. Now Sen. Ken Salazar wants the Army to not expand, but find some other way to train. But there is no free lunch. If Salazar does not want the Army to have the training area it needs, I suggest he and Sen. Wayne Allard move to pull troops <i>outi> of Fort Carson and shut it down.

    If the Army is blocked from expansion of Piñon, I will be the <i>first i>to demand the Army pull its combat troops out of Fort Carson. I refuse to be party to denying the troops of our volunteer Army the training area they need, and yet expect their payrolls to enrich Coloradans.

    David Hughes is a West Point graduate and retired U.S. Army colonel who served in both Korea and Vietnam. He is a third-generation Colorado native and is a resident of Colorado Springs. Posted by denver-admin at 12:01 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

    March 20, 2007
    Take a kid to the mountains

    By Roberto Lopez Moreno , Leadville and Denver

    As America moves to a minority majority by 2030 and the federal government is overwhelmed by the crush of 78 million Americans who will become pensioners and medical dependents of U.S. taxpayers, we will see a dramatic convergence of events which will not bode well for the legacy of our national parks and forests.

    This Speakout has not been edited

    By Roberto Lopez Moreno , Leadville and Denver

    As America moves to a minority majority by 2030 and the federal government is overwhelmed by the crush of 78 million Americans who will become pensioners and medical dependents of U.S. taxpayers, we will see a dramatic convergence of events which will not bode well for the legacy of our national parks and forests.

    Why? Because millions of U.S. kids today- who are mostly multicultural- are growing up with no relationship to our mountains and so are destined to vote to sell public lands when America's failure to control spending eventually reaches crisis proportions.

    According to the David Walker, Comptroller General of the U.S. and head of the General Accountability Office (GAO), faced with massive entitlement programs the U.S. cannot afford to fund- exacerbated by the increased costs associated with providing increasing Medicare and social security benefits to "baby boomers" who are living longer lives- the federal government will be able to do little more than pay interest on mounting U.S. debt and some entitlement benefits.

    In fact, Walker says ""I would argue that the most serious threat to the United States is not someone hiding in a cave in Afghanistan or Pakistan but our own fiscal irresponsibility." He says no money will be available for national defense, no money for homeland security, no money for education. Walker's predictions are supported by the conservative Heritage Foundation, the left-liberal Brookings Institution, and the non-partisan Concord Coalition.

    So is there anyone naïve enough to think any money will be available to support our national parks and forests given the fact that according to the Colorado Association for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance (COAHPERD), 80-90 percent of Colorado kids never ever get to the mountains during their entire life. What makes anyone think an ambivalent electorate won't simply sell our forests rather than vote to sustain them? Public lands will become a sort of "home equity line" that the government will use to feed its insatiable need to spend and a Congress which doesn't have the courage to tell its constituents that we either need to stop spending or raise taxes.

    That's why our lack of youth participation in mountain recreation is a big deal? Simply put, if you're not exposed to mountains as a kid you're not going to care about mountains as an adult when you can vote!

    Beyond that, the pernicious lack of nature in the lives of most Colorado youth and minorities in particular is terrible because it can be linked to rises in obesity, diabetes, Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD) and depression. It's what author Richard Louv- author of "The Last Child in the Woods-" calls Nature Deficit Disorder (NDD). Not to mention it denies Colorado kids of the "educational options" mountain recreation creates.

    In Colorado, a State defined by its mountains and where the benefits of mountain recreation are well documented, this is unconscionable. While educators desperately seek ways to lower epidemic drop out rates and know that mountain recreation experiences give kids something to aspire to and learn from, many still equate a trip to the mountains with a trip to Elitch's.

    The problem begs the need for Colorado mountain recreation, snowsports, legislators and business to step up to the plate and acknowledge that it is not in the interest of anyone to allow Colorado's forests to be largely non-inclusive of youth. So who is to blame? Well, it turns out there are lots of reasons- but one of the chief culprits is decades of escalating elitism in mountain recreation; elitism that doesn't understand that people with no affinity for our mountains will simply sell them or misuse them! What's the solution?

    Take a kid to the mountains!

    Your kid. Any kid, the irritating kid down the street with the backwards baseball cap whose vocabulary is limited to the discourse markers "dude" and "like." Creating meaningful mountain recreation experiences for kids is a practical way of heading off the large scale sale of our forests for fossil fuel extraction and continued real estate development by thousands of well heeled "baby boomers" who are snapping up luxury mountain real estate as fast as it is built.

    If you think the wholesale sale of our forests is unlikely, ask yourself this question: If the average American is faced with the choice of higher taxes and $5.00- $10.00 a gallon gas prices or giving up all or any part of the 23 million acres of U.S. forest lands in Colorado, where they don't go anyway- what do you think their choice is going to be? To prove the point you need only look at the flat and falling national participation rates in snowsports, new studies that show the first declines in twenty years in U.S. forest use and lack of buy-in for an I-70 mountain corridor solution. The ski industry's principal research arm, RRC Associates of Boulder reports that total numbers of skiers and riders actually fell last season from 10.8 million to 10.5 million during 2005-2006. Fewer people rode, but did it more often and apparently did it mostly through early increased discount pass use; the Northeast U.S. actually lost skiers and poor snow in the Northeast is expected to drag down national figures below the 58 million mark of last season.

    Congress believes voters are ambivalent about forests- but believes they are scared stiff of guys named Mohammad, the gay couple down the street and Pedro from Mexico standing on the street corner looking for work.

    It's time for us all to tell our legislators that we care about the legacy of America's forests and national parks and we need to exponentially expand mountain recreation experiences for kids NOW.

    Roberto Lopez Moreno is Founder and President of the Colorado based snowsports diversity initiative ALPINO and now writing the nation's first "Guide to Snowsports Diversity Best Practices," a project of the National Ski Areas Association, the United States Forest Service and ALPINO. Posted by denver-admin at 04:45 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

    Pet therapy bill poor policy

    By Stacy Hudelson, DVM - President, Colorado Veterinary Medical Association

    A proposed bill currently under consideration in the Colorado State Legislature not only has the potential to harm animals, but also their owners and the general public. If House Bill 07-1296 becomes law, Colorado animal owners could take their animals directly to non-veterinarian therapy providers without a veterinarian's diagnosis or involvement.

    This Speakout has not been edited

    By Stacy Hudelson, DVM - President, Colorado Veterinary Medical Association

    A proposed bill currently under consideration in the Colorado State Legislature not only has the potential to harm animals, but also their owners and the general public. If House Bill 07-1296 becomes law, Colorado animal owners could take their animals directly to non-veterinarian therapy providers without a veterinarian's diagnosis or involvement. Veterinarians provide care for animal patients because we care about animals and public health. We put years of study and service to work for the public to recognize, treat, and care for suffering animals and control the spread of disease. Our careers and lives revolve around the health and well-being of animals.

    But HB 07-1296 would allow every self-proclaimed animal lover to become an animal healthcare provider, and raises four dangerous concerns:

  • Increases risks to the health and well-being of animal patients

    Animal patients could suffer when a particular therapy would be inappropriate for the animal's medical condition. Examination, diagnosis, and then treatment formulate the logical sequence of events required for the safe and effective delivery of healthcare in veterinary medicine. Eliminating any step in this progression puts animals at risk. In one case, a pet rabbit was undergoing acupuncture provided by a lay practitioner for a "space-occupying lesion" that was subsequently diagnosed as a malignant tumor by a veterinarian. The animal suffered needlessly.

  • Eliminates safeguards that prevent the spread of disease

    Many diseases can be rapidly transmitted between animals or from animals to humans. A veterinarian has the expertise to recognize these communicable diseases - which can be mistaken for benign conditions by non-veterinarians - and report them as required by law.

    For example, recently a case of equine herpesvirus was diagnosed by a veterinarian, resulting in quarantine of an equine hospital by the State Veterinarian. If the index horse in Colorado had gone to a lay practitioner instead of a veterinarian for its initial lameness, a life-threatening disease for horses would have spread all over Colorado - resulting in needless animal suffering, animal deaths, and significant economic consequences for Colorado's agricultural industry.

    Or consider the case of a puppy behaving abnormally and taken to a Colorado veterinarian who suspected rabies. The dog was quarantined and subsequently died; tests confirmed the diagnosis. Further investigation revealed that the puppy had been in contact with 23 people, who then underwent post-exposure rabies vaccination to protect them from this life-threatening infection. What would have happened if the owner had taken this pet to anyone other than a veterinarian?

  • Negates a professional licensing system that is already effective and reliable in protecting animal patients, human health, and the public interest.

  • Discounts the numerous certified veterinarians - to which animal owners already have access under the current system - who are highly trained in providing alternative therapies for animal patients.

    Supporters of HB 07-1296 argue that this bill gives animal owners the basic rights to determine how the animal can be treated. Although this may sound promising and appealing, this bill creates an opportunity for untrained, unlicensed, unregulated individuals to offer any type of therapy - without the proper education required to diagnose medical conditions.

    HB 07-1296 would allow unregulated therapy providers to charge consumers for services on animals - patients that can't speak, that often mask their pain, that can create injury through bites or kicks, and that can transmit diseases to other animals or to humans. This bill defies our core beliefs: helping animals to lead longer, healthier lives and providing safe, effective services to the animals, their owners, and animal industries. Posted by denver-admin at 04:29 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

    The Animal Physical Therapy Bill

    By Connie Fredman, Ft. Collins


    In regard to your editorial on House Bill 1126, the bill proposed only changes two things: 1. It allows Licensed Physical Therapists to work with animals by changing the phrase "humans" in the Physical Therapy Practice Act to "patients and clients"; and 2. It gives Licensed Physical Therapists an exemption from the Veterinary Practice Act if they abide by the rules set forth by the Colorado Veterinary Medical Board.

    This Speakout has not been edited

    By Connie Fredman, Ft. Collins

    In regard to your editorial on House Bill 1126 (The Animal Physical Therapy Bill) , I am not sure which bill you were reading. The bill proposed only changes two things: 1. It allows Licensed Physical Therapists to work with animals by changing the phrase "humans" in the Physical Therapy Practice Act to "patients and clients"; and 2. It gives Licensed Physical Therapists an exemption from the Veterinary Practice Act if they abide by the rules set forth by the Colorado Veterinary Medical Board.

    Without these two changes, Licensed Physical Therapists would be in violation of both the Physical Therapy and Veterinary Medicine Practice Acts if they were to provide physical therapy services to animals.

    Nowhere in the bill is any other profession (either licensed or unlicensed) mentioned. If one were to read the Physical Therapy Practice Act, one would find that walking and exercising are not included within the scope of practice.

    Therefore, someone walking, exercising or conditioning a dog would not fall under this jurisdiction.

    For consumers, this bill provides protection against someone who chooses to provide "physical therapy" to animals without being qualified to do so. It also provides for accountability in case of complaints by the consumer. The Vet Med. Board, along with the Physical Therapy Board will jointly take responsibility for disciplinary action when necessary.

    This bill has been three years in the making. There has been collaboration among the Physical Therapy Board, the Colorado Veterinary Medical Board and the Colorado Veterinary Medical Association to come up with language that is acceptable to all involved. As a consumer of animal physical therapy services, this bill will provide me the comfort of knowing that my animals are being treated by knowledgeable, competent practitioners who have a measure of accountability.

    As for your opinion that this bill would make it more difficult for entry level entrepreneurs to set up shop in Colorado, this bill actually does the opposite. This bill makes it possible for Licensed Physical Therapists to provide their services to animals, which they are unable to do now, making it easier for animal physical therapy businesses to start up. What this bill does is make sure the people providing physical therapy care for our animals are qualified to do so.

    I urge you to reread the bill and become informed on what the bill really says. If you are concerned about the quality and level of care your pets receive, you should reconsider and give your full support to House Bill 1126. Posted by denver-admin at 04:16 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

    Licensing Landscape Architects

    By Craig Coronato, Littleton

    While I agree with the editorial's premise that certain professions might be needlessly regulated, I take exception to your reference to SB107 - Landscape Architects Licensing - among them. The writer is clearly uninformed about the profession of landscape architecture, referring to the term "landscaper" and "landscaping" which have little to do with landscape architecture.

    This Speakout has not been edited

    By Craig Coronato, Littleton

    While I agree with the editorial's premise that certain professions might be needlessly regulated, I take exception to your reference to SB107 - Landscape Architects Licensing - among them. The writer is clearly uninformed about the profession of landscape architecture, referring to the term "landscaper" and "landscaping" which have little to do with landscape architecture.

    Landscape Architecture is a relatively small (approx 1500 practitioners in Colorado) and fast-growing profession that requires a professional college degree, internship and passage of a national exam in order to practice. Its economic impact is becoming significant, with practitioners in Colorado generating over $300 million a year in fees - none of that having anything to do with landscape construction (or landscaping). The fact that Colorado is one of only two states in the US that has not yet recognized the trend toward uniform standards of practice among the design professions in a world economy is short sighted.

    Why regulate such a seemingly a small and non-threatening profession?

  • Colorado's Department of Regulatory Agencies (DORA) has recognized that the practice of landscape architecture does have an impact on public health, safety and welfare. Landscape architects are among the people that design Colorado's public places, including streets, neighborhoods, parks and playgrounds, and both physical and financial injury can often be the result of improper design.

  • Licensure has long been held to be the best method of policing professions, utilizing a board of peers to weed out incompetents instead of the default method currently in place: litigation and the court system.

  • Professionals and the impacted industries all support licensure. It is understood among college students and young "entrepreneurs" entering the profession to be a necessary milestone to achieving professional competence. This is also true for architects, engineers, accountants, doctors, teachers and others in Colorado.

  • Regulation through DORA pays for itself through annual license fees so there is no cost to taxpayers.

  • Regulation of this profession would increase competition and fairness in the industry. Because most government agencies require a licensed professional to be in responsible charge of public projects, landscape architects are often prevented from submittal proposals or leading design projects for which perhaps they are best suited.

    Craig Coronato, ASLA. President Colorado Council of Landscape Architects. Posted by denver-admin at 04:05 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

    Motorcycle helmet bill unwise

    By Dave Christy, Golden

    As the Rocky has editorialized more than once as a proponent for House Bill 1117 (mandatory helmet use for minors driving or riding motorcycles) please allow an informed rebuttal.

    This Speakout has not been edited

    By Dave Christy, Golden

    Re: "Quit stalling on helmets for minors" RMNews 03/12/2007 editorial As the Rocky has editorialized more than once as a proponent for House Bill 1117 (mandatory helmet use for minors driving or riding motorcycles) please allow an informed rebuttal.

    The origin of the bill, as proffered by the prime sponsor, amounts to basically a "constituent bill" in response to the observance of a young child that was taken for a ride on a motorcycle - improperly seated and without protection. This was a stupid act on the part of one particular parent, and is not the functional norm, as the vast majority of motorcycling parents provide proper protection, guidance, and supervision. The proponents of the bill have focused heavily on traumatic brain injury in their presentations and testimonies, as well as medical costs.

    Motorcyclists and motorcycling families understand these concerns and are not ignorant to them. Bill proponents' testimonies and rationales have also ventured far outside of the bill's content & scope (minors), to include Colorado motorcyclists in general, extending to other states and national statistical information. It appears the Rocky has also stepped into this area. It is quite possible that 80% quoted motorcycle accidents result in some type of injury, to include a death possibility. This makes for a good "shock value" read, but we as motorcyclists already know this - it is because we are fully exposed - and it's not just limited to the head. Yet the stereotype is that riding a motorcycle equals head injury; after all, that has been the inference for years, and since it's been repeated enough it reads and sounds like truth. If we just put a helmet on, everything will be OK, right? Wrong! There is essentially no statistical information anywhere that correlates a percentage number of head injuries to a total of motorcycle-related injuries. Our greatest counter to injury in the traffic mix is rider training and operational skills, and a dependence on the motoring public's awareness and responsibility to see us and not be distracted.

    This state has done a poor job of addressing poor quality, self-absorbed drivers - and we all know it. As far as the assertion that motorcycles account for 0.3 percent of Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT's), this statistic is invalid inasmuch as the states report motorcycle VMT's voluntarily to the U.S. DOT and NHTSA. Many states don't report them at all, and the truth is that motorcycling VMT's reported from Colorado are an unknown quantity.

    Now specifically to HB 1117, I ask you and your readers to review the latest "Injury in Colorado" report from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, specifically Appendix C page 234 (on the internet) for the leading causation factors of TBI among children and adolescents. I then ask you to compare, as I have, the publicized statistic attributed to the Colorado Hospital Association concerning 127 child/youth TB motorcycling injuries for the period 2001-2005 which includes on-highway, off-highway, and off-road incidents, and makes no distinction as to if the youths were not wearing a helmet - or were, and sustained a TB injury anyway. The facts are that 98% TBI are sustained in incidents outside of motorcycling, and and a whopping 97% TBI are attributed to motor vehicle and other traffic mix factors, outside of motorcycling, in a broad age group of 0-24 years. The same medical costs apply. Yet this bill focuses on one legal activity in particular, to the exclusion of the rest. Now if this bill is really "about the kids", room exists under the last word of the bill title (vehicles) to be more comprehensive and provide "Equal Protection Under the Law" and it can be done by amendment. Yet I see none of the majority party members taking advantage of the opportunity to "save just one (more) kid" The bill, as it exists, is nothing if not discriminatory towards motorcycling and smacks more of an agenda than a safety "fix." When a specified device is specified for a particular part of the body to mitigate a specific injury, then it logically follows that "law" should be extended to others as well. There is no question this bill brings government between parents and their children, and there is also no question that it is Big Brother, contrary to the casual "Nice try" dismissals of the Rocky editorial(s). I find totally incongruent positions from the Rocky, as RMN opposes a primary seat belt law for all but supports a helmet law for a few.

    I applaud a number of the senators for taking this bill to task - a bill based on high emotion is poor policy, and this.one should be scrapped. It fixes little-to-nothing in the traffic mix, and is akin to putting a child's band-aid on a compound fracture. The best scenario would be for Colorado to provide aggressive educational, awareness, and skill evaluation opportunities and empowerment remedies - for all road users. Posted by denver-admin at 03:50 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

    The 'Tomb of Jesus' docudrama

    By Paul Bodor, Evergreen

    I almost laughed at Jean Torkelson's article "Director's 'Tomb of Jesus' angers Christians" published on 3/5/07 in Rocky Mountain News. Instead I shook my head mumbling quietly to myself - "It is much the same. Nothing seemed to have changed in over 1,600 year."

    This Speakout has not been edited

    By Paul Bodor, Evergreen

    I almost laughed at Jean Torkelson's article "Director's 'Tomb of Jesus' angers Christians" published on 3/5/07 in Rocky Mountain News. Instead I shook my head mumbling quietly to myself - "It is much the same. Nothing seemed to have changed in over 1,600 year."

    It is my understanding, while I could be wrong because I am no religious or historical scholar, that for centuries after the reported life and death of Jesus, there were hundreds of different Christian beliefs with various Gnostic-Christian and Pagan-Christian being the dominant ones. Is it not the Bible and its literal interpretation that Constantine's convention in Constantinople created that is still being debated today?

    I believe that with the Roman Catholic Church's Bible and how most Christian Churches interpret its contents, the matter of the divinity of Jesus is but a small part of a much larger controversy that has existed from the time of its initial publication. The basic question always was and remains today - whether the Bible stories, within the Gospels as they were originally written, were originally intended to be taken literally or were they conveying the meaning of deeper spiritual teachings through allegorical human stories, a practice that was common at the time.

    I suspect that many good Christians will stop reading this right now, and will judge me to be an atheist, and ignorant at best - believing without a doubt that the Bible can only be taken literally. For those of you who are even a little curious, may I continue just a little further?

    Regardless of all the good and true, including hope, purpose, and education that the Literalist Christians, starting with the Roman Catholic Church has given mankind, their means and intentions where often not so holy and not at all tolerant. We all know that the Church has often forced their teachings on the masses through war lords and enforced them by "believe as we say or else", where else may meant being tortured, robbed of all belongings, beheaded, burned at a steak, covered with lard and roasted, etc. Early after Constantine, especially Christians who did not believe in a literal interpretation of the Gospel stories, and specifically as they were written in the Bible were hunted down with great effort and given such punishments, with the goal of being totally eliminated.

    The Christian Churches have always persecuted one way or another, including by suggesting that all those were influenced by the Devil who chose to believe that the Gospels, i.e., the "Good News" was only intended to convey a deeper meaning of spiritual faith and not to be used as the bases of any all-powerful and all-knowing formal religion or church. Those who believed in One God Consciousness and Universal Spirit as a practice of an individual's inner faith, where even the story of the birth, life, and death of Jesus were symbolically full of deep spiritual meaning, where the question whether such a man as Jesus actually lived or died did not matter what so ever. In such a context, i.e., in the non-literal inner meaning interpretation of even Jesus' sacred story, there can be no controversy what so ever. In fact, the divinity of Jesus in the spiritual sense is the same as the divinity of all men and women. Is this not what Jesus' true teachings were meant to convey to all?

    There is an old saying - "A lie repeated often enough can become the law of the Universe" and another - "Only through agreement can truth be proved." As such, it is very understandable that weather the man-Jesus in the Bible stories has actually lived and the question of his divinity does not matter to a large majority of Christians. Most are only know willing to know "truth" according to their own religious faith, i.e., how they were thought not by "the Christ within" but by their Church's interpretation of the Bible. This has been going on for over 1,600 years so what ever the Church teaches must be true, and no amount of other evidence or reasoning can ever convince them otherwise.

    The problem is that such Christian "blind faith" and "righteousness" may not be any different at its core than many radical Moslem's blind faith, even when with deeply religious conviction they believe that they need to martyr themselves to serve God. Ok, now I have upset even more Christians for daring to make such an analogy. Instead of being angry I challenge you to take a honest look at the bloody history of the three major monastic religions, to honestly ask yourself what has truly changed through the centuries, and ask what we should learn from such history. Instead of being angry, simply and humbly I further ask you - "How can we change our very own faith, how can we collectively change our major religions, how can we do so without the sword or imposing our faith and will on others, and for our part of Christian roots, how can we accomplish this in the spirit of true Christ-Consciousness, and do so only with the sincere intent and divine purpose so that all of us can truly live together in piece, understanding, acceptance, reciprocity, wisdom, harmony, as well as love?'

    Unfortunately, I personally don't have any pragmatic answers to such deep questions. Posted by denver-admin at 03:44 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

    March 19, 2007
    The dangers of motorcycle helmets

    By Bob Johnson, Aurora

    The efficacy of a law requiring helmets to protect children from death or injury must be questioned when the proposed bill states the required helmet is to “Meet or exceed the standards established in US Department Of Transportation Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 218, 49 CFR 571.218, for motorcycle helmets.” Did anyone involved in the drafting of this bill actually read these standards?

    This Speakout has not been edited

    By Bob Johnson, Aurora

    It is a shame that more thorough research was not done before this proposed legislation was written. The efficacy of a law requiring helmets to protect children from death or injury must be questioned when the proposed bill states the required helmet is to “Meet or exceed the standards established in US Department Of Transportation Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 218, 49 CFR 571.218, for motorcycle helmets.” Did anyone involved in the drafting of this bill actually read these standards? Do our representatives realize that FMVSS218 does not include the testing of helmets on any actual persons? This standard does not even include any testing done on crash-test dummies. The tests that were done to establish this standard were done on a headform only, without the neck or body being considered — and seem to consist of protecting this headform without regard to the actual application of the helmet on a human head.

    The average helmet meeting FMVSS218 weighs 3 pounds. This much additional weight applied to the head causes an increased stress to be applied to the neck by increasing the effective mass on the end of the spinal column. This stress is multiplied by sudden movements such as those involved in an accident may cause the spine to be hyperextended, greatly increasing the chance of paralysis or permanent spinal cord injury. Any force to the front of the helmet will force the head back, applying a massive shearing force to the person’s neck from the rear lower edge of the helmet itself, bruising or severing the spinal cord. Impacts to the side of the head will effectively apply a twisting force to the spinal column. These injuries are even more likely when considering their effect on a child’s less-developed muscles and weaker spinal structure.

    Even the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has questioned the effectiveness of FMVSS218 when they stated “Data which have recently come to our attention raise a question whether motorcyclists who wear the present standard safety helmets which reduce severe or serious injuries to the head and face, may suffer some degree of counter balancing increase in fatal neck injuries ... Whereas the finding is not conclusive, the implication is sufficiently strong that the Board believes the subject should be further investigated without delay.” The study referred to stated: “...wearing a helmet is associated with greatly reduced fatal head injury, but greatly increased fatal neck injury.”

    A study completed by Dr. Jonathan P. Goldstein looked at “The Effect of Motorcycle Helmet Use on the Probability of Fatality and the Severity of Head And Neck Injuries” and the results stated in part: “a tradeoff between head and neck injuries confronts a potential helmet user. Past a critical impact speed to the helmet (13 mph), which is likely to occur in real life accident situations, helmet use reduces the severity of head injuries at the expense of increasing the severity of neck injuries.”

    FMVSS218 does NOT even provide a list of approved helmets. Furthermore, when asked for a list of approved helmets, the NHTSA itself has stated “While NHTSA can identify helmets that have passed the agency’s compliance tests, that is not the same as “approving” those helmets.” If a government agency issues a list of “approved” helmets and someone is injured as a result of a defective helmet appearing on that list, the government might be liable for damages.

    The best possible means to reduce injuries and death due to motorcycle accidents is to prevent those accidents in the first place. Prevention is best accomplished through education, for motorcycle riders and the general motoring public. When motorcycles are operated soberly and responsibly and other vehicle operators are aware of motorcycles on the road, there are fewer accidents involving motorcycles. Fewer accidents mean fewer deaths and injuries, it’s that simple. Posted by denver-admin at 01:27 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

    Controversy at Coors Field

    By Leo Leyden, Denver

    The Colorado Rockies recently announced Ryan Saunders as their new Public Address Announcer for Coors Field. But it appears the Rockies knew they were going to hire Saunders before they even put the ad on their website or planned their media-frenzied contest. So why did the Rockies spend all the time and effort with their contest when it had no bearing on whom they were going to hire?

    This Speakout has not been edited

    By Leo Leyden, Denver

    The Colorado Rockies recently announced Ryan Saunders as their new Public Address Announcer for Coors Field. But it appears the Rockies knew they were going to hire Saunders before they even put the ad on their website or planned their media-frenzied contest. So why did the Rockies spend all the time and effort with their contest when it had no bearing on whom they were going to hire?

    It started out a simple “submit your CD and resume to become the next ‘Voice of Coors Field.’” That seems normal for any hiring process. But here’s where it gets interesting and, yes, controversial. After reviewing the 300-plus submissions, they whittled it down to the best 19 and had them come to a sports bar to audition in front of a crowd and a panel of judges. The best three were to be put on the Rockies’ website to let the fans decide the “next Voice of Coors Field.” As a big-time Rockies fan, I had to come watch! After the first round at it was down to 10 contestants. After the next round, it was pretty obvious who the best three to go to the fans’ vote should be. And, yes, Saunders was probably in that group. But was he the best? Not even close. There were a couple of guys who really stood out but didn’t make the cut.

    Instead, Jim Hudson and Conor McGahey joined Saunders (who didn’t even have the best audition!). Hudson is a local TV personality who fumbled through his auditions and McGahey is a 22-year old D.U. student who dropped down his voice two octaves and was barely coherent in half of what he was saying.

    So why weren’t the best three in the final group? The group that was to be judged by the Rockies’ fans on the website? And why instead were they replaced with two that were obviously less impressive than Saunders? Because the Rockies wanted to hire Saunders all along. Ryan Saunders works in sales for Coors Brewing Company and is the son of Steve Saunders who is The Sponsorship Director and Event Marketing Director for Coors. His father probably helped him get his first job at Coors Brewing and certainly influenced him getting his first job at Coors Field. The Rockies knew if Saunders were put on the Internet along side some real competitors, it would be too obvious that something was fishy. So they found a couple of guys that would make the contest’s winner seem more believable.

    I’m sure the Rockies will be happy with their “New Voice of Coors Field.” After all, he was already in the family. And I did find it odd when I walked around and viewed all the nervous contestants adorned with their purple audition passes, that Saunders seemed by far the most relaxed. Even doing shots with his friends before going up for his audition. He seemed to know something we didn’t. I’m sure he’s a nice kid and does have experience stadium announcing. But the truth be told, there are a couple of guys in Denver right now who certainly deserve more to be sitting in that booth come April 2nd. I guess the Rockies got the media attention they wanted and got Denver once again talking about the team. But the fans probably didn’t get what they really deserved. Posted by denver-admin at 12:01 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

    Carbon caps would cost Colorado

    By Greg Archuletta, Golden

    More than our jobs and our living standards, America's national security is on the line if we don't get our energy and environmental policy right but sadly many "solutions" being proposed in Congress would increase energy prices still further. Foremost among these are various bills that aim to cap carbon emissions or introduce carbon trade plans.

    This Speakout has not been edited

    By Greg Archuletta, Golden

    Congress looks set to make energy and environmental policy the next major battlefield in its opposition to the president. Both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue are right to recognize the importance of these issues to Americans.

    More than our jobs and our living standards, America's national security is on the line if we don't get our energy and environmental policy right but sadly many "solutions" being proposed in Congress would increase energy prices still further. Foremost among these are various bills that aim to cap carbon emissions or introduce carbon trade plans.

    Promoted as a way to curb global warming, these government controls would in fact curb America's economy, hitting the most vulnerable among us the hardest. One such scheme, sponsored by Senators Lieberman (D-Conn.) and McCain (R-Ariz.), would cost the nation an estimated 600,000 jobs, according to a study by Charles Rivers Associates, an international consulting firm.

    Colorado would lose up to 33,000 jobs according to the estimates in their economic impact study. By 2020, the nation would lose almost 2 percent of GDP, the study estimates.

    So-called cap and trade schemes "work" by rationing the energy we use. This is simple economics: by raising the price of energy, all of us-householders and business owners-are forced to cut back. The Lieberman-McCain carbon scheme would raise national energy prices by 43 percent, the Charles Rivers study predicts, with profound consequences for every section of society.

    These regressive regulations would undermine the economic security of low income Americans who spend a greater proportion of their incomes on basic needs, such as energy. Because of this fact, the poorest one fifth of households-those with incomes less than $14,600-will bear a two-thirds larger burden than the richest one fifth of households.

    In Colorado, the Lieberman-McCain legislation would increase energy costs for America's poorest households by 54 percent, and raise energy costs for the elderly by 12 percent. Nationally, household purchasing power would be cut by $2,255 annually. A further perverse consequence of the carbon cap and trade program favored by Lieberman and McCain is that it is investment in new, cleaner technologies that offers the best hope for fighting global warming. Yet by crudely capping carbon emissions, and driving up the costs of producing energy domestically, investment in America's energy industries would be discouraged, undermining the source of future technology-based environmental improvements.

    Most every American wants to do their bit to help make our nation's energy future more secure, fight global warming and keep jobs and businesses here at home. Sadly, Lieberman-McCain would undermine all of these important objectives. Growth, investment and technology are the answers. Posted by denver-admin at 12:01 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

    Math bill is self-defeating

    By Lee Combs, Westminster

    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Take House Bill 131, which would unconstitutionally limit educational choice and impose yet another unfunded state mandate on local taxpayers.

    This Speakout has not been edited

    By Lee Combs, Westminster

    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Take House Bill 131, which would unconstitutionally limit educational choice and impose yet another unfunded state mandate on local taxpayers.

    Increasing math requirements in high school sounds good, but it is a self-defeating strategy if the goal is to prepare more young people for life in which creativity and cultural competency are the qualities we expect will be most coveted by employers. We have only four years with our students. Increasing the time spent on math will inevitably decrease the time spent developing these important qualities.

    Moreover, there's a broad consensus of support among Coloradoans for educational choice, and Mr. Penry's bill would reduce educational choices for many families within their public schools. Unlike Mr. Penry, the people of Colorado recognize that education is not a manufacturing process. We cannot make an engineer out of an artist by making him take more math and reducing the educational experiences he values. If choice is the prime principle, we should establish policies that respect students' preferences by offering a variety of educational pathways that will attract students to stay in school.

    Finally, highly qualified and effective math teachers are relatively rare. Many districts struggle to hire and retain them with the resources they have. Penry's bill requires schools to hire more math teachers but does nothing to increase their numbers or provide the resources to hire them. Local taxpayers will have to take up the slack again.

    We must ask, to what end? If China and India continue to produce engineers and lab technicians who will work for a fraction of what an American can earn as a graphic artist, lawyer, or business entrepreneur, how many Americans will choose to work in science or engineering - even if they have the math skills? How does it serve the interest of our kids to force them to take more math at the expense of their quite rationally preferred educational choices? Even in the 21st century, over 75% of jobs will require nothing more than mastery of basic arithmetic - addition, subtraction, multiplication, long division, fractions and decimals. Those who are intrinsically motivated to seek careers in engineering or science will voluntarily pursue advanced math courses, and we must assure that this educational pathway is available. But mandating it for the rest will be counterproductive. Gifted students who complete calculus by the second or third year won't be able to get their four credits; struggling students will take longer to graduate (at state and local expense) even if they are not so discouraged that they drop out. And if they do drop out, we will lose the opportunity to educate them to be the creative, culturally competent people who will sustain our democracy through a time of great demographic, cultural, and economic change.

    Lee Combs, President Board of Education Adams Twelve Five Star Schools Posted by denver-admin at 12:01 AM | Comments (6) | TrackBack

    Illegal immigrant marches

    By Donna Hamilton, Parker

    I am extremely concerned about the planned march that will again take place in the United States of America by illegal immigrants and their families that have benefited by their parents illegal entry into this country.

    This Speakout has not been edited

    By Donna Hamilton, Parker

    I am extremely concerned about the planned march that will again take place in the United States of America by illegal immigrants and their families that have benefited by their parents illegal entry into this country.

    Again, I must be confronted by people marching and making threats and racial slurs.

    Again, I must be turned away at American restaurants and businesses that have closed their doors to Americans because they are guilty of hiring illegal immigrants for less wages.

    Again, I must be reminded that "these" people see themselves different from "us" and have separated themselves from America, the culture and the language. They argue that, "They are just looking for a better life" and that, "They are just doing the jobs that we don't want to do" or , "This country was founded on immigration". I see them as cowards. They leave millions of people behind in their country to steal from another country and teach their children that anything is possible if you can get away with it. These children have no regard for this country and no respect for the law. They look to their parents for guidance and truth and instead are taught bigotry, discrimination, distortion of history, hate and shame. They are not a grateful, prideful people that are courageous. Many Americans fought and died for the freedom that we experience today. Would any of them fight and march in their country for change for all people. No, instead slipping through a fence and climbing into a van, leaving children, grandparents behind is far more self serving and the easy way out. We must not let lives lost by Americans be in vain by accepting unlawful behavior and excusing it under the cries of racism. We must not allow our men and women fighting and dying in Iraq each day to be for nothing. Many Americans see our "liberation" of Iraq as invasion, how do they see illegal immigration in the United States? Would we, as a nation and our government, ignore the illegal entry of insurgents from Iraq if they hijacked planes each day into this country and unloaded thousands of illegal immigrants? If these same people marched in our streets making their demands and declaring our civil rights as their own, would we be as inclined to hire them, educate their children in their language, pay to treat them in our hospitals, house them, all the while neglecting our "own" people (Katrina). Eventually adopting their laws and losing our unity. The people of the Unites States are diverse in race and customs, but they are united in their loyalty and legal entry into this country. We cannot allow millions of people to enter this country illegally every year and honestly believe that we are helping anyone. What does happen to those left behind? What change will ever happen if we do nothing to stop corruption, crime and poverty in these countries? Isn't that our billion dollar intent in Iraq? We will destroy this country and all that it stands for by seeing illegal immigration as a racial issue. Not only will our hospitals, schools, neighborhoods, communities, police and businesses continue to be negatively affected; but our land, water, natural resources, parks, oceans, rivers and environment will be forever changed. To say nothing of the contribution of global warming by the people living in the United States. What will we do then? I do not understand how our government can continue, without consequence, to ignore and justify this very serious problem. On Saturday, April 7th, watch the faces of these people (who will unfortunately be given an audience instead of being arrested), listen to their comments carefully, don't be fooled by their carrying of the American flag ((when they initially marched in California they carried the Mexican flag and were instructed not to do do because it "looked" better with the American flag)), listen to their excuses, demands and witness the faces of their children. These children have no allegiance to this country. Just like Mexico that has no allegiance to this country and does not act as allies to us in our war with Iraq. Think about all of the illegal immigrants that have committed horrific crimes against people living in the United States and fleeing "back" to Mexico to live protected, blissful lives with no fear of extradition. We must not look at these people sympathetically, but with fear, they stand for nothing and are not willing to do what is right to live a life in their country that is free. Illegal immigrants must take their marches to their own country if they really want a better life for all. Unfortunately, they believe that if they like your home, your car, your job, if they can steal it, they can have it free and clear with no regrets and no guilt all the while calling anyone that stands for America a racist. How many people from different countries do we allow illegal entry into this country, how many languages will we ultimately allow, how many jobs will United States businesses give away, how many more years does the United States of America have before it is no longer united. By the United States supporting just Mexican illegal immigrants and allowing them marches on American soil, they open us up to further invasion and demands from other countries that desire "a better life" for their people too. Without firing a single shot, Mexican illegal immigrants, through their marching are "getting back" what they think we took away from them. We, unfortunately, do not have resources left to help those courageous people of Darfur who are being killed everyday, or people of other countries that choose not to break the law, but fight for change; instead we entertain illegal invaders and our president and government officials court them. After the marches, more importantly, listen to the voices of the candidates running for president. Who has the courage to defend this country and stand for what is right. Whoever is courting the illegal vote is not the person we want representing the United States of America.

    A concerned, law abiding, granddaughter of legal immigrants, who is a thankful, English speaking, proud American who cares about all people, everywhere. Posted by denver-admin at 12:01 AM | Comments (16) | TrackBack

    Keep federal security in Denver

    By Mark Johnson, Lakewood

    Congratulations, Denver has been chosen for the 2008 Democratic National Convention (DNC). With that distinct honor comes an increase in federal Homeland Security grants because Denver's terrorism threat level rose considerably as the DNC host city. However, most citizens of the Denver-metro area are unaware that Homeland Security is also in the process of reducing the number of uniformed federal officers in Denver.

    This Speakout has not been edited

    By Mark Johnson, Lakewood

    Congratulations, Denver has been chosen for the 2008 Democratic National Convention (DNC). With that distinct honor comes an increase in federal Homeland Security grants because Denver's terrorism threat level rose considerably as the DNC host city. However, most citizens of the Denver-metro area are unaware that Homeland Security is also in the process of reducing the number of uniformed federal officers in Denver.

    The Federal Protective Service (FPS) operates under the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) branch of the Department of Homeland Security. FPS is the only uniformed federal law enforcement agency with full arrest authority. FPS is responsible for the safety and security of federal property and employees around the country. Which includes a significant portion of federal property in the heart of downtown Denver. FPS provides riot control and prevention within their jurisdiction. FPS provides support operations with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) as first responders in the event of natural disasters or WMD attacks. Regardless of how anyone feels about FEMA's response, FPS officers were deployed to the Gulf Coast after hurricanes Katrina and Rita, and provided material and personnel support to the local law enforcement agencies. Many New Orleans police officers rode with FPS officers, in marked FPS vehicles.

    Denver currently enjoys a 24 hour-a-day, 7 day-a-week FPS presence in downtown Denver. Most FPS officers credit that 24-hour presence as the prime deterrent that kept Timothy McVeigh from bombing Denver. His ultimate target in Oklahoma City did not have a 24-hour FPS presence.

    How does all of that affect the Denver-metro area? Last year, FPS fell $42 million short of its required budget for several reasons, and the GAO has subsequently opened an ongoing investigation to the funding practices of ICE in general and FPS in particular. As a result of the budgetary shortfalls and governmental scrutiny, ICE is currently looking at significantly cutting the FPS funding, if not completely dissolving FPS and replacing the uniformed officers with civilian contract guards. This would result in significant reduction of the security presence in the federal district of downtown Denver. Without any uniformed law enforcement officers, any situations would have to be handled by the Denver Police Department. This added jurisdiction would require DPD to hire more uniformed officers, add more overtime or stretch the existing patrol coverage in downtown.

    Many of the FPS officers are veterans who have dedicated their lives to serving and protecting this country, first with military service and now as law enforcement officers. Obviously many are concerned with their careers and their future, but the bigger picture is clearly the reduction in police presence and security. Any such reduction in force would be counter to everything that the Department of Homeland Security was created to do, and it would send a message to the citizens that our government is more concerned with money than with protecting the cities and infrastructure of this nation. FPS should maintain a 24/7 presence in Denver now more than ever, particularly with the Democratic National Convention coming to town in less than 2 years. Posted by denver-admin at 12:01 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

    Deregulation no solution to taxi woes

    By Pam Myyers, Thornton

    Seems some people think that the pancea for poor taxi service is to de-regulate. Like all panaceas this one is both false and dangerous.

    The present system came about through a compromise between those who considered taxi service to be poor and those who thought it should be a state/city service.

    This Speakout has not been edited

    By Pam Myyers, Thornton

    Seems some people think that the pancea for poor taxi service is to de-regulate. Like all panaceas this one is both false and dangerous.

    The present system came about through a compromise between those who considered taxi service to be poor and those who thought it should be a state/city service.

    Taxis, as I tried very hard to convince others when I drove one, are a business. Not a charity, public welfare service nor a government entity.

    This business has the unique character of being nearly anonymous and dealing with a high percentage of customers who are strangers to the area.

    This makes it too easy for the dishonest to turn a fast buck at the expense of the tourist. Yes there will be the courts IF the driver can be identified and IF the victim decides to carry through with prosecution and IF the legal system carries through on its part and doesn't plea bargain away the case entirely.

    Other cities have de-regulated and they have suffered losses and not just to their tourist business. Today there is a "rule" requiring any taxi service to serve all areas with equal promptness. This will not even exist under the new proposals. While I have had to wait up to three hours for a cab I knew I would eventually get one. With the new system I and other people with disabilities will have to find other transportation.

    This brings up other, messier problems. Today the drivers are background checked, identified and under some measure of accountability. We may not know which cab but we can easily determine which company. Those companies face fines and other penalties for dishonesty and poor service. Such things will be mostly empty threats under de-regulation. Even if one operator can be identified and prosecuted the majority will remain faceless and well able to continue their preying.

    A new system would also require verification of those who wish to be taxi drivers. How would anyone know if the person behind the wheel is the same one who passed that check? Several years ago one company had an epidemic of non-verified drivers behind the wheel. Because the company had to answer to the PUC the epidemic was rather quickly ended and the unqualifed drivers removed. Who would that solitary driver or the vehicle owner answer to under de-regulation? And why? There is less chance of being identified as un-verified than anything else. So the risk is small and the benefits great. Which brings up a point far less important to the public now than it would be under de-regulation. COST The new drivers don't want to take Aunt Judy to the doctor or pick up Uncle Paul at the grocery store or take Grandpa Bill three miles to work. There is little money in such fares and the costs for the dirver are the same whether the fare is great or small. At best the costs to passengers for such services will skyrocket because the laws of supply and demand will intersect with the law of unintended consequences. Drivers will flock to the airport, the hotels, the tourist centers and other places where there is demand. This will be because the supply of taxis is large while the demand will remain the same at first before falling due to overcharging which will be legal. There will be no control over the fares so it will be legal to charge, as one quickly terminated limo driver once did, a hundred dollars for a trip from the Brown Palace to the Buckhorn Exchange. (I was there and took the victims of his thievery back to the hotel after they finished their meal. The Brown Palace doorman remembered which limo company my passengers had used. ) The poor, disabled and those unlucky enough to live in undesirable areas will not be as fortunate. Not only will we have to call for service instead of waving down a cab we might just be able to identify the dishonest to legal authority if we do encounter them. Honest companies will have to raise rates to compete for drivers.

    Passengers like me and my husband will wait longer and pay more for poorer, less safe service. That's not merely my opinion. Just ask any regular cab patron in one of the de-regulated cities. If they still have regular cab patrons that is. Posted by denver-admin at 12:01 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

    March 18, 2007
    Taxi drivers need incentives to chase smaller fares

    By Bryce McPherson, Denver

    As a driver with Yellow Cab and a holder of a bachelor’s degree in economics, I might be able to shed some light on the current debate over efforts to relax taxi regulations in Colorado

    By Bryce McPherson, Denver

    As a driver with Yellow Cab and a holder of a bachelor’s degree in economics, I might be able to shed some light on the current debate over efforts to relax taxi regulations in Colorado (“Debate over taxi rules/Lawmakers propose bill that partially deregulates industry,” Business, March 13).

    It is indeed difficult to get a taxi in Denver. This has led many to conclude that there is a shortage of taxi drivers. Thus the debate has focused on how to increase the number of cab companies operating in Denver and, hence, the number of drivers out at any given time. However, as the photo that accompanied the story cited above suggests — a photo showing scores of idle cabs at Denver International Airport — the problem is more of distribution than supply.

    A common misconception is that cab drivers are employees of their companies and are at the beck and call of the dispatch system. A long wait for a cab must mean there are not enough drivers to keep up with the volume of calls. In fact, we are independent contractors who lease our equipment from a cab company but pay heed only to our own rational self-interests in deciding where to place ourselves. For most drivers, that puts them at the airport where they are guaranteed a $30 to $50 fare rather than chasing after a $10 fare in the suburbs. Supply-side solutions to the problem are only likely to increase the length of the cab line at DIA while service in the suburbs and fringes of Denver proper remains as miserable as ever.

    The real question is, what can be done to give drivers the incentive to respond to more dispatch calls and lure them away from the airport? The answer is, find ways to increase the value of dispatch calls and decrease the costs of responding to them.

    Gas prices continue to climb while the value of trips remains regulated below market-clearing price. Having the Public Utilties Commission authorize a meter rate increase or perhaps a state subsidized bonus system for drivers who respond to a minimum number of dispatch calls might help this.

    Most drivers have V8 Crown Victorias that get about 12 mpg. As I have watched gas prices climb I have definitely noticed myself giving preference to cab lines where I can shut my engine off and wait for a fare to come to me. Perhaps a state gas tax refund to taxi drivers might make us more willing to eat up gas chasing a call. Even more ambitious would be to subsidize a fleet overhaul to improve fuel economy and require new taxi companies to meet minimum efficiency standards with the fleets they introduce.

    The distribution problem is a tricky one and it is essential that policy-makers consider it when confronting Denver’s growing demand for taxi services. Posted by denver-admin at 12:01 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

    Religious colleges unfairly excluded

    By Bill Armstrong, Colorado Christian University

    Should Colorado students be denied state tuition aid for college because they want to attend a religious school? That’s the question a U.S. District Court will soon decide. If Judge Marcia Krieger chooses to rule on motions for summary judgment, the decision may be forthcoming at any time. Otherwise, a trial will take place in May. Either way, momentous constitutional issues are involved concerning the religious liberty and equal protection provisions of the U.S. Constitution.

    By Bill Armstrong, Colorado Christian University

    Should Colorado students be denied state tuition aid for college because they want to attend a religious school? That’s the question a U.S. District Court will soon decide. If Judge Marcia Krieger chooses to rule on motions for summary judgment, the decision may be forthcoming at any time. Otherwise, a trial will take place in May. Either way, momentous constitutional issues are involved concerning the religious liberty and equal protection provisions of the U.S. Constitution.

    A few years ago, the Colorado General Assembly established a series of state-funded grants in amounts ranging from $500 to $5,000 per student per year, depending on such factors as household income, number of parents, etc. Students are permitted to use the funds to pay for tuition at approved post-secondary institutions.

    Among the “approved” colleges and universities for which students may use the tuition grants are the University of Colorado, University of Denver, Colorado College, Regis University, the Art Institute of Colorado, Colorado Technical University, Denver Automotive and Diesel, Rocky Mountain College of Art and Design, etc. The list encompasses most accredited institutions of higher learning in the state. Colorado Christian University is a glaring exception. CCU was left off the list even though the university offers a broad range of fully accredited undergraduate and graduate degrees in business, education, humanities, sciences, music, theology, counseling, curriculum and instruction.

    The legislature excluded from participation those students wishing to attend a “pervasively sectarian” institution. So CCU was turned down when it applied to the Colorado Commission on Higher Education (CCHE) to be included among institutions for which eligible students could receive tuition grants. CCHE determined that CCU “meets all academic accreditation and financial criteria,” but is a “pervasively sectarian” institution and therefore students can’t get grants.

    What it means is this: Colorado students can get a grant to help with tuition at almost every college and university in the state, but not at CCU, which is deemed to be too religious. This is blatant discrimination. No wonder the former director of CCHE has publicly disagreed with the “pervasively sectarian” provision of the statute. Even the U.S. Department of Justice has condemned it.

    On Dec. 6, 2004, CCU sued the Colorado Commission on Higher Education for violations of the First and 14th Amendments. Our action asks the U.S. District Court to invalidate the “pervasively sectarian” test, enjoin CCHE from continuing to discriminate against students who wish to attend CCU, and award to CCU its costs and attorney’s fees and other relief that the court deems just and proper.

    The “pervasively sectarian” statutory language was evidently adopted by the Colorado General Assembly to conform to a First Amendment doctrine promulgated by the U.S. Supreme Court. Subsequently, however, the court reversed this doctrine.

    Excluding CCU from the approved list violates the First Amendment’s constitutional requirement of neutrality among religions. In addition, it is impermissible to exclude CCU students because to do so violates the equal protection provisions of the 14th Amendment. The court’s ruling will be crucial for CCU students. But students all over the country could be affected if the Colorado precedent is applied elsewhere. So the ramifications could be huge and last a long time. As the Rocky Mountain News editorialized in 2004, when the lawsuit was filed, Colorado Christian University “was rejected because of its religious practices. It says that’s discriminatory, and it’s absolutely right.”

    Lawyers don’t like to predict the outcome of cases like this. But there are encouraging signs. Earlier this month, the California Supreme Court ruled that “pervasively sectarian” institutions may participate in government bond programs. While not a controlling precedent, this decision may be taken into account by the U.S. District Court in Colorado.

    Most significantly, the U.S. Department of Justice has filed a “friend of the court” brief supporting CCU’s complaint. The department asks the court to forgo a trial and grant summary judgment in favor of the university. Considering what’s at stake, CCU earnestly hopes the court will agree.

    Bill Armstrong is the president of Colorado Christian University. He is a Colorado businessman and former U.S. senator. Posted by denver-admin at 12:01 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

    March 17, 2007
    A big Irish family

    By Ken McConnellogue, Greeley

    I’m from a big Irish family.

    I have 46 first cousins ... on my dad’s side. He’s from a family of eight, the small side of the family. My mom is from a family of 12.

    By Ken McConnellogue, Greeley

    I’m from a big Irish family.

    I have 46 first cousins ... on my dad’s side. He’s from a family of eight, the small side of the family. My mom is from a family of 12. We’ve yet to muster the energy to count the first cousins on that side. I even have double cousins. One of my mom’s brothers married one of my dad’s sisters.

    We McConnellogues and McGrorys have more than our share of heroes and goats, eccentrics and deadbeats, rogues and people with hearts of gold. I’ve never met many of them. Most of my relatives still live in Derry, in the north of Ireland, where my family has lived for generations. My dad and his two brothers emigrated to the United States. A few of my mom’s siblings came as well. We arrived in 1960, when I was 3.

    Even though my stateside family is a small branch of a big tree, we are fairly good-sized in our own right. And with more from Ireland coming and going, we have plenty of cousins and aunts and uncles to go around. It’s great to be part of such an outfit.

    But I’ve found that the great thing about a big Irish family can also be an awful thing. My Aunt Philae died recently, not long after her 80th birthday. She was my dad’s sister, known in the family as the Queen Mum. Philae was one of those women you’ll find in any Irish family, the caretaker of the parents, the siblings, the nieces and nephews - she nursed the dying, nurtured the living, and kept us all connected.

    She bought me books. Sent Irish candy in the mail. She knew I was interested in Bloody Sunday, a 1972 tragedy in Derry when 13 civil rights marchers were shot dead by British paratroopers. When an inquest into the shootings opened in Derry a few years ago, she would clip weeks’ worth of newspaper articles from the Derry Journal, roll them into cylinders tight as baseball bats and mail them to me. I never had the heart to tell her I could follow the coverage of the inquest on the Internet.

    While Philae’s passing was sad indeed, it seemed to be the latest in a natural changing of the generational guard. I now have more aunts and uncles who are dead than living. My dad is gone, as are his brothers. Suddenly, it seems, my cousins and I are the older generation; it’s our kids who marvel at the size of their family, most of whom they’ve never met.

    But then my oldest brother died young last year. Tragically, a nephew in his mid-20s followed. And then a big Irish family seems as much curse as blessing. It’s difficult to watch so many people so close to you die. And with a family so big, it’s daunting to think about how many more times we’ll experience loss.

    But then I think about my brother’s love of life, my nephew’s quiet wit, my aunt’s gentle kindness, and I know I’m richer for having had them in my life. The same goes for all those family members who have come and gone in my life. I feel a strong connection to those disparate personalities. Those of us who remain carry on the spirit of those who are gone.

    It’s one of the great things about being from a big Irish family. Posted by denver-admin at 12:01 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

    Asian women, Volvo, and Paul Campos

    By John Ritter, Highlands Ranch

    Mr. Campos has once again managed to waste his time, our time, precious paper, and The Rocky’s money with yet another piece of meaningless drivel.

    In his latest “column,” Mr. Campos allows us a regrettable peek into the psyche of a confused liberal.

    This Speakout has not been edited

    By John Ritter, Highlands Ranch

    Mr. Campos has once again managed to waste his time, our time, precious paper, and The Rocky’s money with yet another piece of meaningless drivel.

    In his latest “column,” Mr. Campos allows us a regrettable peek into the psyche of a confused liberal. Mr. Campos had an epiphany for his next “column” after watching a Volvo commercial. The commercial features an Asian woman, who is alerted remotely by the car's heartbeat sensor that someone is in the backseat of her car. Mr. Campos then makes an observation that only a liberal can get away with; he declares the Asian woman “symbolizes fragility, vulnerability, intelligence, and perhaps wealth.” She is the “fragile flower of the mysterious East.”

    Let us pause for a moment, before I make my ultimate point, and ponder what Mr. Campos, that dour and sanctimonious liberal, has offered to us through his own candid observations. He sees an Asian woman, and thinks fragility, vulnerability, intelligence and wealth. This author wonders, as surely many other readers have, how Mr. Campos would react to other images in a racial Rorschach exercise.

    He then proceeds to offer us his imaginative alternative for the commercial: Substitute Shaquille O’Neal for the Asian woman. Why, you ask? This is because, as Mr. Campos so eloquently puts it, Shaq is a “huge black man” that would function as the “precise opposite of a tiny Asian woman.” Please pause again to reflect on the irony of his observation, as I am severely limited, unlike Mr. Campos, by the amount of words I can insert into my essay. His salient Freudian slip should be easy enough to spot without any help from this novice writer.

    The ultimate point of Mr. Campos’ essay is to inform us that we are “irrational about risk” because the risk of dying in a car accident is "astronomically higher" than being killed in a "terrorist incident". Of course, that risk depends on the circumstances. If you're standing on the 100th floor of a populous skyscraper in downtown New York City, the risk of being involved in a car accident is infinitesimally low. Likewise, if you find yourself approaching your car alone in a parking lot at night, perhaps the fear of being assaulted is not as "irrational" as the fear of getting run over by a car at that moment.

    If Mr. Campos had spent more time than, say, the time it takes to get a Frappuccino at Starbucks, to ponder the commercial, he would have realized that the heartbeat sensor feature on the Volvo exists to ensure that a baby is not left in the car after the owner closes the door and locks up. The commercial he observed was simply Volvo advertising, perhaps light-heartedly, another use for its technology just like Arm & Hammer constantly finds new ways to sell baking soda.

    Mr.Campos would have you believe that we are becoming irrationally fearful, perhaps because a certain political party wants us to be. But, this commercial was just a way for Volvo to, as the saying goes, kill two birds with one stone. The heartbeat sensor is good not only for concerned parents but also those rich, fragile, vulnerable, intelligent, and childless Asian women. Posted by denver-admin at 12:01 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

    March 16, 2007
    Legislative resolution on Iraq

    By Paul Sherbo, Lakewood

    For many, it was just great TV at the time. But things have not gone so well. Now, it seems, things are rapidly snowballing to the point at which the country will now run away screaming in despair.

    By Paul Sherbo, Lakewood

    By Paul Sherbo, Lakewood

    For many, it was just great TV at the time. But things have not gone so well. Now, it seems, things are rapidly snowballing to the point at which the country will now run away screaming in despair.

    Both actions show the unfortunate shallowness that we Americans can sometimes display. “Let’s get ’em!” Followed by: “Geez, it’s 9 p.m. and it’s not over yet?”

    Some of this screaming happened, at varying volume, in the Statehouse Wednesday (“Loud and divided on Iraq,” March 15). More will happen before it’s all over. What touched off Wednesday’s exchange is a proposed resolution opposing the “surge.” In itself, the surge is a tactic that people with opposing views on the war can either agree or disagree with. But the resolution has come to symbolize a lot more than that. It has inflamed anyone with strong views on the war into speaking out. A lot of political baggage went along with Wednesday’s debate, as the committee’s party-line vote showed.

    Most interesting to me, however, are the comments of the veterans.

  • > Don Ottaway, 22-year-old Iraq veteran and Cherry Creek High School graduate, noted the “sweat and tears” he suffered there. Nevertheless he supported the war, saying, “Freedom is not free.”

  • Diggs Brown, Afghan vet and Green Beret from Fort Collins, said he was “outraged that I have to be here today speaking to you. This vote is an insult to the members of our armed forces.”

    To this I add, according to a report last month on NBC Nightly News, the majority of troops in Iraq support the campaign and are frustrated with the degree of opposition back home.

    I myself served in Iraq, and I have to count myself among those like Brown, Ottaway and the troops there on the ground.

    So if the people who do the fighting support the effort, how in the world do their opponents justify their opposition?

    When the resolution was first introduced, KHOW Radio’s Caplis and Silverman Show invited listeners to call in. After one caller noted that most troops supported the war, co-host Craig Silverman very pertinently asked how the caller would feel if 51 percent of the troops opposed the war.

    Here’s my take on that: If that many of the troops opposed the war, there would be no way we could win, even if the vast majority of Americans supported it.

    But that’s not the case here.

    Saying that we went in irrationally is one thing. To follow that up by throwing up our hands in despair, saying that we should now flee our responsibility there, is equally irrational — especially, emphatically, absolutely because the troops largely do not agree. On top of that, the majority of Iraqis have spoken as well — their huge voter turnout in three elections is a clear message of courage and determination. They do not deserve abandonment.

    We broke it, former Secretary of State (and four-star general) Colin Powell famously said: Now we fix it. We have to make a careful list of what broke, what to fix, and how. We overthrew a repressive, murderous, totalitarian regime. No need to fix that. The sectarian division was always there; now it has emerged. In a way, what we “broke” was the lid on the box. What kind of “lid” do we now want to build? How much of that is it possible for Americans to do and how much must be done by Iraqis and their neighbors? These are the discussions to engage in now.

    The war is absolutely worthy of public debate, and I welcome it. I just ask that, now and then, for the troops’ sake, let’s just stop screaming and listen to all the people who have taken the field there.

    Paul Sherbo was recalled to active duty in June 2004 to serve as the Fifth Fleet’s representative to coalition forces in Iraq. He returned home in April 2005 and retired from the Navy Reserve as a captain in June 2006 after 30 years of service. Posted by denver-admin at 12:01 AM | Comments (25) | TrackBack

    March 15, 2007
    Flawed math and science proposal

    By Kim Natale, Arvada

    I am watching with interest the well intentioned but flawed legislative attempt (SB 131) by Sen. Josh Penry and Rep. Rob Witwer to ensure Colorado students are better trained in math and science. They correctly recognize that science and technology are the “coin of the realm” and that our students need better training in math and science. However, the solution they offer (requiring four years of math and three years of science to obtain a high school diploma) is deeply flawed.

    This Speakout has not been edited

    By Kim Natale, Arvada

    I am watching with interest the well intentioned but flawed legislative attempt (SB 131) by Sen. Josh Penry and Rep. Rob Witwer to ensure Colorado students are better trained in math and science. They correctly recognize that science and technology are the “coin of the realm” and that our students need better training in math and science. However, the solution they offer (requiring four years of math and three years of science to obtain a high school diploma) is deeply flawed.

    The first flaw is the assumption that requiring students to complete additional courses will result in increased learning and interest. This assumes students will be taking meaningful courses and be interested in them. In over 31 years of teaching science I have seen numerous courses developed so students who were not interested could complete graduation requirements. It is standard practice to develop “watered down” courses that almost any student could pass with little or no effort. I have seen physics courses that an average third grader could pass put into a curriculum for high schools. Math courses for those with little ambition abound. Teachers refer to these as “dumbed down” classes. School districts are always looking for these classes so the dropout rate does not increase as graduation requirements are raised. Exactly what purpose does it serve when students pass courses that have taught them nothing and required no effort?

    The second flaw is the assumption by the public that graduation requirements are the same for all students. The bill exempts two large groups of students from the requirements. These two groups are those students who are on Individualized Education Programs (IEP) and English Language Proficiency (ELP) programs. While the numbers of students in these programs used to be small (under 2%) for many schools these two programs now include the majority of the students. Isn’t it interesting that the bill is trying to make us competative in math and science with foreign nations yet it assumes those foreign speakers in the US are incapable of learning math and science?

    The third flaw in the bill is the tremendous cost to local school districts. Part of this has been resolved by reducing the original requirement of the bill (four years of science) to the current wording of three years. Since many school districts in the state already require four years of math and three years of science, this allows many school districts (mostly the larger, metropolitan ones) to meet the requirement with no changes.

    Therefore the impact for most large districts is another reporting mandate to the state. Of course, since this requires no change from what is already required, and what is already required is causing the US to fall behind, how does this bill help improve science and math literacy?

    For rural districts the bill means additional staffing in very difficult to fill science and math jobs. Because qualified teachers are simply not available the new classes would be taught by people with minimal training in math or science. How does it increase math and science literacy when the teachers are not qualified to teach the subject? These weaknesses make SB 131 worthy of defeat.

    Kim Natale taught high school physics for 31 years. He was Colorado Teacher of the Year in 1984.


    Posted by denver-admin at 12:00 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

    Deadly Organic Spinach

    By Alex Avery and Dennis Avery, Hudson Institute

    Organic food activists are being served a heaping platter of organic crow now that we finally learn last fall's outbreak of deadly E. coli O157:H7 was caused by organically grown spinach.

    This Speakout has not been edited

    By Alex Avery and Dennis Avery, Hudson Institute

    Organic food activists are being served a heaping platter of organic crow now that we finally learn last fall's outbreak of deadly E. coli O157:H7 was caused by organically grown spinach.

    On Tuesday (February 27th), California food regulators admitted under direct questioning at a state senate hearing that the tainted spinach that ultimately killed 3 and sickened over 200 was traced to a 50-acre organic field - contrary to the repeated denials of organic activists.

    They're still denying it. The spokeswoman for the Organic Trade Association told us the contaminated spinach "does not meet the legal definition of organic" because the farm was "in transition" - the mandatory 3-year period when the product must be sold as conventional. During the phase-in, however, the farmer must use only "organic" fertilizers, such as bacteria-laden manure and manure compost.

    When the organic revelation surfaced last week, we emailed our long-time ideological adversary Chuck Benbrook, who runs the industry-funded Organic Center for Education and Promotion. Chuck was the former head of the National Academy of Science's Board on Agriculture until he was dismissed for pushing his organic agenda too far into Academy reports.

    Chuck insisted that "there is zero evidence that anything [the organic farmer] did opened the door to the pathogens; no compost was applied on the field." But he wouldn't say what, if any, organic fertilizer was applied to the spinach field.

    Mum's the Word

    From the beginning, we have repeatedly asked the Food and Drug Administration and other agencies if any of the suspected farms were organic or "transitional organic," and whether they used animal manure (composted or not) as a fertilizer on the suspected spinach crop. We've never received an answer to this simple, basic question.

    Instead, the FDA and California Department of Health Services have settled on the theory that the E. coli came from angus beef cattle raised on nearby pastures. (See the ranches website, http://www.paicinesranch.com/) Investigators found matching E. coli in the feces of the ranch's cattle and also in a feral pig killed on the ranch. The officials have openly speculated that feral pigs could have transferred the E. coli from the cattle pastures to the spinach field, noting holes in and under the fences on the ranch.

    Many organic believers have seized on this theory to continue their ceaseless bashing of "industrial cattle feedlots." In this case, however, they are only shooting themselves. The ranch in question is strictly a grass-only, pasture-based operation - the kind they themselves advocate as the "safe alternative" to so-called "factory farms." (See: http://www.paicinesranch.com/grass-fed%20beef.htm) The ranch's website even refers visitors to a website that claims people who eat grass-fed beef have "a much lower risk of becoming infected with the [E. coli bacteria]" and that E. coli O157:H7 from grass-fed cattle are far less likely "to survive the natural acidity of our digestive tract."

    Maybe, maybe not - the research is contradictory and ongoing. But in this case the claims ring hollow to the hundreds of spinach victims and their families.

    Moreover, other research indicates that organic methods are at best no safer than non-organic methods. At worst, they're significantly less safe. Research from the University of Minnesota published in 2004 found organic lettuce was the most contaminated they tested (one in four heads carried generic E. coli, an indicator of bacterial contamination). Overall, the organic produce was six times more likely to harbor E. coli than produce from conventional farms. The scientists also found potentially deadly Salmonella on organic lettuce and green peppers, but not in any conventional foods tested. The sample sizes were too small to say whether this difference was statistically significant.

    The contamination echoes the findings of Consumer Reports, who reported in January that organic chicken harbors 300% more Salmonella than cheaper, non-organic brands they tested. Ditto similar studies from Denmark and Britain. Last week, the British environment agency reported that they could find no evidence that organic foods are any better for the environment, either, despite the shrill insistence of organic activist groups.

    We wish we could say that the news the tainted spinach was organic surprised us, but given the multiple research findings indicating greater bacterial risk, we suspected it all along.

    Alex Avery is director of research at the Hudson Institute's Center for Global Food Issues and author of The Truth About Organic Foods. Dennis Avery is a senior fellow at Hudson. Readers may contact them at Post Office Box 202, Churchville, VA 24421 (www.cgfi.org). Posted by denver-admin at 11:00 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

    Proficiency tests based on a faulty premise

    By Robert Hardaway, Professor of Law

    Regular and uniform testing is a valuable educational tool that can help public schools monitor student progress. But the system of incentives and rewards built into many of the public school testing programs is based on a premise that deserves reevaluation.

    This Speakout has not been edited

    By Robert Hardaway, Professor of Law

    It’s that time of year again when public schools administer the dreaded standardized proficiency tests. For some schools, the results may determine their future funding and even their existence.

    Regular and uniform testing is a valuable educational tool that can help public schools monitor student progress. But the system of incentives and rewards built into many of the public school testing programs is based on a premise that deserves reevaluation.

    In 1966 the U.S. Office of Education conducted the most comprehensive report on public education in America. Known as the Coleman Report, the study surveyed and tested over 600,000 public school students in 3000 public schools.

    Although the purpose of the study was to document perceived inequalities in educational opportunities, the study found that “schools are not very important in determining student achievement. Families, and to a lesser extent peers (are) the primary determinants of variation in performance.” For example, the report found no relationship between class size, teacher education, and student performance, and concluded that “schools bear little influence on a child’s achievement that is independent of his background and general social context...and this lack of independent effect means that the inequalities imposed on children by their hone, neighborhood, and peer environment are carried along to become the inequalities with which they confront student life at the end of school.”

    These conclusions were not the ones the educational establishment was looking for to justify its demands for increased government spending, and not surprisingly its reaction was fierce. There simply had to be something wrong with the study, they contended. However, after ten years of rigorous interdisciplinary review, reassessment and reanalysis by experts in a variety of disciplines, the results were confirmed, leading Ronald Ferguson at a 1991 Harvard symposium to conclude that the general conclusion of the Coleman report “(has) stood; no one has been able to find clear and important effects of school resources on student achievement...”

    These conclusions were confirmed by a study sponsored by the U.S. Department of Education in 1993, which showed that the state of Iowa, which ranked 27 in per capita educational expenditures, ranked No. 1 in SAT scores, and Utah, which ranked dead last in educational expenditures ranked fourth in SAT scores. States spending up to five times as much per student ended up very low on the achievement rankings.

    Is it reasonable to suppose that the teachers in Iowa and Utah are so much better than teachers in the low-performing states, or that the schools in those states are performing so much better?

    International studies provide further confirmation of Coleman’s finding. In Japan for example, teachers typically teach large classes of 40 or even 50 children, are paid less than half that of American teachers, and students are issued cheap paperback books costing a few dollars. Yet these students place at the very top of international achievement tests. The 1993 Report on the Condition of Education revealed that students from Korea and Taiwan placed first and second in International math tests, while U.S. public school students placed 19th out of 20, managing to nudge out Jordan. American high school students placed 13th in biology, 11th out of 13 in chemistry, and 9th out of 13 in physics.

    Clearly it is neither the lavishness of a school’s facilities, the quality of its teachers, nor the amount of money spent on students that determines student performance. Indeed, many parents are willing to pay tuition at private schools for the privilege of having less than half a much per capita spend on their education— primarily because private schools are entitled to spare their students the ravages of “due process” which federal courts have imposed on public schools, such as forbidding public schools from imposing any serious discipline on disruptive students without providing “the right to counsel, the right to remain silent, the right to cross-examination, and a panoply of other procedural and formalistic requirements.” As a result, up to 1 in 20 students are attacked with a dangerous weapon each year in the public schools.

    As one study has concluded, private schools greatest advantage is their lack of funding, which in turn deprives them of the means to fall “victim to the pop trends and political pressure” that have plagued the public schools.

    Under the CSAP program, schools are punished if their students perform poorly. In fact, poorly performing schools are being punished for who their students are and their socio-economic backgrounds-hardly a sound or fair basis for punishment and rewards.

    The supporters of this plan should revisit the Coleman Report and reevaluate the premises of public school proficiency tests.

    Robert Hardaway is Professor of Law at the University of Denver Sturm College of Law and the author of “America Goes to School: Law, Reform, and Crisis in Public Education” Posted by denver-admin at 10:00 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

    Children's death is killer's fault

    By Robert E. Forman, Lakewood

    The murder of Jessica Gonzales’ three children by her estranged husband in 1999 was indeed tragic. But for the ACLU and/or the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to weigh in on the events in order to try to blame the Castle Rock Police Department for what ultimately happened is also tragic.

    This Speakout has not been edited

    By Robert E. Forman, Lakewood

    The murder of Jessica Gonzales’ three children by her estranged husband in 1999 was indeed tragic. But for the ACLU and/or the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to weigh in on the events in order to try to blame the Castle Rock Police Department for what ultimately happened is also tragic.

    Let’s face fact #1: Unless the outcome to any event that involves the police is fairy-tale perfect, there are plenty of so-called know-it-alls who get paid to endlessly Monday-morning quarterback the event to death in an attempt to show that they, and therefore the police, could have and should have done something different. Therefore, in order to show any illogical thinking on the part of those so-called know-it-alls, all we have to do is to look at the outcome to show that, while the circumstances of the outcome would have changed, in all likelihood, the outcome itself would not have changed. That is, one or all three of those three kids would have been killed anyway.

    Somewhere, somehow, Mr. Gonzales got the idea to kill his kids and acquired a gun with which to kill his kids. What would a reasonable person (not the so-called know-it-alls, but a reasonable person) think would have happened if the police had come across Mr. Gonzales, his kids, and his vehicle as he was driving down the street — or even at Elitch’s? So-called know-it-alls think that he would have simply pulled over, stopped, surrendered peacefully, given up and the event would have that fairy tale ending. But is that at all logical given the fact that he was armed, was planning to kill his kids, and did, in fact, kill his kids? Of course not.

    Given the fact that he was armed and was planning on killing his kids, a reasonable person would think that Mr. Gonzales would have taken immediate and drastic action to prevent the police from preventing his plan to unfold the way he had planned. A reasonable person could envision the possibility of a shoot-out — with the police returning fire at a vehicle occupied with three kids, one or more of whom could have been easily shot in the midst of a blazing shoot-out (Or, if the contact was at Elitch’s, a running shoot-out and gun-battle in a park full of thousands of people.) A reasonable person could envision the possibility that Mr. Gonzales would have taken off at high speed in an attempt to elude the police and capture — with the very realistic likelihood that a high-speed crash would occur wherein one or more kids (and other innocent victims) could have been killed.

    And I tend to think that both the ACLU and the Commission on Human Rights would frown on any and all action the police could have taken if the result was death via bullets or a crash as a result of “direct” police involvement.

    Given the known end result (three dead kids), so-called know-it-alls want the Castle Rock Police Department to have done more. But given the same result under different — but likely if the police had done more — circumstances, these same so-called know-it-alls would be suing and demanding that they should have done less.

    Can you imagine the story columnist Bill Johnson would write about three kids who died as a result of a shoot-out or high-speed chase because a guy “was late from returning his kids from dinner"?

    Thus we have a situation wherein the police are accused of doing “not enough” to stop a multiple murder they had no idea was going to happen. And ‘why?’ didn’t they know a multiple murder was going to happen that night? Because Mrs. Gonzales indicated that she did not think her estranged husband would harm his kids. He was simply late from bringing his kids back from dinner. Being late in bringing kids back from dinner is not a crime; it may be a civil issue best addressed in civil court; but it is not a “crime” — unless a civil judge hearing the civil matter in civil court issues a civil warrant.

    But that leaves one question unanswered. Mrs. Gonzales didn’t think her estranged husband would harm his own kids. Yet, within a few hours, he killed all three of them. Why?

    Apparently the police had no direct contact with Mr. Gonzales that night. But Mrs. Gonzales did. She spoke with him when he called, allegedly from Elitch’s (although he could have been calling from anywhere). And his three kids did.

    Somehow Mr. Gonzales went from the mental state where Mrs. Gonzales didn’t think he would harm his kids to the mental state where he was planing to kill his kids and he was armed with a gun to kill his kids. Why?

    Was it something she said on the phone? Was it something the kids said that evening? What was said or done that evening (or over a period of time perhaps) that caused Mr. Gonzales to come to the conclusion that the only way he could resolve the situation was by getting a gun and murdering his three kids? Were they planning on moving — out of state? — where he couldn’t find them? Did she tell Mr. Gonzales that she called the police and that he was going to be arrested and thrown in jail and she was going to go back to court to have all his rights regarding his kids taken away? Somehow Mr. Gonzales went from the mental state of not harming his kids to the mental state of murdering them. Why?

    Mr. Gonzales knows. God knows. Maybe Mrs. Gonzales knows.

    But the one thing we do know is that that mental state transformation was not caused by the Castle Rock Police Department that evening in 1999. Let me be clear: I am not blaming Mrs. Gonzales for the death of her three kids on anything she may have said to her estranged husband that night. But let me be just as clear: The ACLU, the Human Rights Commission and she should neither blame the death of her kids on the Castle Rock Police Department in any way, shape or form.

    Mrs. Gonzales’ three kids were killed by her estranged husband who armed himself and planned to kill his kids as that was, apparently, the only thing he could think of to resolve whatever situation it was that bothered him so much that death and murder was the only solution he could come up with.

    Mr. Gonzales is the only person responsible for the death of his three kids. Not Mrs. Gonzales. And not the Castle Rock Police Department. Posted by denver-admin at 09:00 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

    More mediocre math instruction no cure-all

    By Richard Becker, Broomfield

    The Rocky Mountain News editorial of 3-1-07 “Overboard on math” questioning the requirement of four years of math and science raises some valid points. Four more years of mediocre instruction will not impart the desired quality.

    This Speakout has not been edited

    By Richard Becker, Broomfield

    The Rocky Mountain News editorial of 3-1-07 “Overboard on math” questioning the requirement of four years of math and science raises some valid points. Four more years of mediocre instruction will not impart the desired quality.

    A Rocky Mountain News editorial of 11-25-96 “Wanted: Real math teachers” cites a study by the National Commission on Teaching and America’s future. It notes that “.....one fourth of all teachers in secondary schools lack even a minor in their fields. The nation’s math teachers? Some 40% lack proper training. Science teachers? Some 30% are unqualified, the group has reported.”

    The current concept of potential teachers majoring in “education", creates the lack of proper training when they graduate with a degree, are hired by a school district where they are assigned teaching duties in fields in which they lack knowledge and expertise.

    The key is a return to the teacher education and training concept of the past. As this writer knows from experience in college ‘60-’65 for the BS degree in Industrial Education, all prospective teachers were required to declare at least a major and minor field, if not a double major, in desired teaching fields. In addition to intense instruction in the chosen fields to create knowledge and expertise required for effective instruction, required courses included teaching methods as proven means of imparting the information, and writing instructional material. When testing showed that students were not learning, it meant that the course material and/or teacher presentation must be changed to ensure learning.

    Before me as this is written, is a textbook titled “Arithmetic for college students". Published in the first edition in 1969, when the New Math was introduced, my sixth edition was published in 1991 and shelved in a college bookstore on 5-5-94.

    Arithmetic is the basis for all other mathematics. How can high school students graduate with high grades required for college entrance, and still require elementary school arithmetic? If they require elementary school arithmetic, because schools failed to impart it, they cannot effectively complete intense instruction in math education.

    Arithmetic was better taught in 1951. A textbook titled Machine Shop Mathematics addressed arithmetic as a review, on the assumption that high school graduates enrolled in the program had been taught and mastered it. It then covers geometry as geometric construction for drafting, and shop trigonometry. If vocational students were that well taught in arithmetic, surely the students of the day enrolling in college were equally prepared.

    As a result of HB 00-1464 passed by the legislature to require high school remedial work for high school graduates as college freshmen to complete that in community colleges, the Front Range CC established REA 090 College Preparatory Reading, ENG 090 Basic Composition, and MAT 090 Introductory Algebra. Basics they should have mastered prior to graduation and college entrance. If they lack reading and math, they cannot complete intense math instruction because reading is a basic element of college work.

    Lacking adequate math preparation in high school, they will not choose a math major or minor. Perhaps to break the cycle, it may be necessary to hire retired engineers and others whose success depended on math to be teachers to break the cycle. Posted by denver-admin at 08:00 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

    March 14, 2007
    End the Aid Elimination Penalty

    By Brooke Malcolm and Amanda Broz

    The Higher Education Act of 1965 was intended to broaden access to college education by providing financial support to eligible students and institutions. What resulted was our modern federal financial aid system, which includes all types of need-based resources such as Pell grants, low-interest loans and federal work-study. For lower- and middle-class students, these forms of assistance put a post-secondary education within their reach.

    By Brooke Malcolm and Amanda Broz

    The Higher Education Act of 1965 was intended to broaden access to college education by providing financial support to eligible students and institutions. What resulted was our modern federal financial aid system, which includes all types of need-based resources such as Pell grants, low-interest loans and federal work-study. For lower- and middle-class students, these forms of assistance put a post-secondary education within their reach.

    However, when the act was reauthorized in 1998, a provision that directly contradicts the original spirit of the law was adopted. Now dubbed the Aid Elimination Penalty, the amendment effectively strips federal financial aid from students convicted of any drug crime — even simple possession. Admission of a conviction or failure to answer on the Free Application for Federal Student Aid form automatically renders the student ineligible for aid, regardless of financial need. To date, approximately $200 million has been withheld from nearly 200,000 students nationwide, which does not include an unknown number of students who did not apply for fear of rejection.

    Compounding this issue is the administration of state need-based aid, particularly in states like Colorado. The Colorado Commission on Higher Education takes advantage of the federal aid processing system to determine students’ eligibility for state funding. This translates to automatic ineligibility for students with drug convictions, despite the fact that Colorado has adopted no statute to that effect. Nearly 2,500 applicants in Colorado have been deprived of all need-based aid as a result of this administrative loophole.

    If the argument to keep financial aid from drug offenders seems appropriate, first consider a few things. Murderers, rapists, child molesters, spouse abusers, and arsonists are all eligible for federal and state money for their education if they choose to apply. An underage college student who drives drunk and kills another driver does not lose need-based awards. Conversely, a student meeting federal enrollment and grade-point average requirements who chooses to use an illicit drug will lose educational funding if prosecuted.

    Ultimately, people who do not complete a college education are less productive members of society. A college graduate earns significantly more money throughout a lifetime, returns more money to the tax base, and is better informed about issues and events than a nongraduate. Students who are denied aid cannot afford to pay for their education and many are forced to drop out. While some return to college, others are kept in lower income brackets, forced into low-wage jobs, require support from public assistance programs, and, in the worst cases, fall victim to a lifetime of substance abuse or addiction.

    It is undeniably in the best interests of this country to facilitate completion of higher education. The impact of the Aid Elimination Penalty is obvious: We are condemning our most motivated students — our future — to punishment above and beyond what is already allowed through the criminal court system. This provision is a blatant violation of our constitutional Fifth Amendment right to due process, not to mention that our economy and global viability are damaged each time a student is blocked from receiving an education.

    Voters and taxpayers must call upon our state legislators and the Commission on Higher Education and demand that a new system be adopted for state financial aid processing — one that does not unfairly target students with drug convictions. We must also call upon Congress to repeal the Aid Elimination Penalty altogether.

    More information on this issue and others is available from Students for Sensible Drug Policy at Colorado State University by e-mail at ssdpcsu@gmail.com or from the Coalition for Higher Education Act Reform at raiseyourvoice.com.

    Brooke Malcolm and Amanda Broz are the co-founders of Students for Sensible Drug Policy at Colorado State University. Posted by denver-admin at 12:01 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

    March 13, 2007
    Abstinence until when and for what purpose?

    >

    By Joneen Krauth-Mackenzie RN, BSN WAIT Training Executive Director, Denver


    Why would an organization that promotes and trains abstinence education be awarded millions of dollars for a Healthy Marriage Initiative grant as well as an abstinence grant? What does abstinence education have to do with healthy marriages anyway? Don’t we want our young people to be sexually experienced so that they have sown their wild oats and are now ready to settle down?

    This Speakout has not been edited

    By Joneen Krauth-Mackenzie RN, BSN WAIT Training Executive Director, Denver

    Abstinence until when and for what purpose? Why would an organization that promotes and trains abstinence education be awarded millions of dollars for a Healthy Marriage Initiative grant as well as an abstinence grant? What does abstinence education have to do with healthy marriages anyway? Don’t we want our young people to be sexually experienced so that they have sown their wild oats and are now ready to settle down?

    Strengthening families by strengthening marriages is part of what we do. We also: Teach skills to young people to become prepared for the commitment and fidelity a healthy marriage requires. (The majority of those who are on public assistance are single parent households) Teach relationship and conflict resolution skills (The number one cause of divorce is the inability to work through conflict) Teach our young boys and men to honor their future families and learn what it takes to be a good dad.(The overwhelming majority of those in prison are without dads) Teen pregnancy is an issue, but so is out of wedlock pregnancy. Additionally, issues regarding poverty, obesity, drug and alcohol abuse, dating and domestic violence and extreme debt are problematic as well as sexually transmitted diseases but also victimization, depression, loneliness, isolation and despair. Condoms and contraceptives cannot address many of these issues, but healthy relationships, personal power, self regulation, strength of character, inclusive leadership, increased self efficacy as well as skills on how to reach out and connect in a healthy way, will.

    Abstinence education is saying yes to hopes and dreams as well as meaningful, committed and satisfying lives. I am perplexed as to why so many professionals in the public health field seek only to change consequences and not change behavior in regard to this issue. Most public health strategies are predicated on behavior change and take time to create a social norm; (i.e. smoking or the wearing of seat belts). Why is there such a negative perception about abstinence when everyone (including the condom folks) says they are teaching it? We provide information not demonstrations in a mixed gender classroom. If that were done at work, it would be considered sexual harassment.

    Sexually active youth do need one on one counseling on how to use condoms and contraceptives consistently and correctly every single time, but they also need caring and gentle guidance to empower them to return to abstinence should they desire to do so.

    We have a Medical Cessation Intervention Program and are training medical and health professionals all over the country.

    Abstinence in preparation for marriage so we can:

    1. impart reasons, skills and support to teens to someday have a healthy marriage and have safe and stable families

    2. allow our well trained instructors the opportunity to talk about the compelling research about the value of a healthy marriage to the quality of life

    3. impart the optimal health message

    4. teach developmentally to the teenage brain. The concept of marriage is a concrete message that the concrete brain of a teen can understand (when one used abstract terms to wait until one is “ready", “mature", “responsible", “in love", “self sufficient", even “committed long term monogamous relationship” it is confusing and up for interpretation of the listener).

    5. share the relatively new research about what makes relationships work and fail which many did not have when we married years ago.

    6. impart to teens that (by research) happily married people are having the best, most and most satisfying sex

    7. help young people who are (rightfully) cynical about marriage value this social and stabilizing institution.

    Does all this talk about marriage hurt our gay and lesbian friends? I think not. They are fighting to get married! Gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and questioning youth also need the relationship skills we teach. Abstinence programs are inclusive and desire to reach the heart of every teen no matter what their sexual orientation. Posted by denver-admin at 12:00 AM | Comments (6) | TrackBack

    The Ecology of Broken Windows on the Rio Grande.

    By Peter Reshetniak, Denver

    Starting on the Mexican border, the breaking glass attracted little attention, but millions of razor shards litter the environment, and America’s law and culture begins to suffer the death of a thousand cuts.

    The bleeding begins there along the sands of the Rio Grande seeping into the fabric of the land.

    This Speakout has not been edited

    By Peter Reshetniak, Denver

    Starting on the Mexican border, the breaking glass attracted little attention, but millions of razor shards litter the environment, and America’s law and culture begins to suffer the death of a thousand cuts.

    The bleeding begins there along the sands of the Rio Grande seeping into the fabric of the land.

    Van loads of window breakers speed across the landscape. They head in all directions following the splintering glass along the path of opportunity as they deliver gangs, drugs, sex, terrorists, disease, human slaves, and cheap labor. The ragged slivers imbed themselves into communities everywhere the coyotes drop their loads. Sanctuary Patróns see no window damage, just lots of window washers and repairman. They’re just looking for a better way of life.

    The bleeding spreads north, spreads east; it spreads west and moves strongly below the surface with romantic tranquility until hospitals close, identities are stolen, and emotions collide with facts.

    Children follow the trail of broken glass. They scar quickly and deeply, while the shattered silica necklaces glimmer with promises and hide the tears. No one seems to mind how much blood and glass the children see, step through, or wipe away. They too will become window washers for the hacienda republicans and democrats. Maybe they will grow up to sell tamales and tacos on the corner. Maybe they will learn to read better than the children they sit next to, but the school windows are broken as well, and the teacher’s aren’t allowed to notice that the breeze coming through them has now turned into a storm.

    The stream of broken glass from the south now runs like a river on the flood spreading itself thin and coating everything it touches with a layer of filth, and corrupting stench sold to all as sweet perfume. The economy, the jobs, the rising tide, and don’t worry the windows will soon be replaced; just vote for your next Patrón for his is the promise; the plan for a window factory and full employment. Hacienda happiness can be had by all.

    Family compounds surrounded by walls topped with broken glass shield the hacienda elite from the rabble on the street. The broken glass from our southern neighbors delineates failed economies, failed political relationships, failed legal systems, and has found an easy and fat environment to shred amongst the sleepy, complacent gringos of the north dozing beneath the sombreros they bought on borrowed holidays in the south.

    Reconquista succeeds incrementally as most are distracted with the opportunities for all that shimmering silica, and all those nice, hard-working immigrants just looking for a better life.

    Ramos and Compean, border patrol agents, stop a drug dealing terrorist and are suffocated in a web of lies then delivered into prison to be beaten for doing their jobs. The terrorist then sues American taxpayers for five million dollars- not pesos. The windows to the courthouse are swept away quickly so nobody notices. The White House windows shatter, yet none dare say the obvious for the emperor is stripped bare while proclaiming virtual windows will work to keep out the oncoming storm, and obscure his pasty evangelical whiteness.

    The bleeding won’t stop. The river of glass runs through Congress where few seem to notice the window factory has moved to China obscured by a union of lobbyists, lawyers, and bureaucrats elected by no one, but handsomely paid for by the American middle class.

    The broken windows are now large enough for fully loaded eighteen wheelers to speed through. Trains won’t be far behind. Unfixed broken windows on the Rio Grande connected to everything that flows through them. Posted by denver-admin at 12:00 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

    The Line Between Zealous and Overzealous Prosecution

    By Marc Pappalardo, Boulder

    One of the best ways to determine whether a prosecutor’s office has crossed the line between zealous and overzealous prosecution is how they handle the small cases. My criminal traffic case that I recently won illustrates a problem.

    This Speakout has not been edited

    By Marc Pappalardo, Boulder

    One of the best ways to determine whether a prosecutor’s office has crossed the line between zealous and overzealous prosecution is how they handle the small cases. My criminal traffic case that I recently won illustrates a problem. In a simple illegal left turn traffic case that called for a $100 fine, a Boulder prosecutor ordered and the taxpayers paid for: (i) an officer to take time away from patrolling our streets so he could go back to the scene and measure various distances, (ii) a civil engineer to review my case and consult with another expert, (iii) the same civil engineer to photograph the scene, and (iv) an officer and a City-paid expert witness to testify and sit through the approximately one and a half hours it took for the City to call of all its witnesses at my trial - not mention the expense for the judge, court staff, and prosecutor to play their roles.

    What did taxpayers receive for their prosecutor-spent money? The City’s own expert agreed that I would not have seen the sign and that the sign was not placed where the Manual On Uniform Traffic Devices directs. Before trial, I mistakenly believed the prosecutor would dismiss the case after I presented her with photos showing how the sign face wasn’t visible from the road I was on. Instead, I was forced to miss part of a second day of work to go to trial.

    Why would Boulder waste so much resources in any minor traffic case not involving an accident? If I faced such overzealous prosecution in a minor case, what can be expected in larger cases? Despite being innocent, I regret not paying the $100 fine to prevent the waste of judicial and police resources that are used to justify tax increases. Posted by denver-admin at 12:00 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

    “Err McNair”

    By Steve Lester, MA English-Creative Writing, CU-Boulder ‘05

    George Norlin, president of the University of Colorado from 1917-1939, was a great man. For some time during his tenure, the Ku Klux Klan controlled the state legislature. They ordered Norlin to fire all the Jews and Catholics in the faculty. When he refused, the state cut university funding to nothing.

    This Speakout has not been edited

    By Steve Lester, MA English-Creative Writing, CU-Boulder ‘05

    George Norlin, president of the University of Colorado from 1917-1939, was a great man. For some time during his tenure, the Ku Klux Klan controlled the state legislature. They ordered Norlin to fire all the Jews and Catholics in the faculty. When he refused, the state cut university funding to nothing.

    That Norlin kept CU afloat while taking an ethical stand testifies to a legacy no library can do justice.

    In contrast, G.P. “Bud” Peterson, in his first year as Chancellor of CU-B, defends creative writing graduate student and resident white supremacist Joshua McNair in the name of free speech. Before conclusions, facts: In 2004, McNair brings convicted holocaust denier David Irving to campus.

    The same year, McNair wins a $1,125 contest judged by Grand Dragon of the KKK David Duke for an essay titled, “Organization, Cooperation, and Action.”

    Josh advocates, among other things, more “Pro-Whites” in academia.

    In 2007, he teaches two undergraduate classes of 20 students apiece in CU-Boulder’s very own Norlin Library.

    Coincidence?

    In 2006, Josh weepily recants his beliefs to get into grad school, blaming the neo-Nazi foray on, among other things, personal and chemical problems.

    In 2007, his profile, “Deadmansdeeds,” and prize-winning tract remain on Stormfront.org (http://stormfront.org/), a premier “white pride” site. Both mysteriously disappear the same day McNair is outed by CU undergrad Max Karson in a Thomas Paine-like broadside distributed - quite fittingly - on President’s Day.

    Coincidence?

    I am amazed that Josh outlined a plan of academic infiltration he is now so brazenly executing - and that nobody seems to care. This testifies to his being a man of at least modest intellect (said attempts to cleanse himself from Stormfront being foiled by The Internet Wayback Machine ( www.archive.org) and Google cache notwithstanding). Just think of what could be accomplished if his mind were dedicated to eradicating malaria instead of, you know, Jews. But I’m not here to debate the relative merits of national socialism.

    Arguing with such folk is like taking up scientific discourse with people who believe that water doesn’t contain oxygen. I do, however, take umbrage at CU “spokesperson” Bronson Hilliard’s notion of punishing “conduct, not ideas.” This is a false dichotomy constructed to let the administration do exactly what it’s been best at doing in the face of controversy in recent history: nothing.

    So, we who don’t want white supremacists teaching at our universities need a little organization, cooperation, and action of our own. Josh’s students, parents of CU students, faculty members, people of the Jewish heritage and faith, and other concerned members of the community, I implore you: make your voices heard. Protest a true “little Eichmann.” And by all means, contact Err McNair directly and let him know what you think: (303) 818-6676.

    Perhaps local media can be sufficiently roused into playing “journalism,” instead of “slow-pitch softball.”

    Above all, Bud Peterson needs to step up in the pocket and show some long-awaited leadership in his rookie season. We’re talking about a school that ran Adrienne Anderson out of town on a fossil-fueled railroad and fumbled over Gary Barnett at the cost of Nobel Laureate Carl Wieman. Don’t add to this the message that CU is a sanctuary for white supremacists.

    Take a stand, Bud, and cease betraying the legacy of George Norlin. Posted by denver-admin at 12:00 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

    CSAP Usefulness Grade: D-: Scrap it

    By Janelle Jones, Highlands Ranch

    While it is worthwhile to gain a picture of how Colorado students are performing against one another, what do CSAPs show with respect to nationwide performance? CSAPs appear to be an identification to aid only the lowest performing schools --- and not individual students. The tests do not serve middle or high level performers in any way.

    This Speakout has not been edited

    By Janelle Jones, Highlands Ranch

    CSAP Usefulness Grade: D-: Scrap it for more useful testing methods

    "Get plenty of rest. Don't be absent. Bring a nutritional snack and lunch."

    Shouldn't the above be no-brainer activity for all school days, not just during CSAP testing? Yet every year at this time, it's the mantra sent home to parents and repeated to students in Colorado public school classrooms.

    To quell their CSAP anxiety, I used to tell my kids, "relax, it's just to see how much you've learned and where we may need to work on a few things. CSAPs are important but don't count on your grades." That's misinformation, especially with older students.

    CSAPs actually determine placement in high school honors classes and at our K-8 school, are also part of the determining factor in initial ability grouping for the following fall. For instance, with respect to the high school placement for writing, our high school cannot use our 8th grader's most recent test results because such will not be available until August --- so his SEVENTH grade CSAP information will be used to help gauge his language arts placement for his FRESHMAN year. Ridiculous. Educators and parents of teens and tweens will attest, the amount of academic growth (and in some instances decline) is tremendous during that two year period.

    For younger students, CSAP is equally useless information gathering. What happens when an A/B student is found to have poor skills in a given area per the CSAP test? If the latter is accurate, the snail's pace at which the results are available negates any opportunity for challenged students to work over the summer to catch up to average or higher performing peers in time for the next school year.

    Worse, teachers do not benefit from the information either. If CSAP results could be made available by at least school year's end, teachers could assess instances of poor performance and make recommendations for individual improvement or evaluate potential instruction/curriculum adjustments in preparation for the upcoming school year. Learning the results in August leaves no time to adjust for the incoming students.

    While it is worthwhile to gain a picture of how Colorado students are performing against one another, what do CSAPs show with respect to nationwide performance? CSAPs appear to be an identification to aid only the lowest performing schools --- and not individual students. The tests do not serve middle or high level performers in any way.

    For most schools, and most importantly individual student growth and our teachers, CSAPs are useless and a tremendous waste of instructional time. If we are going to dedicate so much of our resources to CSAPs, shouldn't we make such useful too? Better yet, scrap the whole CSAP enchilada in favor of testing that actually aids student progress (perhaps NWEA, Aimsweb, ITBS).

    Posted by denver-admin at 12:00 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

    Keep Gays Out of The Military Air Force

    By Paul Cameron, Ph.D., Family Research Institute Colorado Springs

    Capt. Devery Taylor of Eglin AFB in Florida was sentenced February 28 to 50 years in jail for drugging and raping 4 men in the military and attempted rape of 2 others. Seems he spiked their drinks and then had his way. Unusual? Not really. Taylor illustrates why gays do not belong in the military.

    This Speakout has not been edited

    By Paul Cameron, Ph.D., Family Research Institute Colorado Springs

    Capt. Devery Taylor of Eglin AFB in Florida was sentenced February 28 to 50 years in jail for drugging and raping 4 men in the military and attempted rape of 2 others. Seems he spiked their drinks and then had his way. Unusual? Not really. Taylor illustrates why gays do not belong in the military.

    The trial of Capt. Taylor reveals the same kind of disruption of the military as My Country, My Right to Serve, a study commissioned by openly homosexual Congressman Gerry Studds at the height of the “gays in the military” controversy under President Clinton. This study is a compilation of first-person narratives given by homosexuals who served in the military in the old days, when the services banned homosexuals outright.

    One presumes that the contributors knew that the book was designed to strike down the ban on homosexuals; but what they reported proved the validity of the original rule. The book documents numerous rapes, rampant insubordination, and sex between officers and the enlisted men – all violations of the law and inimical to good order and unit cohesion. Yet it asserts that the 42 “oral histories provide more personal evidence that gays are good workers in the military. We do a good job, we are not security risks, and there is no reason to kick us out.” (p. xvii). Of those who contributed: · 46% lied about their homosexuality at induction, · 31% ‘converted’ to homosexuality in the military, · 94%, admitted to engaging in homosexual sex in the military, and · 79% participated in officer-enlisted sex.

    Consider two excerpts: Gay, enlisted. Naval Justice School “was heaven for a gay person... I was involved with a couple of guys.” (p. 63) “We had a game where we’d have four or five gay guys go together, spot somebody in a club, and if you were interested, you would be on...who would get him first. I had the award for getting the highest-ranking officer in bed with me. He has since become a brigadier general.” (p. 64) “ After [being caught in the bushes with a guy] I would use the courtroom! It was locked, but because of my position, I had a key. If I met somebody, we’d go back to the courtroom. It was air-conditioned besides, so it was nice.” (p. 68) “I think I worked harder and performed better” [than most in the service]. (p. 70)

    Gay, officer. “I met this private, E-1, who came from Puerto Rico. This became my first sexual encounter in the military.” (p. 109) “I was known as a communist outspoken queer,...” (p. 110) “I had become very sexually active with a number of soldiers on the post.” (p. 111) “I was outraged that the military could spring this kind of charge on me four days from being discharged.” (p. 112) “We called every active officer in Special Forces, Airborne Europe, to testify either on my behalf or against me, and figured that we cost the government over a million dollars. On top of that I got paid for my own court martial, which permitted me to take home over ten thousand dollars.” (p. 115) “[A]fter the trial itself I slammed open the door of the adjutant’s office and said, ‘I’m not leaving until I’ve had my say. You kicked me out of the service — there’s nothing you can do to me, you f—ing a———ole!’ I was screaming at him; then I turned, went into the colonel’s office, and repeated my act. I said, ‘ ‘You’re a bunch of mother————ers!’ I was very angry. I’d done nothing wrong.” (p. 116)

    He had, of course, violated the Uniform Code of Military Justice, as had virtually all of the other contributors; but no one seemed bothered by that fact. The military simply does not need the extra grief gays cause. Posted by denver-admin at 12:00 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

    March 12, 2007
    Concerns of people of color at UNC

    By Black-Latino coalition at UNC

    During Kay Norton’s presidency, a disturbing pattern has developed in which the concerns of people of color are routinely ignored, and when a response does come forward, it is tardy, ineffective, disingenuous, and unproductive. This is deeply troubling because the racial climate at UNC has deteriorated significantly under President Norton’s leadership.

    This Speakout has not been edited

    By Black-Latino coalition at UNC

    The Black-Latino Coalition of UNC met with UNC President Kay Norton on November 30, 2006 in order to expedite the unreasonably stalled approval of Secondary Teacher Education Licensure Program proposals submitted by Africana Studies and Mexican-American Studies in Fall 2005. The meeting characteristically failed to produce any positive result.

    During Kay Norton’s presidency, a disturbing pattern has developed in which the concerns of people of color are routinely ignored, and when a response does come forward, it is tardy, ineffective, disingenuous, and unproductive. This is deeply troubling because the racial climate at UNC has deteriorated significantly under President Norton’s leadership as evidenced by the incidents listed below (in an admittedly incomplete tally): —-a death threat leveled against two (2) professors of color (Cordova and George) in 2003; —-an attack on a student of color (Valerie Lara) by a Business professor, not her teacher, because she dared to publicly defend the need for bilingual education in 2003; —-threats of physical intimidation and violence against a student of color (Chinyere Tutashinda), who was a member of the Student Representative Council, and who fled the campus fearing for her safety in 2004; —-the systematic removal of all people of color from faculty and administrative positions above the rank of chair/coordinator; —-the harassment of a library staff member (Theresa Solis), a woman of color, who faces a racially hostile work environment; —-the failure to re-appoint a woman of color (Gloria Rollins) as the Administrative Assistant to the Director of the Garvey Center, and her replacement with a person who possesses no specialized cultural knowledge about the group which the center is designed to serve; and —-persistent reports of refusal to meet with racially-harassed students of color or their representatives (e.g., Casandra Nichols, Alfonso Wint) on this campus who, having unsuccessfully exhausted their attempts to receive redress at lower levels of administration, have been denied appointments to meet with president Norton.

    These incidents speak to a failure of leadership at UNC. An appropriate response to this crisis should begin with the implementation of the following recommendations: Short Term Goals To Be Accomplished by Monday, April 2, 2007 1. Immediate application for a “Permanent Exemption” status, to be granted by the CCHE, for the AFS and MAS degree programs, as was already done for the degree program in Physics; 2. Immediate public response to all racist attacks and acts of harassment at UNC, and a zero tolerance policy as regards such acts; 3. Re-definition of the Administrative Assistant position at the Cultural Centers to be designated “specialized positions” (as positions in Information Technology already are) requiring cultural content knowledge specific to the cultural group of color being served; 4. An open door policy specifically addressed to students of color who allege that they have been racially harassed, and who seek to present their case to the University President; 5. The mandating of posters describing the procedure to be followed in filing a claim of racial harassment or discrimination at the University, said posters to be placed in all academic departments, cultural centers, and dormitories; 6. Immediate approval of the AFS and MAS Secondary Teacher Education Licensure Programs; Near Term Goals To Be Accomplished by Monday, August 6, 2007 1. The expansion of the four (4) Cultural Centers as to their Staffs and Budgets; 2. An increase in financial aid to students of color; 3. The re-instatement of the position of Assistant Vice President for Academic and Multicultural Affairs; Long Term Goals To Be Accomplished by Friday, January 4, 2008 1. Appointment of students, staff, and faculty of color to the recently announced President’s Planning Council; 2. Creation and adoption of a specific plan, with official, acknowledged participation of students, staff, and faculty of color, to achieve quantifiable goals representing greater racial diversity and social justice at UNC (e.g., a goal of 10% of all new hires across the university to be people of color within five years); and 3. A President’s Annual Report on the State of Diversity and Social Justice at UNC, the first one to be delivered by September 1, 2007.

    While we note that the President has recently (Fall 2006) engaged, and apparently dismissed, outside “diversity consultants” (George Crochet and Carolyn Love), and is currently sponsoring a “diversity initiative” with a “Diversity Symposium” planned for this Spring (April 10), we are not convinced that any of these activities constitutes more than a rather shallow, “smoke and mirrors", dodge to a serious, deep-seated set of institutional problems. Indeed, it is our considered judgment that, if President Norton is serious about improving UNC’s racial climate and efforts at achieving greater degrees of social justice, she will begin by reviewing and implementing the short-, near-, and long-term goals enunciated above.

    We, the Black-Latino Coalition, as always, stand ready to assist President Norton in this endeavor, and to show her the way should she falter.

    Hermon George Jr., Ph.D., President, UNC Black-Latino/a Coalition; Roberto Cordova, Ph.D., V.P., UNC BLC ; Alonso Barron, President, UNC Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan; Jenna Newhouse, UNC Students Demanding Justice Casandra Nichols, President, UNC Black Student Alliance Denise Connell, Administrative Assistant University of Northern Colorado Africana Studies/Modern Languages/Women’s Studies Posted by denver-admin at 12:00 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

    If only voters can fix Amendment 41, have an election

    By Marguerite King, Paonia

    Implementing Amendment 41 to battle outside influence of officials is the same as swatting a fly with a sledgehammer. The unintended consequences of this decree reach far beyond any justification for barring a lobbyist from treating an elected official to lunch.

    This Speakout has not been edited

    By Marguerite King, Paonia

    Implementing Amendment 41 to battle outside influence of officials is the same as swatting a fly with a sledgehammer. The unintended consequences of this decree reach far beyond any justification for barring a lobbyist from treating an elected official to lunch. I am not anti-government, but this amendment is a perfect example of the “Big Brother” that activists have warned us about for years.

    Just as a computer virus infiltrates a hard drive and causes mayhem, so has Amendment 41 infiltrated our State Constitution and stretched its tentacles far beyond the intended limits of its powers. As written, this law applies to postal workers, teachers, government secretaries, typists, data entry operators, town works managers, firefighters, trash collectors, truck drivers, street sweepers, animal control officers, snowplow operators, and anybody else who works for and gets paid by a government entity. It is ludicrous to think my musically talented 16-year-old son might not be eligible for a scholarship to attend college when he graduates simply because, when it snows, his father pulls himself out of bed at 3:00am to clear off the county roads. Now there’s a terrific way to thank our public servants for their hard work.

    We finally have progressed from the outrageous to the absurd. Frank Bingham, who recently lost his wife and two children to a suspected drunk driver, is unable to accept donations raised by his colleagues to assist with medical bills and funeral expenses. Mr. Bingham happens to be a University of Colorado professor. Another CU employee who recently suffered the devastating loss of his child to suicide also is unable to accept donations gathered by friends and coworkers. “Unintended Consequences” certainly is a euphemism for “Elemental Stupidity.” Everybody is waiting for the legislature to “fix” Amendment 41, but in the same breath the concern is raised they don’t have this authority.

    Immediate action must be taken to undo the damage caused by this flawed amendment. Forget about “fixing” it; this amendment must be removed from the Constitution as a cancerous lesion is removed from the body. IF ONLY THE VOTERS ARE ABLE TO REMEDY THIS SITUATION, THEN LET US GET TO IT! We must call for an immediate special election to repeal the cause of this debacle. This poorly-worded and dangerous amendment should never have been proposed as an addition to our living, breathing Constitution. As with a virus, it must be eradicated before the entire system crashes. Posted by denver-admin at 12:00 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

    Development on Battle Mountain

    By Gregory Douglass Leadville, CO.

    I am writing to you with the hopes of soliciting all your help in fighting the proposed development of what is currently open space, here in this beautiful state of Colorado in which I live. Open space that is currently habitat for not only 100’s of Elk, but also the Endangered Canadian Lynx, and the Peregrine Falcon (endg. in CO.).

    This Speakout has not been edited

    By Gregory Douglass Leadville, CO.

    I am writing to you with the hopes of soliciting all your help in fighting the proposed development of what is currently open space, here in this beautiful state of Colorado in which I live. Open space that is currently habitat for not only 100’s of Elk, but also the Endangered Canadian Lynx, and the Peregrine Falcon (endg. in CO.). Not forgetting about the hundreds of other species of plants/animals that are there as well.

    We will start our journey on I-70, at the Minturn/Leadville Exit (Holy Cross Ranger District Office), going south on old US Hwy 24- Telegraph Rd. to some, towards the historic town of Minturn. When you leave Minturn, who has been promised big things by Mr. Ginn, watch for a little sign telling you that the summit of Battle Mountain is a few miles away. This is what the local High School is named after, and a man by the name of Bobby Ginn, of Ginn Resorts and Development wants to develop, though you will never see the name Battle Mountain on any of his development plans.

    First right turn after seeing the Battle Mountain summit sign will be the Tigiwon Trail (FSR707), driving in and seeing the old Sluice Pipe/Trestle, and the reclaimed Tailings Ponds you are now looking at proposed Base Mountain Lodge development areas, including a Gondola, to travel over the river, highway, and up to the main proposed ski run/housing/resort development area.

    Now they know that this gondola will travel over the nesting areas of the Endangered Falcon, and the proposed lodges will cut off Elk migration corridors, but their response was "we know the animals are currently here, but they will go somewhere else, we are not sure where, they have always done so in the past." They are probably referring to "Alligator Alley" in Florida, where they built thousands of homes on what had previously been wetlands/marsh habitat.

    Many people have traveled up this Tigiwon Trail to summit the mountain it winds up the side of, namely Notch Mt. @13,237’. At Notch’s Summit you can see one of Colorado’s 14’ers that is notable for more than just a few people, Mt. of the Holy Cross @14,005’.

    Tigiwon is also a great access point for those wanting to summit a 14’er, though not the easiest to summit for a first timer to accomplish. Tigiwon is said to mean Friendship in the Ute language, and 14’ers are the tallest peaks in the Contiguous 48 states. Colorado has 54- 14,000-foot peaks Now turn around, looking to the North, you can see a birds eye view of Vail resorts Back Bowls on Battle Mountain, as well as the Gore Range’s 13,000’ saw toothed peaks cutting the near horizon, and you might understand why in 1933, the Civilian Conservation Corps built the Tigiwon Lodge, so that even if the only way you had to 10,000’ was by 4 wheel drive, you could see what they did, and even have as a wedding venue if 75.00 a day use fee was not too much. That is today’s fee, back then it was probably free. Campgrounds on the surrounding mountainside make for great picnic, or weekend getaways, or even a Family reunion with the Lodge as a daily meeting/dining/activity spot.

    The evergreen, Aspen, and meadow covered hillside on the facing, and south sides of Battle Mountain, directly across the glacial valley from you, is what Mr. Ginn, and a handful of locals he has bought are wanting to put 700+ homes/Hotels/Runs/Lifts/Golf Course up on, which he reassuringly says that you will never see anything but a rooftop from the Highway. What about across the valley at the Tigiwon lodge, or standing on top of Notch Mountain, or Mt. of the Holy Cross Mr. Ginn, what will you be able to see then? You say seeing a rooftop, or 100 rooftops are not seeing a house? Do you build houses without a roof?

    I have talked with people who have dealt with Mr. Ginn, or the aftermath of his development(?) practices. Some say that years down the road they are still waiting/wanting for completion of his promised facilities, or they are now dealing with these animals that have been forced out of their natural habitats, migration corridors becoming nuisances, or even deadly in some cases, regarding missing pets/animal involved- car accident fatalities statistically increasing.

    Now I am sure that most of you know that Open Spaces do not grow, they have only been shrinking since their designations as such back in the 1940’s, due to the careless actions of just a few. All to often these problems are not heard about until it is too late, and the people who do care about this planet, and could do something about changing them are kept in the dark. I believe FDR, LBJ, and the CCC would be rolling over in their respected places of rest about now! Thanks for taking the time to read this, I hope that some of you will take a minute to do what you can to help fight this ugliness, the few of us who have been voicing our seemingly unpopular opinions at the public hearings are not stopping this action. I believe it will take big money to fight big money, and there are people in these mountains who know how this is done, I have yet to see a Friends of Battle Mountain.org yet, but I truly hope that when this word gets out, there will be some knowledgeable folks volunteering either their time, or knowledge to this cause. Keep the GreedHeads out of Colorado! or at least east of Denver. Posted by denver-admin at 12:00 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

    March 11, 2007
    Professional art therapists

    By Susan Sabini, Centennial

    Art therapy is a masters-level mental health profession that utilizes the creation and interpretation of art to assess and treat individuals who might have difficulty expressing themselves verbally due to age, trauma or physical disability.

    By Susan Sabini, Centennial

    As the legislative liaison and former president of the Colorado Art Therapy Association, I was pleased to see our profession merited mention in a recent Rocky Mountain News editorial (“Regulatory overkill/Lawmakers flirt with several bad bills,” March 2). Unfortunately, the statements around the legislation that recently passed the House — the “Art Therapy Requirements” House Bill 1080 — were largely inaccurate. Art therapy is a masters-level mental health profession that utilizes the creation and interpretation of art to assess and treat individuals who might have difficulty expressing themselves verbally due to age, trauma or physical disability. There are more than 5,000 such professionals across the country who are trained by an accredited art therapy graduate program in traditional psychotherapy practices that includes the specific use of art therapy.

    Art therapists treat a wide variety of patients who have suffered everything from sexual abuse to the trauma associated with natural disasters to Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.

    When working with these populations and these difficult subjects, it is important that parents and adult consumers know that their therapist is properly trained and has completed substantial hours of supervised practice. One can easily imagine how a misinterpretation of a nonverbal expression could lead to inappropriate treatment. Contrary to the suggestions in the editorial, HB 1080 does not create a new license for art therapists. The bill is in fact a small change to the current licensed professional counselor’s statute to ensure that when consumers read that a person is an art therapist, the individual is actually qualified to be an art therapist. The Rocky mistakenly characterized the legislation as a “practice act,” like those laws that prevent people who don’t have a medical degree from performing surgery. HB 1080 is not that type of legislation, but simply gives consumers an authenticated choice when making a decision.

    In addition, the use of national standards is not “regulatory overkill” as suggested, but just the opposite. By using these criteria, the state Department of Regulatory Agencies does not have to create a new bureaucracy to investigate programs or graduate schools. Additionally, nothing in this bill would prevent someone who is currently practicing art therapy from continuing his or her practice. It just makes sure that consumers know that someone who is titled as an art therapist has the proper training.

    Our interest as mental health professionals and Coloradans is to ensure consumers have better information when they make decisions about health-care providers for themselves and their loved ones. Passing HB 1080 will be a small, but important step in achieving this goal.

    Susan Sabini is the legislative liaison for The Art Therapy Association of Colorado. Posted by denver-admin at 12:00 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

    March 10, 2007
    The future of Manual High School

    By Annette Walker

    In its Jan. 15 edition, the prestigious New Yorker magazine brought national attention to the Manual High School dilemma. In “Expectations,” a 13,000-word article organized into a series of vignettes, writer Katherine Boo portrays the complicated personal lives, social ambiance and educational experiences of two students at Manual.

    By Annette Walker

    In its Jan. 15 edition, the prestigious New Yorker magazine brought national attention to the Manual High School dilemma. In “Expectations,” a 13,000-word article organized into a series of vignettes, writer Katherine Boo portrays the complicated personal lives, social ambiance and educational experiences of two students at Manual. She also profiles Denver Public Schools Superintendent Michael Bennet and takes readers on a journey with him as he makes the historic decision to shut down the school, deals with the agitated student and community response, and carries out a transition plan including a mentoring program and a door-to-door campaign to locate Manual’s dropouts.

    Two aspects of the article, however, are troubling.

    First, the innuendoes and dismissive and derisive tone Boo employs when describing some people who challenged the abruptness and secrecy of Bennet's and the school board’s decision to close Manual. Second, her seeming unawareness of the role played by independent community organizations allowed her to arrive at a wrong conclusion.

    She states that during the initial rallies and meetings following the announcement of Manual’s closure, civil rights lawyers “began to hang around." By not discussing the objectives of these serious and busy professionals, she trivializes their concerns about possible violations of students' rights and the legality of the decision-making process.

    Since one of the hallmarks of a free society is the right to question the government, in this case the local school board, it is unsettling that a journalist would treat the presence of the attorneys with jocularity.

    She also treats the participation of the Greater Metropolitan Denver Ministerial Alliance, the organization of African-American clergy, too blithely. Although later in the article she says that Bennet admitted to her that he had handled the Manual situation in a very “imperious” way, she failed to link his secrecy and arrogance to the anger and suspicion engendered not only in the pastors, lawyers and students, but in many individuals and organizations in the African-American and Hispanic communities.

    She then lumps the ministers and lawyers into the same category with television reporters when she writes that after awhile they all “moved on." It is true that journalists can only spend so much time on a story. The lawyers, however, were able to make legal determinations about this issue without being present at all meetings. The Ministerial Alliance was very visible at the early activities. However, this does not mean that its members had to assume leadership and remain in the spotlight.

    They have been able to monitor the Manual situation from a distance. Boo’s most serious faux pas is believing that the students “lost the community’s attention.” This conclusion is just plain wrong and an indication that she had little contact with community groups that focus on educational issues and that have remained active as the Manual drama has unfolded.

    Had she done so, she would have found that the students have had the undivided attention of The Black Education Advisory Council, the Northeast Community Congress for Education — which consists of Hispanics and African-Americans — the Metropolitan Organization for People (MOP) and Students for Justice.

    These organizations hold weekly or monthly meetings, and some have met with Bennet and presented their own proposals for the Manual crisis and other school issues. Their members have participated in the community conversations and the community council established by Bennet and the school board.

    NCCE is investigating whether the concept of community control will be appropriate for Denver and is also in the early stage of a recall campaign of a school board member.

    Bennet and the board should be commended for the mentoring efforts set up for Manual students. In her article, Boo stated that the mentors were mostly experienced white professionals, but that some students were unresponsive and seemed to be suspicious of the mentoring effort. Bennet and the board should inform themselves of the tutoring, mentoring and educational programs already established in the Hispanic and African-American communities.

    The Denver chapter of 100 Black Men operates a mentoring program for boys and teenagers. The Association of Black Engineers runs a science workshop for black youth. The Denver Chapter of Alpha Kappa Alpha sorority has operated summer math camps for teenagers. The Delta Sigma Theta sorority organizes preparatory workshops for one of the standardized tests for college-bound students. The Sigma Gamma Rho sorority operates a yearlong mentoring program for girls who are high school seniors. Some black churches and other African-American organizations run after-school and weekend tutoring programs. The Hispanic community has numerous tutoring and mentoring programs.

    Boo mentions what studies have shown about the longevity of school superintendents. They no longer remain in their positions for 20 years or until retirement. Rather, they have a tendency to “move on” after five years. Bennet is well-intentioned and might put in place some positive programs and policies during his tenure. However, given his legal, corporate and political background, it will not be surprising if he decides to “move on” in the near future.

    Principals and teaching staffs are sometimes highly mobile. Who will be around to help at-risk youth when superintendents and administrators “move on”? Community groups and local self-help projects as well as the pastors and civil right lawyers who may be “hanging around," will be there to look out for and speak up for them.

    Annette Walker is a freelance writer and producer for the Pacifica Radio Network. Posted by denver-admin at 12:00 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

    March 09, 2007
    Scooter Libby takes one for the team

    By Jeralyn Merritt, Denver

    I had the opportunity to sit through much of the Libby trial in Washington, D.C., covering it as a reporter for my own blog, TalkLeft: the Politics of Crime, as well as for Huffington Post and the Firedoglake blogs.

    By Jeralyn Merritt, Denver

    The cable news airwaves were filled Tuesday with juror No. 9, Denis Collins, discussing how jurors in the trial of I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney’s former chief of staff, deliberated and arrived at their verdict of guilty on four of the five counts against him. Libby was convicted of obstruction of justice, making false statements to FBI officials and perjury before the grand jury. He was acquitted of one false statement count.

    I had the opportunity to sit through much of the trial in Washington, D.C., covering it as a reporter for my own blog, TalkLeft: the Politics of Crime, as well as for Huffington Post and the Firedoglake blogs.

    As a political liberal, I wanted prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald to win. I wanted to see Libby, Dick Cheney and other administration officials held publicly accountable for leaking the identity of CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson to reporters, ruining her career and smearing her husband, former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who had the guts to go public with his charge that the administration had misled the country on the intelligence leading up to the war in Iraq.

    As a criminal defense attorney, I wanted Libby’s lawyers to win. This was a case dependent on memory and every witness’s memory was flawed as to some aspects of events. I was hoping the inconsistencies in their testimony would leave jurors with a reasonable doubt. The jury deliberated 10 days. They were told they could not consider whether Valerie Plame Wilson was a covert agent or whether her employment status was classified.

    The task before them was a narrow one. Did Libby lie to investigators and the grand jury about where he first learned of Valerie Wilson’s CIA employment and whom he disclosed it to, and did he intend to impede the criminal investigation? Juror No. 9 explained they painstakingly dissected every bit of testimony and exhibit, filling up 34 large pages of post-it notes. They didn’t take a straw vote until after their first week of deliberations. There were no holdout jurors. They would have liked to have heard from Cheney, but it didn’t bother them that Libby didn’t testify, since they heard eight hours of his grand jury testimony. They felt sympathy for him, but they couldn’t ignore the evidence in front of them. He lied, he impeded the investigation and he was guilty.

    Juror No. 9 said the jury wondered why Libby but not the leaker — Richard Armitage — or Karl Rove, among others, had been brought before them. He believed that Libby’s lawyer, Ted Wells, may have been correct in saying Libby was a fall guy for the administration. It just didn’t excuse Libby’s lies.

    I agree with the jury’s verdict, but I feel cheated.

    Having followed the Plame investigation closely since 2003, I believe there was an orchestrated attempt by the White House — and Cheney in particular — to discredit Joseph Wilson by alleging his trip to Africa in 2002 to check on intelligence claims that Iraq was attempting to acquire uranium from Niger for use in weapons of mass destruction was the result of nepotism. Cheney’s handwritten notes, introduced at trial, plainly asked whether Wilson had been sent on a junket by his wife.

    This trial should have been about whether the vice president of the United States — in an effort to justify going to war by hiding the truth from the American public that there was no intelligence establishing that Iraq was in the process of acquiring materials for weapons of mass destruction — used Libby and other officials to manipulate the media and cause them to disclose the identity of a classified CIA agent.

    Instead, because Libby clammed up, as is his right, and took a bullet for the team, even claiming to the grand jury he forgot the details of his conversations with Cheney, prosecutors weren’t able to get to the truth and decide if they had a case against Cheney. As Fitzgerald said when he announced Libby’s indictment, Libby had thrown sand in the face of the umpires.

    In the end, while Libby’s lawyers were unsuccessful in defending their fall guy, they did a heck of a job for the administration.

    Jeralyn Merritt is a criminal defense attorney in Denver and blogs at TalkLeft.com and 5280.com. Posted by denver-admin at 12:01 AM | Comments (8) | TrackBack

    March 08, 2007
    Public hunting in National Park not a solution

    By David Nimkin, National Parks Conservation Association

    We all agree that the burgeoning elk population in and around Rocky Mountain National Park needs to be addressed. This is a problem for the elk, the park ecosystem, and neighboring communities. But NPCA does not believe that the solution lies in hastily changing federal law to allow a public elk hunt.

    This Speakout has not been edited

    By David Nimkin, National Parks Conservation Association

    We all agree that the burgeoning elk population in and around Rocky Mountain National Park needs to be addressed. This is a problem for the elk, the park ecosystem, and neighboring communities. But NPCA does not believe that the solution lies in hastily changing federal law to allow a public elk hunt.

    Elk are abundant in Rocky Mountain for a number of reasons, including the loss of predators such as wolves; fragmentation of habitats essential to the integrity of the larger ecosystem once used by elk; and adjacent development, which has closed down migration corridors and limited elk mobility. Increasingly, wildlife is stranded in ecological islands such as Rocky Mountain National Park-with devastating results on the natural ecosystem.

    This situation did not arise overnight. And the problems being felt at Rocky Mountain are also being felt nearby, so this is not simply a park problem, but a shared one. Rocky Mountain is not only a state resource, but also a national treasure and therefore requires gathering input from all stakeholders, including adjacent communities, park visitors, private landowners, wildlife managers, and the National Park Service. This process is a core value that Governor Ritter is encouraging in Colorado.

    The Park Service is not finalizing its Environmental Impact Statement-its strategy on this issue-until June. The agency will be working to address concerns raised about the cost of a culling operation. The new cost assessment should be careful and deliberate, and honor the resource protection and visitor experience responsibilities of the Park Service at Rocky Mountain.

    In the meantime, we should not pursue a hasty public hunt. Aside from obvious issues related to disrupting the experience of park visitors at best, and endangering them at worst, a public hunt is inconsistent with the purposes of the park and at odds with a fundamental purpose for which national parks were established: to protect resources unimpaired. Additionally, hunting, unlike culling, is not designed to remove the most appropriate animals identified by scientists to make the herd healthy and would limit the opportunity to conduct necessary research of chronic wasting disease, which only a controlled culling operation would provide.

    In the short-term, a limited Park Service-run culling operation is necessary. Let the Park Service protect the resources they are charged by law with protecting. This is an important first step toward achieving a more functional ecological balance in the park.

    Rocky Mountain was designated a national park because of its fragile, inspiring wild landscapes; diversity of wildlife, and a variety of recreational opportunities that do not include hunting. Changing the park’s authorization, as Rep. Udall’s ill-advised legislation proposes to do, would undermine the foundation upon which this park was created. Moreover, it would set a dangerous precedent in which the purposes behind America’s greatest idea are trampled and replaced by shortsighted actions that ignore the fundamental, root causes behind afflictions facing our great parks.

    Rocky Mountain National Park is a national treasure and an important state icon. We all have a responsibility to ensure its long-term protection and preservation.

    David Nimkin, Salt Lake City, is Southwest Regional Director of the National Parks Conservation Association Posted by denver-admin at 03:02 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

    Development threatens elk habitat

    By Mike Olson, Conifer

    In the Conifer area we have a zoning application to develop 6 paintball fields and a 48 car parking lot on 57 agriculturally zoned acres along Pleasant Park Road. Few people seem aware, however, that one of the developers of this mountain property is currently employed by a nationally recognized conservation group!

    This Speakout has not been edited

    By Mike Olson, Conifer

    In the Conifer area we have a zoning application to develop 6 paintball fields and a 48 car parking lot on 57 agriculturally zoned acres along Pleasant Park Road. Few people seem aware, however, that one of the developers of this mountain property is currently employed by a nationally recognized conservation group!

    The developer, Ms. Susan Roller, is an employee of the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation (RMEF). This conservation group receives the vast majority of it’s funding from member dues and donations. The RMEF is supposed to be dedicated to the protection of elk herds and the preservation of elk habitat, and on the Elk Foundation web site it states “The mission of the Elk Foundation is to ensure the future of elk, other wildlife and their habitat”. Yet in testimony before the Jefferson County Planning Commission, the applicants admitted that the planned commercial “special use” would disrupt elk in the area. The planned development of the 57 acre parcel that Ms. Roller has acknowledged is regularly used elk habitat includes an office and rental trailer, storage space, a food concession area, rest rooms and hundreds of feet of seven foot “privacy” fences. So much for the “preservation of elk habitat”.

    Mr. Ty. Petersburg, District Wildlife Manager for the Colorado Department of Wildlife (CDOW) was responsible for doing the review of the proposed commercial development. He chose not to comment on the disruptive impacts because of “size”. Mr. Petersburg has acknowledged that he knows both of the developers from their past employment at CDOW.

    Most organizations, particularly those that depend on donations and membership dues for financial support, have rules that prevent employees from second jobs or businesses that are inconsistent with the mission or objective of that organization. When I contacted the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, however, they where not only aware of Ms. Rollers land development activities, they did not seem to care that she spent her spare time in an activity that was in direct conflict with the organization mission, goals and public image. When asked about the habitat impact, Ms. Rollers RMEF supervisor, Mr. Doug Robinson, said “I can think or worse developments for that land than a paint ball course”. Mr. Robinson is the RMEF Land Program Manager for Colorado. He is the person who is directly responsible for land programs and habitat protection in our state, using member dues and donations!

    In my communication and discussions with RMEF leaders at the state and district level, they have made it very clear that they do not care about elk or elk habitat in the Bailey-Conifer-Evergreen area. They see us only as a funding source for staff, expenses and projects for “real elk” on the western slope. I am a sixteen year RMEF member and volunteer, and I would ask all RMEF members to please think long and hard before they spend more money at an auction, banquet or fundraising event that supports employees and staff that don’t care about our values or the elk and habitat in our community. Posted by denver-admin at 02:58 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

    Ecology versus economy is a false choice

    By Nancy LaPlaca, Denver

    We are waking up to the fact that without clean air and water and a healthy ecosystem the economy will suffer greatly. As Mr. Nicholas Stern points out in his Review on the Economics of Climate Change, ignoring global warming will impose ever-increasing costs if we continue “business as usual.”

    This Speakout has not been edited

    By Nancy LaPlaca, Denver

    Mr. Carroll makes an interesting point: the “false choice” of ecology v. economy. We are waking up to the fact that without clean air and water and a healthy ecosystem the economy will suffer greatly. As Mr. Nicholas Stern points out in his Review on the Economics of Climate Change, ignoring global warming will impose ever-increasing costs if we continue “business as usual.” Instead, we could spend roughly what the world spends in advertising to make real and meaningful change. Or we could stick our heads in the sand and wait for the next Katrina, and keep watching as the arctic ice breaks up and the permafrost melts.

    The Aspen Ski Company filed an amicus brief in Massachusettes v. EPA, a case currently before the U.S. Supreme Court. Why? Because the average amount of April 1 snow-water equivalent (moisture in snow-pack) declined 15-30% in the northern Rockies, and more than 50% in the Cascades since 1950. The Colorado ski industry brings in $2 billion/year, if having enough water for crops and drinking isn’t enough to persuade Mr. Carroll.

    Similarly, the “consumer v. environmental” advocate is a distinction without a difference.

    Before we can buy goods, consumers need air, water and food. Only then can we go shopping. Besides, Demand Side Management (conservation) comes in at 2-3 cents/kWh; wind at 3-8 cents/kWh; pulverized coal at 4-6 cents/kWh; and concentrating solar at 12-14 cents/kWh, with some sites as low as 8 cents/kWh. Recent studies have pegged the health effects from burning coal at $13-33/MWh. Do you know anyone with asthma? Can you “quantify” what clean v. polluted air and water are worth?

    And don’t forget about Xcel’s request for $130 million in federal loan guarantees for a so-called “clean” coal plant - the one that will save us all AND keep those coal plants humming. The concentrating solar industry could put in a plant with zero public funds if it had a power purchase agreement — ZERO public funds, not the $130 million sought by Xcel, plus more giveaways.

    I am tired of the utility industry’s refusal to face reality. The power industry has had had 30 years to clean up its act. Rather than change, the focus has been on lining the pockets of compliant politicians and spending time preventing changes the industry knew were necessary decades ago. Coal-fired electrical generation creates 40% of all CO2. Getting rid of coal-fired generation is the fastest and easiest way to reduce atmospheric CO2, and improve our health in the process. Let’s hurry up and get started. Posted by denver-admin at 02:49 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

    Four years of math not for everyone

    By Bethann Bierer, Metropolitan State College of Denver

    As a parent, child clinician, and educator, I am appalled that HB 131 is being seriously considered in the Colorado State Legislature. Telling all high school students that they must study advanced math in order to be successful, is similar to telling them that they must all do marching band, or sports, or auto shop.

    This Speakout has not been edited

    By Bethann Bierer, Metropolitan State College of Denver

    As a parent, child clinician, and educator, I am appalled that HB 131 is being seriously considered in the Colorado State Legislature. The reasoning behind the bill is ludicrous, the rationale is not based on current research, and the premise, that four years of math will improve the success rates of our high school graduates in the “real world”, belies our current understanding of adolescent development and brain growth.

    Even assuming that it would be possible to recruit 33% more talented, qualified teachers who would be able to energize and engage all high school seniors in a fourth year of math classes, the notion of one-size-fits-all education is particularly ludicrous with high school students. Our present understanding of adolescent growth and development indicates that there are tremendous brain changes occurring during the high school years. These changes reflect environmental influences, to be sure, but also involve the expression of the genetic “templates” the individual is born with. The tremendous work of adolescence is two-fold: to discover one’s particular pattern of strengths and weaknesses, passions and interests and also to learn how that particular pattern can be integrated into social and interpersonal maturation. Telling all high school students that they must study advanced math in order to be successful, is similar to telling them that they must all do marching band, or sports, or auto shop. Our research indicates that our most successful high school graduates are those who have been able to navigate this process of determining who they are as complex individuals. By the time I have these students in my college classroom, the most successful students are those who have learned enough about themselves to pursue fields that mesh well with their personal learning styles, aptitudes and interests. An additional year of high school math is not going to magically turn students into successful engineers or computer programmers unless that is the area in which they are both adept and interested. I know of no research that indicates that additional math classes lead to better outcomes for our young people.

    American high schools need help. Students may lag in math skills, but they also lag in interpersonal, foreign language and cultural literacy skills. They spend fewer hours in school than their international counterparts, and are taught by individuals who are not adequately respected in our society. If our educational system is to be changed, it should be after a thorough examination of the research that has already been done and careful consideration of this complex issue. Simply adding requirements based on a simplistic view of the issue will serve no one well.

    Bethann Bierer, Ph.D. Licensed Clinical Psychologist, Private Practice Visiting Assistant Professor, Psychology Department, Metropolitan State College of Denver Posted by denver-admin at 02:44 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

    Is God on our side?

    By David Becker, Pueblo

    I wonder if this Omnipotent God of ours has not come to the conclusion who the winner should be at the culmination of the war in Iraq.

    This Speakout has not been edited

    By David Becker, Pueblo

    I wonder if this Omnipotent God of ours has not come to the conclusion who the winner should be at the culmination of the war in Iraq.

    A man of great personal faith, George W. Bush certainly prays each day that the coalition forces are on the right side of the Almighty. Of course, he prefers the horrible circumstances in the Middle East to settle down as soon as possible so American troops head home and the killing ceases. However, with his political capital squarely on the line, the President speculates that God favors an allied victory.

    On the other hand, the many Muslim clerics go to their mosques each day and pray that Allah favors their side. They now see the arrival of the coalition forces as an invasion of Iraq, on the wrong side of the Righteous One and, given enough time, the enemy will be defeated and sent packing with their tails between their legs.

    Or is it possible for God to be on both sides in a war?

    One hundred and forty years ago, President Abraham Lincoln struggled with the same vexing question when he took the executive oath for his second term of office. On Saturday, March 4, 1865 Washington DC suffered weeks of wet weather (unlike the streets of Baghdad where it is scorching hot)! Pennsylvania Avenue was muddy, a metaphor on how the Civil War progressed for President Lincoln. After Chief Justice Salmon Chase administered the oath of office on the east portico of the Capitol, Lincoln stood in a puddle and informed those gathered that neither political party “expected for the [CIVIL]war the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained.

    Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with or even before the conflict itself should cease. Each [PARTY]looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other.

    It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God’s assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men’s faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered.

    That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes....”

    President Lincoln evoked the name of God ten times in his short inaugural address in March of 1865. Did he feel that he had no where else to turn? On that day Lincoln thought that the outcome of the war between the American states rested in God’s hands because he remained flummoxed about how it might turn out. The United States was a young nation and this president, Abraham Lincoln, considered that the wounds of war went so deep and the divide between the people was so serious that the future of the country lay in peril.

    Sound familiar?

    Lincoln considered himself the nation’s cheerleader and, like George W. Bush, he knew that the people who heard his words would parse each one of them with a sharp knife looking for nuances that were not present. The Northern United States in the Civil War fought with an army plus some volunteers. The Southern states fought the war with the equivalent of National Guard troops, led by trained military officers.

    On that dreadful March morning, President Lincoln spoke words of hope, which resonate today. “With malice towards none, with charity towards all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation’s wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and orphan, to do all which may achieve a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.”

    President Lincoln did not live to see the conclusion of the Civil War. A month after delivering his second inaugural address, he died. It is a perplexing problem for Americans at war to plan each day. Politicians make speeches as if they know the answers when it is all such a mystery to all of us whether we are people of faith or not. Faith and hope worked in the past and, as Americans, we have faith and hope that the same formula works for our future. Posted by denver-admin at 02:18 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

    March 07, 2007
    No more violent video game ads, RTD

    By George Robison

    The Parents Television Council and the Campaign for Commercial Free Childhood recently called on the Denver Regional Transportation District to amend its advertising policy to not allow ads for adult video games.

    By George Robison

    Every parent has done it. Diverted their child’s attention while passing that new toy or hoping they don’t look up and see the ad for something they might want but that you’re unwilling to buy for them. Advertising is powerful, especially when viewed by the most impressionable members of our society, our youth. As parents we do not want to have that argument with the child who often will not understand why we won’t buy them the toy we cannot afford, the movie with mature themes, or a game that can be harmful to their development. It is hard enough to raise a child without marketing campaigns that entice children toward destructive activities.

    Our public servants in Denver can help parents and protect our children. By not accepting ads and money from those who would influence children by advertising adult video games in the public square, we will move to the front of the pack in protecting our children. The Parents Television Council and the Campaign for Commercial Free Childhood recently called on the Denver Regional Transportation District to amend its advertising policy to not allow ads for adult video games.

    Joining us in asking the RTD to set a policy that it will not accept these types of ads in the future were other prominent Colorado voices, including former Lt. Gov. Jane Norton and former Colorado U.S. Attorney Mike Norton. More than 50 researchers, clergy and child advocacy groups also attached their names to this effort.

    Advocates for children from across the political spectrum are united in their belief that children should not be targets for advertising that glorifies violence.

    RTD has profited from promoting violent content in the past. The notoriously violent “Mature”-rated Grand Theft Auto (Rockstar Games) has been featured on RTD trains. In 2002, the latest version of the game had been the top-selling video game for teens and preteens and allowed players to kill a prostitute after having sex with her. Grand Theft Auto players can also commit armed robbery and kill innocent bystanders, law enforcement officers and rival gang members.

    Our public transportation network serves more than half the residents of Colorado and is doing them a disservice with its tacit approval for the dangerous content in the “Mature”-rated video games that are advertised throughout the system.

    Our public servants have a responsibility to act in the best interests of our youth. Violent video games have proven to have long-term harmful effects on children.

    Countless research studies have demonstrated the effect of media violence on a child’s brain and cognitive development. Researchers at the Indiana University School of Medicine have used functional magnetic resonance imaging technology to observe which areas of the brain are stimulated when a subject plays violent video games.

    Researchers concluded that violent video games cause changes in teenagers’ brain function. Adolescents showed increased activation of the amygdala and decreased activation of the frontal lobe after playing violent video games.

    Dr. Vincent F. Matthews, professor of radiology at Indiana University School of Medicine, has said, “The conclusion here is that after playing a violent video game, normal adolescents demonstrate an increase in arousal of the area of the brain involved in emotional response and a decrease in activation of areas of the brain involved in self-control, inhibition and attention span.”

    It is irresponsible for the RTD to have accepted advertising dollars to promote violent video games to the many children who use their services.

    Our community should not promote violence and lawlessness. Our children should be able to ride public trains and buses without being subjected to ads for graphic video games. We will take a step in that direction if RTD officials serve the public interest and amend their policy to say that, in the future, RTD will not accept advertising for violent video games. At the very least, parents deserve that kind of help from our public officials on the RTD board of directors.

    George Robison is the director of the Denver chapter of the Parents Television Council (parentstv.org). He is a resident of Lakewood. Posted by denver-admin at 12:01 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

    March 06, 2007
    How did illegal aliens get here?

    The big issue has not been addressed. That is how did 12 million people manage to be here? The answer is that they have been arriving for the last 20 years and the illegal aliens had help. The duplicitous contribution of the American people contributed to their presence.

    This Speakout has not been edited

    By Frank Satterlee, Arvada

    Co-Conspirators Mike Rosen on 850 KOA Radio on Friday February 23, 2007 took the driver’s seat as usual in the ten o’clock hour to espouse his views on illegal immigration. The callers were predictably pro-Rosen. The first caller set the tone. He made the point that suspected illegal Hispanic aliens were arrested in multiple raids throughout the city and that the families, hurting from the loss of their mothers and fathers, deserved it because they broke the law. Then the show went on and on with typical input from listeners suggesting remedies to the illegal alien problem ranging from a temporary guest worker program to forced military service.

    The big issue has not been addressed. That is how did 12 million people manage to be here? The answer is that they have been arriving for the last 20 years and the illegal aliens had help. The duplicitous contribution of the American people contributed to their presence. None of Mike Rosen’s callers would admit that Americans have their reasons to commit their part in the crime?

    Americans have been instrumental in taking the good that is provided primarily by illegal aliens through services and products that they buy. The quality of these services and products are apparently good enough for Americans to purchase and benefit from. These services have helped Americans buy houses they can afford, purchase meat, fruit and vegetables and other groceries at a reasonable price, get work done for their homes or businesses that was deemed too trivial to be performed by other Americans. For the most part, they perform this work in long days without whining like most American-born workers who feel entitled to jobs and benefits. It is ironic that the “illegal workers” are the ones with the “American Work Ethic.”

    The social security system has gladly accepted money from contributors with questionable social security numbers who have no expectation of future benefits. The IRS issues a special coded number to people with questionable social security numbers so they can pay in their taxes and get a mortgage to buy a house.

    Now Americans want it both ways. They want to arrest illegal aliens. This, like the war on drugs, is futile and a political, a token effort at best. There are simply too many of them already here. Americans have provided temporary harbor and now we don’t know what to do about the illegal alien problem. No one on Mike Rosen’s show admitted that they are part of the problem.

    In the current political climate illegal aliens don’t have much of a choice. Return to poverty at home, stay where they are like sitting ducks or go underground to provide for their families. The Republicans have to discard them to appear lawful. They started this whole illegal alien legislation drive to create a controversial subject for Republicans to use while campaigning. The Democrats have to discard them or face the wrath of the unions.

    So who really has a plan for dealing with 12 million people that has merit and is not politically motivated? You won’t hear anything concrete that will actually work until after the elections. In the mean time the illegal aliens will be profiled, targeted, turned in, prosecuted, and deported to Mexico or wherever. What they leave behind are families with children who are Americans by birth right who will not forget what the Americans took from them. Posted by denver-admin at 12:01 AM | Comments (7) | TrackBack

    Risks of HPV vaccine are unknown

    By Susan Pearce. Wolf, Wyo.

    Currently, parents are being urged to consider the human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccine for their young daughters. This expensive vaccine has neither been adequately tested nor proven to be effective for young girls.

    This Speakout has not been edited

    By Susan Pearce. Wolf, Wyo.

    Currently, parents are being urged to consider the human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccine for their young daughters. This expensive vaccine has neither been adequately tested nor proven to be effective for young girls.

    The HPV vaccine, Gardasil, contains 225 mcg of aluminum. For decades, vaccines have contained aluminum adjuvants, but clinical trials never tested such adjuvants for safety. Animal and human studies have shown that aluminum can cause nerve cell death and that vaccine aluminum adjuvants can allow aluminum to enter the brain and can lead to fatigue and chronic joint and muscle pain. http://www.nvic.org/PressReleases/pr62706gardasil.htm

    Barbara Loe Fisher was a member of the FDA Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee in 2001. Fisher stated in the above 2006 press release, “There is too little long term safety and efficacy data, especially in young girls, . Nobody at Merck, the CDC or FDA know[S] if the injection of Gardasil into all pre-teen girls - especially simultaneously with hepatitis B vaccine - will make some of them more likely to develop arthritis or other inflammatory autoimmune and brain disorders as teenagers and adults.”

    The package insert states, “GARDASIL has not been evaluated for the potential to cause carcinogenicity or genotoxicity.” http://www.fda.gov/cber/label/hpvmer013007LB.pdf Clayton Young, M.D., F.A.C.O.G., stated, “Currently no vaccine has ever been examined for possible carcinogenic, mutagenic, or teratogenic effects, and yet the pharmaceutical industry stands ready to add Gardasil to the list of vaccines mandated for school admission.” http://www.vaccineinfo.net/immunization/vaccine/hpv/doc—against—HPV.shtml

    Young stated, “The vaccine only ‘protects’ against 4 high risk HPV subtypes. We are currently screening for 15 ‘high risk’ HPV subtypes. This may lead to an increase in infection with other and possibly more aggressive subtypes. ... The study of the vaccine in children and adolescents is limited to only measuring the development of antibodies to the HPV subtypes in the vaccine.

    There is absolutely no evidence that the vaccine prevents anything when administered at this young age. Merck expects you to extrapolate their adult data to the immune response in children. If they were really interested in vaccine efficacy in children, should it not be studied properly in children? Vaccinating children for this or any other sexually transmitted infection is not without risk.”

    Barbara Loe Fisher, president of the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), stated in a February 1, 2007, press release, “GARDASIL safety appears to have been studied in fewer than 2,000 girls aged 9 to 15 years and it is unclear how long they were followed up. ... the reality is that almost all cases of HPV-associated cervical cancer can be prevented with annual pap screening of girls who are sexually active.” http://www.909shot.com/PressReleases/pr020107HPV.htm

    In the same press release, NVIC Health Policy Analyst Vicky Debold, RN, Ph.D., stated, “The most frequent serious health events after GARDASIL shots are neurological symptoms, ... These young girls are experiencing severe headaches, dizziness, temporary loss of vision, slurred speech, fainting, involuntary contraction of limbs (seizures), muscle weakness, tingling and numbness in the hands and feet and joint pain. . The manufacturer product insert should include mention of syncopal [FAINTING]episodes, seizures and Guillain-Barre Syndrome so doctors and parents are aware these vaccine adverse responses have been associated with the vaccine.”

    Further information can be found at http://www.nvic.org/.

    Susan Pearce is a co-founder of Wyoming Vaccine Information Network Posted by denver-admin at 12:01 AM | Comments (23) | TrackBack

    This glorified energy solution is simplistic, wishful thinking and will come with a hefty price tag.

    By Jim Park, Kersey

    According to some politicians and all environmentalists, wind and solar electric generation is a free source of energy and goodness will abound with its full implementation. I maintain this glorified energy solution is simplistic, wishful thinking and will come with a hefty price tag.

    This Speakout has not been edited

    By Jim Park, Kersey

    We have all heard the old saying that if it sounds too good to be true, it most likely is. Here in Colorado, the band wagon appears to be rolling right along as we envision becoming the “Renewable Energy Capitol of the World”. According to some politicians and all environmentalists, wind and solar electric generation is a free source of energy and goodness will abound with its full implementation. I maintain this glorified energy solution is simplistic, wishful thinking and will come with a hefty price tag.

    Proponents say that additional costs for wind and solar power will be negligible and when spread over the entire customer base no one will notice. Wind is free, however wind resources are usually a long way from where the electricity is needed and Mother Nature doesn’t provide constant, 100% guaranteed wind, even in Wyoming. In today’s world, reliability of electric power is essential because it drives our economy and is indispensable in nearly every aspect of our lives. When too much emphasis is given to electric generation based on the whims of natural forces, wind and sun, I believe we jeopardize our state and nation.

    Solar energy advocates are trumpeting the idea of running your electric meter backward as individuals generate their own power needs and sell the excess to their utility company. This is net metering. The major problem with an individual residential solar system is that your investment to deliver adequate power for an average home and possibly generate a small amount to sell back would probably be $50,000 to $75,000. How many “common folk” out there are ready and willing to make this expenditure? There are some state and federal incentives to buy solar but remember that our taxes fund all government subsidies. Colorado is a “sun rich” state and solar cells operate tirelessly until sunset. Grid tied solar installations still rely on fossil fuel generation to fill the gap.

    The Western Resource Advocates, office in Boulder, as well as several other environmental groups are rallying to stop any additional coal fired generation from being built. Coal fired plants conjure up the picture of huge clouds of black smoke rolling out of smokestacks. That is the way it was one hundred years ago in this country and how it is in China and India today. Millions of dollars have been invested in clean coal technology in the U.S. which has cut coal burning emissions drastically over what is found in developing countries. However, the environmental community believes the U.S. should close coal plants and hope the wind blows enough. WRA boasts that a new 162 megawatt wind farm has recently begun operation and provides power for 50,000 homes. What needs to be included is the 162 megawatts is produced about 30% of the time due to the variability of the wind and the dependable coal or natural gas plant generator picks up the slack once again.

    Renewables do make sense as a portion of the total fuel portfolio for electric generation with the understanding that wind and solar are not the ultimate answer, the silver bullet or the simple, easy fix some are attempting to promote. Our legislature and rural electric boards of directors are being targeted by the “full speed ahead, alternative energy at any cost” mentality. I am concerned that we are on the threshold of several mandates that will force impractical and costly outcomes for all electric consumers.

    Will Colorado become the “Renewable Energy Capitol of the World”? If we do, I hope it is accomplished in a reasonable, common sense way that doesn’t jeopardize Colorado’s economy or our pocketbooks.

    Jim Park is a Kersey area farmer and a member of the Board of Directors for Poudre Valley REA . Posted by denver-admin at 12:01 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

    President Bush Could Make Millions From A War Against Iran

    By Howard Greenebaum, Littleton

    Each time a US President goes out of office, he seems to be rewarded by others with very large checks. Reagan received over one million dollars for a couple of speeches. Bush senior has done extremely well in business. Clinton has made millions from public appearances.

    This Speakout has not been edited

    By Howard Greenebaum, Littleton

    Each time a US President goes out of office, he seems to be rewarded by others with very large checks. Reagan received over one million dollars for a couple of speeches. Bush senior has done extremely well in business. Clinton has made millions from public appearances.

    And now we have President Bush attempting to start a war against Iran. Iran’s Shiite connections are gravely feared by the Saudi royal family who are connected to the arch enemies of Shiites- the Sunnis. We know that George Bush is extremely close to the Saudi royals. Can we trust George Bush to turn down an offer from the Saudi royals to crush the Iranians and their Shiite population? How much would the Saudis pay for the US to attack Iran and destroy their nuclear research facilities?

    I urge the Rocky Mt. newspaper to join with other leading newspapers and thoroughly investigate the connections between our President and the Saudi royal family.An American attack on Iran can spell disaster for the world. Our cities will certainly be targets for terrorist attacks by people who will view us as anti-Muslim if we attack another Muslim nation. It is time for the media to step beyond politics and try and prevent a devastating war against Iran. We are getting much too close to such a war.

    We need our media to expose the real forces behind this insidious march to war. Since 15 of the 19 terrorists responsible for 9/11 were Saudi citizens, we should question why President Bush continues to be so close to the Saudi royals.

    Is George Bush an honest man?

    When his father was President, he managed to not be charged with several violations of SEC laws. He sold almost a million dollars’ worth of stock of Harken Energy to unsuspecting buyers who were fooled by the cooked books of Harken which depicted a profitable year. After the sale the SEC forced Harken to revise their books and reveal that their company had lost money.

    George Bush was on the Audit committee of the Board of Directors of Harken at that time. He profited by this deception, and became the partial owner of a professional baseball team as a consequence. This is the same man who cooked the intelligence so over 3,000 Americans have died in a unjustified war in Iraq that he started. If he would start one war under false premises, why not another? We need the media to help stop a war against Iran now.

    Follow the money.

    Howard Greenebaum is author of the book, Free Elections ??? published in 1990. Posted by denver-admin at 12:01 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

    Deal or no deal in our justice system

    By Dr. Richard J. Crawford, Denver

    When Governor Bill Ritter was criticized for too much plea bargaining as a district attorney, some concluded that such high numbers meant that our jury system was nearly broken. But whether we deal out 95% or 97% (and who’s counting?) of our cases, the truth is that this is the wrong place to look for defects in our system.

    This Speakout has not been edited

    By Dr. Richard J. Crawford, Denver

    When Governor Bill Ritter was criticized for too much plea bargaining as a district attorney, some concluded that such high numbers meant that our jury system was nearly broken. But whether we deal out 95% or 97% (and who’s counting?) of our cases, the truth is that this is the wrong place to look for defects in our system. Yes, prosecutors sometimes offer deals to unsavory witnesses and misuse the plea bargain in other ways, but those and other flaws are not revealed by looking at those percentage rates.

    First of all, using the jury as a last resort is a long-established method for resolving both criminal and civil matters. This really means that for every 100 individuals charged with a crime, maybe 4 will face a jury and we know that the jury will convict roughly 3 of those. And if you sue someone for money damages, the odds that you will settle before you face a jury are nearly the same as in the criminal arena. Of course, plea bargains and money settlements are not totally comparable, but the process is very similar and the numbers in both instances are correspondingly high-sounding.

    Remember that all criminal defendants can insist on a jury trial and they never have to accept a deal offered to them. If every person charged with a crime during this New Year were to demand a jury trial, our courts would be backed up farther than voters in Denver on election day. We’re just not going to increase our judges, courtrooms and juries by a number of 10 for criminal matters and another 10 for civil trials.

    It is important to understand that the “deal” is the fuel which runs our justice engine and our addiction to that fuel is not likely to lessen; and there is no reason to want it to do so. After all, a person behind bars is just as unhappy whether a jury or a deal put him there. And money gotten from a settlement spends just as well as money awarded by a jury.

    Finally, we should not forget that jurors cut deals every day too. When they are trying to decide between a severe crime and a lesser crime, they frequently select a middle-range crime as a deal to end their deliberations. And when they are trying to decide whether to award a plaintiff a million dollars or a third of that, they frequently select the mid-range amount as a deal.

    Yes, prosecutors do it; civil lawyers do it and jurors do it too. Thus, the next time someone tells you that we need to slow down this settling and plea bargaining, tell them for me that they should look elsewhere for the many real flaws in our system instead--is that a deal?

    Richard J. Crawford of Denver is a founder and past national president of the American Society of Trial Consultants. He has served as a trial consultant in more than 400 trials and is a co-author of The Persuasive Edge, a new book for trial lawyers. Posted by denver-admin at 12:01 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

    March 05, 2007
    Drilling on the Roan Plateau

    By Tresi Houpt, Garfield County Commissioner

    In response to an article run in the Rocky Mountain News; I feel compelled to write a response clarifying my participation in a meeting on the Roan Plateau Management Plan, initiated by the Colorado Environmental Coalition held on February 22 with Congressmen Salazar and Udall.

    This Speakout has not been edited

    By Tresi Houpt, Garfield County Commissioner

    In response to an article run in the Rocky Mountain News; I feel compelled to write a response clarifying my participation in a meeting on the Roan Plateau Management Plan, initiated by the Colorado Environmental Coalition held on February 22 with Congressmen Salazar and Udall. Throughout this meeting I was very careful to distinguish the Garfield County view from my own views as a County Commissioner. My fellow Commissioners do support careful drilling on top of the Roan Plateau. I have always been very up-front about being in support of no drilling on top of the Roan Plateau during this planning period. I believe that several things need to happen before we commit to leasing on top of the Plateau; this includes the following:

    A comprehensive analysis of need should to be conducted. Currently there are hundreds of thousands of acres available for drilling, without opening the top and the cliffs of the Roan Plateau up for leasing. Enough to keep the industry busy for years to come;

    Impose time restrictions for drilling in areas identified for drilling in the Roan Plateau management plan for wildlife protection; Follow the DNR plan in areas below the rim and off of the cliffs so that it may be tried, refined and improved throughout the life of the management plan. Currently, no one can promise that the DNR's approach to drilling on top of the Roan Plateau will protect the special values identified on the top and on the cliffs. As we are experiencing in our county, drilling brings heavy truck traffic, evaporation pits, water treatment ponds, compressor stations, heavy fracing equipment and a well pad that will remain in the area for an unidentified amount of time. Regardless of the approach, if the BLM allows drilling on top of the Plateau, it will lose its' pristine qualities.

    Set a goal for extracting the natural gas reserves under the Roan Plateau without moving activity to the top and without placing undo burden on the communities at the base. Technology should be guided in this direction over the next several years. We need to recognize that not every pocket of natural gas can be extracted without compromising special natural environments, wildlife, endangered species, thriving long-term economies and the quality of life that should be protected.

    Garfield County is experiencing an extraordinarily high level of energy development, which is promised only to increase. Today we have a responsibility to identify what areas need to be left untouched for future generations to enjoy; I believe that the top of the Roan Plateau is one of those areas easily defined. Posted by denver-admin at 12:01 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

    D.C. Circuit's Guantanamo decision

    By Robert M. Hardaway, Professor of Law

    In the recent case of Boumediene v. Bush decided by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, Guantanamo detainees made the claim that all persons held outside the United States by U.S. authorities, regardless of their nationality or location, have the right under the U.S. Constitution to have their habeas petitions heard in U.S. federal courts.

    This Speakout has not been edited

    By Robert M. Hardaway, Professor of Law

    In the recent case of Boumediene v. Bush decided by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, Guantanamo detainees made the claim that all persons held outside the United States by U.S. authorities, regardless of their nationality or location, have the right under the U.S. Constitution to have their habeas petitions heard in U.S. federal courts.

    In 1950, in the case of Johnson v. Eisentrager, a similar claim was made by a number of German war criminals confined in the custody of the U.S. army in occupied Germany who attempted to file habeas corpus petitions in U.S. courts challenging their detention. Their argument in that case was that that even though they were being detained outside the territorial boundaries of the U.S., the fact that they were being held by U.S. authorities meant that they enjoyed all the constitutional protections accorded to persons in the U.S., including the right to file habeas petitions in U.S. courts.

    The U.S. Supreme Court soundly rejected this extraordinary claim, holding that if the U.S. Constitution "confers its rights on all the world... it would mean that during military occupation irreconcilable enemy elements, guerilla fighters...could require the American judiciary to assure them freedoms of speech, press, assembly in the First Amendment, right to bear arms in the Second, security against unreasonable searches and seizures in the fourth, as well as rights to jury trial in the fifth and Sixth Amendments."

    In the aftermath of World War II, the U.S. military detained upwards of two million German prisoners on German soil. The notion that any or all of these detainees had a constitutional right to file habeas petitions against General Eisenhower or President Roosevelt in U.S. courts was surely as extraordinary a claim then as the claim today that if U.S. forces ever managed to corner Osama Bin Laden in an Afghanistan cave that they would first have to apply to a U.S. court to obtain a search warrant to insure that Osama's Fourth Amendment rights were not violated.

    In Eisentrager the Court focused mainly on whether the German detainees had a constitutional right to file habeas petitions, rather than whether they had a statutory right to do so. Presumably this was because the federal habeas statute was so clear in restricting habeas jurisdiction to federal district courts "within their respective jurisdictions", and Germany was clearly not within any of the recognized federal district.

    Nevertheless, in Rasul v. Bush, another habeas case filed by Guantanamo detainees in 2004, the Supreme Court relied on an obscure case (Braden), in which a detainee who was the subject of a detainer order in Kentucky, but actually held in Alabama, was permitted to file a habeas petition in Kentucky. From this the Court make the extraordinary leap of logic that this case so broadened the notion of territoriality implicit in the habeas statute that prisoners held in foreign countries therefore have a statutory right to file habeas in any U.S. District Court.

    So bizarre was this ruling that Congress forthwith passed the Military Commissions Act in 2006 which point blank provides that "no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by...an alien detained by the United States who has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant..."

    It should be recalled that Rasul purported only to interpret the right to habeas according to the habeas statute. That statue has now been amended to specifically preclude the right of persons detained in foreign countries to bring habeas petitions in U.S. federal courts.

    Aside from its argument that there is a "common law" right to habeas, which the court rejected for lack of historical precedent, that left the habeas petitioners in Boumediene with only one remaining argument, namely that Congress violated the Constitution when it passed the Military Commissions Act because the constitutional provision restricting suspension of habeas to times when the public safety required it was a limitation on congressional power and not a personal right. This argument too was roundly rejected, as it would mean that other constitutional rights, such as the right against unreasonable searches and seizures were likewise not personal rights.

    Guantanamo detainees can and should be provided with legal rights to enable them to make timely challenges to their detention in duly constituted military courts and be provided with counsel and resources to do so- in short rights comparable to those provided to U.S. military personnel. But this can and should be done by congressional action without purporting to extend U.S. jurisdiction beyond its territory. Concern around the world about U.S. hegemony is mounting, and that concern would only be exacerbated by judicial attempts to extend the jurisdiction of U.S. courts to every nook and cranny in the world. For this reason it can only be hoped that the U.S. Supreme Court will soon uphold the D.C. Circuit decision in Boumediene.

    Robert Hardaway is Professor of Law at the University of Denver Sturm College of Law and the author of fourteen published books on law and public policy. Posted by denver-admin at 12:01 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

    Assessing the Electoral College

    By Michael Trimble, Littleton

    Of course, this specious argument that the electoral system is less representative than the rest of government breaks down under scrutiny. Electors (the people who represent each state, and actually cast electoral votes for presidential candidates) are named by popular election in each state, and are equal in number the total of each state's elected representatives to the House of Representatives and the Senate.

    This Speakout has not been edited

    By Michael Trimble, Littleton

    The recent Speakout column by Bill Blomberg (Electoral balancing act, by the numbers, 02/23/07) lays out the case that the constitutional electoral college amounts to "taxation without representation." This assertion is, on it's face, simply silly.

    Leaving aside the historical evolution of the electoral college system, and the reasons this system was designed and selected in the early years of this country (substantial as they are), Blomberg's argument is that populous states such as California are not accorded electoral votes commiserate with the population of that state as compared to states with much less population, such as Wyoming.

    Blomberg chose a clever slogan to bolster his argument, saying that this amounts to "taxation without representation," with the patriotic flavor of the revolutionary spirit which lead up to the War for Independence of the colonies in America against England. Blomberg then makes the assertion that in regard to the electoral college, "our republic is less representative in this area than it is in most others." The solution he proposes, of paying federal taxes proportionally to the degree each individual votes effects the electoral college, is merely a way of suggesting that the sensible solution is to abolish the electoral system, since of course, those with the greater proportional share of vote-power would not like to pay many times more in taxes than people in more populous states would pay.

    Of course, this specious argument that the electoral system is less representative than the rest of government breaks down under scrutiny. Electors (the people who represent each state, and actually cast electoral votes for presidential candidates) are named by popular election in each state, and are equal in number the total of each state's elected representatives to the House of Representatives and the Senate. The House members are apportioned according to the population of the state they represent, and California is awarded many more than Wyoming. In the year 2000, when the election that has most recently stirred the debate over the electoral college system took place, California had 53 Representatives, and Wyoming had 1.

    The Senate, however, is made up of 2 representatives from each state, regardless of population.

    Therefore, in 2000, California had 55 total electoral votes to Wyoming's 3. This is exactly the same representation each state has in the combined houses of Congress, and therefore exactly as representative as the whole legislative branch of government.

    If Blomberg wants to take the position that this reflects "taxation without representation," then it follows logically that he favors the dissolution of the Senate, since Senate delegates also represent more people per Senate vote in California than they do in Wyoming, and since any law effecting federal taxes must pass both houses of congress. In fact, the Senate is much less "proportionally representative" than the electoral college, and the president is much less powerful than the Senate as a body when it comes to taxation, or any other legislation.

    There are many reasons that the government of the United States is constituted of 3 separate bodies, and that of these, the legislative body is divided into 2 separate houses, one of which is apportioned by population, and the other not. Accomplishing "taxation without representation" is not one of them. Indeed, the argument can be made that this form of the legislative bodies exists for the exact purpose of preventing the tyranny of a small majority of voters, perhaps as small as 50.1%, over a slight minority, in this example, 49.9%. Otherwise, the 50.1% could make the 49.9% pay ALL the taxes, while they themselves paid none.

    An apt student of American history might note that the Senate, which is not representative of population, is sometimes more progressive than the population-apportioned House of Representatives on controversial issues which are often later observed to be long over-due. For example, the Civil Rights Bill of 1964 was passed in the House (by the 420 members who voted on it) by a count of 290 in favor and 130 against, slightly over 2:1 (69%). In the Senate, after some 83 days of debate, the vote was 73 to 27, very lightly less than a 3:1 margin (73%).

    Blomberg says that abolishing the electoral college "would forevermore prevent anyone who came in second (or worse) in the hearts of his countrymen from claiming the presidency." Perhaps that is true. But there have been several "minority presidents" since the first one, John Quincy Adams in the election of 1824. The Union has survived each one. Changing the system of government to remove any of the protections of a minority from the majority, though, seems to be a drastic measure to "rectify" the election of one man, who in this case was elected with 47.87% of the popular vote, while his opponent lost with 48.38% (0.51% difference).

    The truth is, legislation and lawsuits to change the electoral college abound after every election that results in a "minority president," which by definition is a president who did not win the popular vote, but still obtained office over someone else who had more popular votes. Though some changes have been adopted from time to time, still the system remains. As it should. To paraphrase Churchill's observation on democracy, our electoral college system of choosing a president is the worst in the world... except for all the others.

    Blomberg reminds us that equal representation is a great tenet of the American system of government. It is, however, not the ONLY great tenet of the American system. Posted by denver-admin at 12:01 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

    March 04, 2007
    Colorado should join Western states in global-warming battle

    By Isaac Silverman

    In the wake of the recent announcement from the governors of five Western states of a regional plan to reduce the pollution that causes global warming, leaders of three Colorado conservation organizations urged Colorado to join the effort.

    By Isaac Silverman

    In the wake of the recent announcement from the governors of five Western states of a regional plan to reduce the pollution that causes global warming, leaders of three Colorado conservation organizations urged Colorado to join the effort.

    “Over the past five years, Coloradans have sat on the bench and watched as our Western neighbors have taken the lead on curbing global warming,” said Will Coyne of Environment Colorado. “Now Colorado has another opportunity to get into the game and bolster our state’s chances of capitalizing on a new energy economy.”

    Under the agreement, called the Western Climate Action Initiative, Oregon, California, Washington, New Mexico, and Arizona will adopt, within 18 months, pollution-reduction goals for the five states and a market-based program to meet them, such as a “cap and trade” program. Colorado has been designated an “observer” of the joint effort.

    Under the regional program, a cap on global-warming pollution would be set for all five states. The cap would decline over time to meet pollution reduction targets.

    “Colorado and the West are already seeing the serious effects of global warming so it is only natural that Western governors are leading the nation towards real solutions,” said Dan Grossman, director of Environmental Defense’s Rocky Mountain regional office. “It is time for Colorado to play a growing role in regional efforts to combat global warming.”

    “Colorado has lagged behind other Rocky Mountain states in developing a comprehensive plan to reduce global-warming pollution,” said John Nielsen, energy program director of Western Resources Advocates. “But Governor Ritter is putting Colorado back on the right path through his commitment to common-sense solutions like renewable energy.”

    State conservation groups including Environment Colorado, Environmental Defense and Western Resource Advocates support the Western Climate Action Initiative and urge Colorado to play a growing role in regional efforts to combat global warming.

    Isaac Silverman is Environment Colorado’s global warming and clean energy associate. Posted by denver-admin at 12:01 AM | Comments (9) | TrackBack

    March 03, 2007
    Math, science ed is vital

    By Sen. Josh Penry and Rep. Rob Witwer

    Let’s take a candid look at a very important question: Are our kids ready to face the challenges of an increasingly competitive global economy? Consider the facts and draw your own conclusions.

    American students score near the bottom of all industrialized nations in math and science.

    By Sen. Josh Penry and Rep. Rob Witwer

    Let’s take a candid look at a very important question: Are our kids ready to face the challenges of an increasingly competitive global economy? Consider the facts and draw your own conclusions.

    American students score near the bottom of all industrialized nations in math and science.

    In 1975, the United States was third in the world in producing new scientists and engineers. Since then we have fallen to 15th.

    Most startling of all, China produces more than four times the number of engineers as the United States. Japan, with half our population, produces twice as many. The late Nobel laureate Richard Smalley predicted that by 2010, 90 percent of the world’s most educated engineers will come from Asia.

    Guess where the jobs in our tech-oriented world are headed if we don’t take corrective action? These facts are a clarion call. If we don’t better train our kids in math and science, they will be ill-equipped to compete in a world where science and technology are the coin of the realm. That’s bad news for our kids and worse news for our country.

    In spite of these economic alarms, Colorado is one of only six states without a comprehensive set of graduation standards. Some of Colorado’s largest school districts require just two years of math and science.

    Given the trends and the stakes, we believe it’s time for Colorado to join the vast majority of states in setting minimum guidelines for math and science. That’s why we’ve introduced Senate Bill 131, which would require students to pass four years of math and three years of science in order to graduate. The bill won broad bipartisan support in the Senate, and is headed for the House of Representatives.

    Still, SB 131 is not at a loss for critics. Some in the education establishment dismiss the proposal as elevating “seat time” above substantive achievement. But the data refute this.

    According to the Colorado Education Alignment Council, only 9 percent of kids who completed fewer than three years of math are ready for college-level work and 10 percent of students who took three or fewer years of science are ready to begin their college career. The same study showed that kids who took four years of math and three years of science are nearly five times as likely to be ready for college.

    Still others criticize SB 131 for pre-empting local school districts. They argue that math and science standards will cannibalize electives like the arts and journalism. But 44 states have already figured out how to balance statewide graduation standards with other educational priorities.

    Moreover, Colorado law already requires all students to complete a course in civics and U.S. history in order to graduate. And a bill that just passed the state House, supported by some of the harshest critics of our math-and-science bill, would direct local school boards to adopt detailed content standards for sex education. If it’s appropriate for the state to mandate sex education content, why can’t the state set broad standards for math and science? It’s a matter of priorities.

    While the critics of statewide math and science standards argue for more of the same, the rest of the world moves forward. At the speed of information, jobs migrate from continent to continent. Meanwhile, America’s competitive advantage in science, technology and innovation is rapidly disappearing.

    Other states are positioning themselves to compete in this complicated and competitive world by beefing up their math and science graduation standards. The only question now is, will Colorado?

    Sen. Josh Penry is a Republican from Fruita. Rep. Rob Witwer is a Republican from Genessee. Posted by denver-admin at 12:01 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

    March 02, 2007
    Delisting of gray wolves is a good prospect

    Walker S. “Buddy” Smith Jr

    If there’s anything that can grab the attention of an elk hunter faster than the bugle of a big bull, it’s the howl of a wolf. Want to stir up a roomful of elk hunters? Don’t bother yelling “Fire!” Just say “wolf.”

    Walker S. “Buddy” Smith Jr

    If there’s anything that can grab the attention of an elk hunter faster than the bugle of a big bull, it’s the howl of a wolf. Want to stir up a roomful of elk hunters? Don’t bother yelling “Fire!” Just say “wolf.”

    The 1995 reintroduction of gray wolves into Idaho, Montana and Wyoming has been highly successful from the viewpoint of most biologists. Whether you think that was the worst or best idea anybody ever had, wolves look to be a permanent part of the landscape in the northern Rockies.

    Wolf populations in all three states are well above the minimum thresholds for recovery set by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. They no longer need the help of the Endangered Species Act. On Jan. 29, the Fish and Wildlife Service proposed delisting wolves in Montana and Idaho and handing control of them over to the game and fish department in those states.

    That’s great news. I hope Wyoming and the FWS can hammer out their differences so wolves can be returned to state control there as well. Each of us — the public — now has 60 days to submit written comments on this delisting proposal.

    The Elk Foundation applauds both the Fish and Wildlife Service and the individual states for all the hard work they’ve put in over the last 12 years to reach this point.

    A couple of years ago, Carter Niemeyer, Idaho wolf recovery coordinator for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, told the Elk Foundation’s magazine, Bugle, “The quicker we can start thinking about wolves as just another game animal, the better off all involved will be.“ Amen. It is time to set politics and posturing aside and define reasonable plans for wolf management.

    I’ve hunted elk in Montana every fall since 1971. It’s one of the driving passions of my life and I’m pretty good at it. In my experience, the deadliest, most efficient elk hunter is not the wolf. And much as I hate to say it, it’s not me, either. If you’re betting on who’s going to bring home the elk steaks, put your money on a mountain lion.

    That’s why I think it’s worth looking at how Montana manages its lions. In 1978, the state changed the status of mountain lions from a year-round bountied animal to a licensed big game species, with specific seasons and quotas. Since then, annual harvest has gone from 50 per year to 450 per year. The range occupied by lions doubled. Yet during that same time, elk and deer populations flourished all across that expanded range. Hunting opportunity for elk, deer and lions is excellent. That’s because the state teamed up with hunters as hands-on managers. This is where we need to get to with wolves.

    Give the states the ability to set seasons and region-by-region quotas for wolves in the same way they do for lions and black bears — and for elk and deer — and we can have healthy populations of both prey and predators. Combined, Montana, Idaho and Wyoming are now home to about 350,000 elk and 1,240 wolves. Elk hunting success, in terms of both total harvest and mature bulls, is strong across all three states. That doesn’t mean that in areas where wolves are active there aren’t fewer elk — or that the hunting hasn’t gotten a lot tougher. It means we should be managing wolves in those places.

    Wolves can and will affect game populations. But as someone who loves to hunt in wild country, I’m convinced that the greatest threat to both our elk populations and the future of hunting is ... us.

    There are now 300 million people in the United States and a little more than 1 million elk. The way we’re filling up elk country with houses and roads and strip malls makes me heartsick. That’s why I’m so proud that in Wyoming, Montana and Idaho alone, the Elk Foundation has permanently protected more than 220,000 acres of prime wildlife habitat and greatly enhanced another 1.2 million acres.

    If you care about the future of elk and elk country, I urge you to do two things: Speak up for state control of wolf management during the next 60 days, and step up and support the conservation groups that are working to ensure that future generations have places to hike, hunt and simply enjoy.

    Walker S. “Buddy” Smith Jr. is the chairman of the board of the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation. Posted by denver-admin at 12:01 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

    March 01, 2007
    Don't do it. Don't Attack Iran

    Statement of a Group of Colorado Jews

    We fear the consequences of such a strike could trigger a wider regional conflict, with the shadow - the genuine possibility - of world war in the offing.

    This Speakout has not been edited

    Statement of a Group of Colorado Jews

    We, the undersigned, all Colorado Jews, are worried about a U.S. and/or Israeli attack on Iran.

    The military components for such an attack have been put in place over the past six months. We, who only a few generations ago, witnessed our families in Europe turned into ashes in Auschwitz, Buchenwald and Sachenhausen, look with unparalleled horror at the prospect of either the US or Israel using tactical nuclear weapons. We fear the consequences of such a strike could trigger a wider regional conflict, with the shadow - the genuine possibility - of world war in the offing.

    The ratcheting up of anti-Iranian rhetoric in the media, the spreading of half -truths about the nature of the Iranian regime, its role in Iraq, the disinformation campaign about its plans to develop nuclear energy - all are reminiscent of the build-up to the -invasion and occupation of Iraq. Recent position papers from rightwing think-tanks suggest that Iran be dissolved into some kind of federated state -- a scheme suspiciously similar to the emerging re-division of Iraq into ethno-religious enclaves, a form of divide-and-rule to more easily control oil production.

    We also know, sadly, that the forces pushing for a military confrontation include some major American Jewish organizations - AIPAC, the ADL and the AJC among them, all of whom have lobbied hard with the neo-cons in power for yet another war. For many years, these same groups echoed the US and Israeli governments' support for the Shah of Iran as a foil against Arab countries like Iraq in the era before the Islamic revolution in Iran.

    In the same way that most opponents of the current war in Iraq never supported Saddam Hussein's repressive regime (while US governments did for decades), we are not defenders or supporters of the Islamic Republic of Iran, which also enjoyed the military backing of the US during the war Saddam launched in the 1980s. We abhor its current president's purposely provocative statements to deny the Holocaust. Despite his fiery anti-Israeli rhetoric, we note that Iran has not attacked any of its neighbors for 200 years and has shown no intention of changing course. Nor is there as yet any evidence that it is building nuclear weapons.

    Rationally, a war against Iran makes no sense - except to line the pockets of war-profiteers and Big Oil at the expense of the rest of us.

    The US is bogged down in a losing and morally repugnant war in Iraq. The November, 2006 elections were a clear signal that the people of this country have had enough of Bush's War. Although it failed to address the central question of the US military occupation the bipartisan Iraq Study Group Report issued in December of last year, acknowledged the failure of the neo-con strategy. Yet the ruling elite wants to expand that blunder by preparing to attack Iran.

    Nor does such a war make sense for Israel, bogged down after 40 years' occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, unable to find a formula to equitably share land and resources with the Palestinians. We are convinced that Israel's future is made less - not more - secure by its military imposition of one-sided division of the spoils of war. In the end, Israel's security can only come by normalizing its relations with its neighbors. It cannot do that until its resolves the Palestinian question. Launching a war against Iran will further endanger Israeli security, not guarantee it.

    We consider an attack on Iran, disguised as a "pre-emptive" war or a fabricated provocation, as criminally insane, its consequences predictably inhumane. The massive bombing campaign now off the drawing board and in the works, no matter how "precision-guided", will kill thousands of civilians. A US-Israeli attack could destroy Iran as a nation and a civilization.

    While we do not underestimate the difficulties of negotiating with Iran, we call on our government and the government of Israel to stop this march to war and to enter into negotiations with Iran to freeze and reverse the nuclearization of the Middle East and to address all other outstanding issues without preconditions. Both Israel and Iran have to accept each other's existence.

    We call on all people, in the Jewish Community and beyond, to help stop this terrifying drive for war. War is not the answer.

    Don't do it. Don't Attack Iran

    Signed by: Mark Belkin, Lakewood Ira Chernus, Boulder Alan Gilbert, Conifer Irving Greenbaum, Boulder Cheryl Kasson, Denver Denny Linn, Vail Sheila Linn, Vail Leslie Lomas, Boulder Barbara Millman, Lakewood Rob Prince, Denver Vicki Rottman, Denver Barry Sharoff, Denver Juliet Wittman, Boulder Evan Weismann, Denver Posted by denver-admin at 12:01 AM | Comments (10) | TrackBack

    The price of freedom is high

    By Jeff Crank

    Last week, as the Congress postured over the President's plan to increase troop strength in Iraq, I asked an Army Sergeant that I ran into at a restaurant about his views of the President's plan. His answer was simple and straight to the point - the price of freedom is high.

    This Speakout has not been edited

    By Jeff Crank

    Last week, as the Congress postured over the President's plan to increase troop strength in Iraq, I asked an Army Sergeant that I ran into at a restaurant about his views of the President's plan. His answer was simple and straight to the point - the price of freedom is high.

    The Sergeant, home from his second tour in Iraq said, "There is a price to freedom, sir and I have seen it paid. Americans have forgotten what brought us to this place."

    What "brought us to this place" was not a rush to judgment nor a President that lied. It was, plain and simple, terror brought to our doorstep. It was the intelligence estimates of Russia, France, Great Britain, Israel, Germany and the Clinton Administration that estimated Saddam to be a growing threat.

    To be sure the situation in Iraq is difficult and, without a doubt, mistakes have been made in the strategy and execution of this war. But mistakes in war planning should not make Americans lose sight of the overall strategic goal in the global war on terror - just ask our Sergeant.

    Amazingly, Democrats and some Republicans in Congress have decided that they are willing to cut and run on the President and in so doing, cut and run on our soldiers. Many Democrats and some misnamed Republicans like Senator Chuck Hagel (a true decorated war hero) have sold out our mission in Iraq just to be seen as independent by the media elite.

    Sadly, these political opportunists send out press releases contradicting the advice of our military commanders all the while forgetting that it wasn't the President that committed us to the battle in Iraq - it was the Congress. The House voted overwhelmingly 296-133 to authorize the use of force. 81 House Democrats joined in support. The Senate voted 77-23 to send our troops into battle in Iraq. 29 Senate Democrats voted yes. That action - not President Bush giving the go order - committed us to this conflict. Iraq was not a partisan issue then - it has only been two election cycles since that have made it so.

    While they preach about the perceived failures of the Administration, it might do us some good to review how these pontificators-in-chief voted. While we all know that John Kerry voted for the war before he voted against it, other leading Democrats were a little more straight-forward: Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Harry Reid, Chris Dodd, Steny Hoyer and John Murtha all voted to send our troops into Iraq. And what about the Republican critics? John Warner - Aye. Chuck Hagel - Aye. How cheap and politically convenient it must be for them to sell out our military and our Commander-in-Chief while hiding behind that Capitol dome.

    Right or wrong, the decision on Iraq has been made by the President and the Congress and any action which contradicts total and complete victory fails the men and women who wear the uniform.

    While Congressional leaders push each other out of the way to get to cameras, that action has an unintended effect - their constituents are swayed by this lack of support. Worse, insurgents in Iraq and terrorists in Afghanistan hang on every word. Every comment about withdrawal emboldens our enemy - especially when it comes from those in high places. Every Congressional call for withdrawal is gleefully greeted by the bomb makers fueling the insurgency. Al Qaeda is emboldened by the words of those wanting to turn this struggle of our generation into a squabble for political advantage.

    As our leaders bicker, Rome burns. America cannot take its eye off our most important goal- killing those radicals that want to kill us before they can do us harm. The world is a dangerous place and unless our enemies are destroyed the world reserved for our children and grand-children may become annihilated. The stakes are that high.

    Americans must redouble their efforts - no matter the adversity - in Iraq. Our Army Sergeant, those who volunteered to wear the uniform with him, our children, and our future as the land of the free depend on our ability to rise to a challenge as our fathers did before us and confront the evil of our time.

    Jeff Crank is currently the Vice President of Government Sales for XAware Corporation and is a former candidate for Congress in Colorado's 5th Congressional District. He also served on Congressional staff for eight years in Washington, DC. Posted by denver-admin at 12:01 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

    Approaching the Electoral College

    By Lonnie Meder, Thornton

    On February 24, RMN published a Speakout by Bill Blomberg (Electoral balancing act, by the numbers) attempting to tie Electoral College votes to "Taxation without Representation". I have never read a more convoluted, illogical approach to this issue.

    This Speakout has not been edited

    By Lonnie Meder, Thornton

    On February 24, RMN published a Speakout by Bill Blomberg (Electoral balancing act, by the numbers) attempting to tie Electoral College votes to "Taxation without Representation". I have never read a more convoluted, illogical approach to this issue. Mr. Blomberg compares the populations of California and Wyoming to the US population, indicating that California's percentage of total population makes them under represented in the Electoral College by 18% and Wyoming over represented by 300%.

    To address this, he recommends increasing taxes on the "over represented" states by the percentage they are "over represented", and decreasing taxes in the "under represented" states in a similar manner. He tries to link taxes to the Electoral College representation, AND the Electoral College to Colorado Senate Bill 46.

    He then goes on to DECLARE that, "In our republic, representation is a zero-sum game". I question whether Mr Blomberg understands the difference between a Republic and a DIRECT Democracy.

    Sorry, but NOTHING in our republic is "zero-sum". If taxes were zero-sum, there would be only ONE rate for rich and poor, people without kids in school would not be paying taxes for schools, and there would be no highways across mid America for the liberals in California to reach their liberal kin in New York. Whenever representation of a diverse society with diverse conditions is involved, Zero-sum goes out the window.

    There's a reason Mr Blomberg's numbers come out the way they do. The US congress is composed of the House (which is population driven) and the Senate, (which is NOT). The Electoral College representation is based on TOTAL representatives in the Congress. Perhaps Mr Blomberg would eliminate the Senate in order to make everything zero-sum.

    There were reasons the founding fathers created the congress this way. In the Senate, it decreases the bullying potential of large states, and at the same time, gives them the advantages in the House. We in effect, get the ADVANTAGES of BOTH conditions. This is reflected in the Electoral College. It's called "checks and balances".

    In Mr Blomberg's convoluted approach, he states that today, Colorado has 1.53 % of the US population and 1.67 % of the representation in the Electoral College, and should therefore pay a 9.2 percent surcharge on Federal taxes for its "surplus representation".

    Even his math was incorrect. If Colorado has 1.53% of the total population, then, in order to have zero-sum, we should only have 1.53 % of the Electoral College. But if we have 1.67% of the representation, then we are only 0.14 % "over represented", not the 9.2% Mr. Blomberg suggested. I just remembered again why I don't trust liberals with taxing policy.

    Also in his Speakout, he refers to the Electoral College as being an "18th century compromise, as though coming from the 18th century automatically makes the Electoral College an outdated environment, and therefore to be eliminated. Well, the House, Senate, and Constitution were 18th century decisions too. Perhaps, we should do away with them.

    Mr. Blomberg also attempted to imply that Colorado Senate Bill 46 was a right step to fixing the Electoral College.

    In declaring state term limits for federal representatives unconstitutional, the Supreme Court noted that, to sustain such a policy, would result in "a patchwork of state qualifications". Further, the consequences were inconsistent with "the uniformity and national character that the framers sought to insure".

    These same judgments also apply to Senate Bill 46 when you consider that, this bill simply gives our electoral votes to whoever the rest of the nation elected by popular vote, in spite of the corruption in other states that affect popular votes. Also, the other states will continue with their winner take all philosophy.

    If there are to be changes in the Electoral College, the only legitimate way to do so is by a US constitutional amendment. That way ALL states can provide input to it and debate it thoroughly.

    It ain't broke folks ---- don't "fix" it!!!! Posted by denver-admin at 12:01 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

    • [an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive]
    [an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive]