April 2007 | Main | June 2007
By Robert W. Steller, Larkspur
Coyotes can be more than just a pest. The Department of Wildlife reported that coyotes destroy at least twenty-five percent of the deer fawn crop every spring and a higher percentage regarding the pronghorn populaton.
This Speakout has not been edited
By Robert W. Steller, Larkspur
Coyotes can be more than just a pest. The Department of Wildlife reported that coyotes destroy at least twenty-five percent of the deer fawn crop every spring and a higher percentage regarding the pronghorn populaton. Wildlife has a difficult time enough these days with winter feeding grounds turning into high density housing and shopping plazas before our very eyes.
Coyotes not only kill and eat small dogs and most cats they have been know to bite children.
Packs have killed large dogs and have been know to bring down elk. Colorado State University, has just informed us that dogs can pick up a serious respiratory disease from coyote feces. Don’t tell a sheep rancher you love coyotes.
Twenty five years ago coyote pelts brought up to two-hundred and fifty dollars a pelt. Ranches and hunters hunted them every which way they could including via snowmobiles. Hundreds of coyotes were killed and the next year “there were just as many back!". A coyote bitch can have a litter before it is a year old and can have two litters a year. The more the coyote population is reduced the more prolific a breeder they become. The City should continue trapping.
Horses: To be slaughtered or not slaughtered? We own six horses and by our veterinarian maintainance bills we can attest they are well taken care of. When we have a good hay crop we also give hundreds of bales to the local Equine Rescue Mission. We love our horses and use them. However with fuel and hay prices being at record levels many owners cannot afford to keep them. These same factors have depressed the horse market so horses today are difficult to sell.
In just the last month the Douglas County Sheriffs Department has had to rescue three farms of horses in the Black Forest area alone. These horses were starving to death. If an owner cannot feed their horses nor sell them they have two alternatives. Starve them to death or have them humanely enthanized. As sad as it is a humane death at a slaughter house is preferred over the abusive, agonizing and inhumane death of starvation.
Posted by denver-admin at 12:01 AM
| Comments (1)
| TrackBack
The Inconvenient Truths About Gas Prices
By Robert Hardaway
Few politicians can resist the urge to exploit consumer angst over gasoline prices, and thereby deflect where the blame certainly lies — with them.
Here are 10 things the politicians won’t tell you.
This Speakout has not been edited
By Robert Hardaway
Few politicians can resist the urge to exploit consumer angst over gasoline prices, and thereby deflect where the blame certainly lies — with them.
Here are 10 things the politicians won’t tell you:
1. At over $3.00 a gallon, the U.S. inflation-adjusted price for gasoline in May 2007 is now less than it was in 1981, a remarkable decrease in price over a 25 year period during which real prices in other sectors, such as health and education have tripled and quadrupled.
2. This decline in the price of gasoline since 1981 is enjoyed almost exclusively in the U.S. In most other developed counties in the world, the price of gas is at least double what Americans pay. Consumers in the Netherlands now pay an average of $7.77 gallon, while those in Great Britain pay over $7 and consider it a bargain.
3. The gross profit margins of the major oil companies is far less than that for many other sectors, such as beverages, electrical equipment, chemicals, and computers.
4. At present gas prices, the major oil companies make a profit of between 10 cents and 12 cents a gallon. (If you really think that’s a lot, buy the stock; but most people feel investing in oil companies is a pretty risky business-witness the devastating losses oil company investors lost during the 1980’s).
5. At present prices, combined federal and state government profit (i.e. taxes) on each gallon of gas is 28-68 cents a gallon, depending on which state you live in. Pelosi’s San Francisco enjoys tacking on an extra 26 cents bite.
6. As a result of gas prices in the U.S. which are less than half that in much of the industrialized world, gasoline consumption in the U.S.
7. Oblivious to, and largely insulated from the $7-8 per gallon consumers in other industrialized countries now pay, energy-greedy Americans continue to buy such gas guzzling behemoths as Hummers and SUV’s at a feverish pace.
8. If government singled out oil companies for a confiscatory 50% profit surcharge, it is tempting to think that the price of gas might decline by up to 6 cents a gallon, say from $3.38 a gallon to $3.31 a gallon; in fact, gas prices would soar, as investors would no longer capitalize oil companies (turning instead to industries with higher profits, such as beverages and cigarettes). The oil companies would then either have to cut back exploration (Exxon alone has invested $15 billion in new capital investments) or go out of business, thus causing supplies to tighten and prices to skyrocket.
9. Crude oil prices, which make up 90% of the total cost of running gas refineries, are set by the international market of supply and demand, which fluctuates hourly, and not by private companies; while the major oil producing countries can form cartels (such as OPEC) which can set prices at higher than a free market, these countries are not subject to U.S. antitrust laws.
10. If government is serious about both curbing oil company profits as well as curbing U.S. reliance on foreign oil, the only way to do it is the way the Europeans do it: a gasoline tax that raises the pump price of gas to about $8. And that’s one thing you can be sure the politicians will never, ever tell you.
Robert Hardaway is Professor of Law at the University of Denver Sturm College of Law, and the author of “Population, Law, and the Environment” (Greenwood Press).
Posted by denver-admin at 12:01 AM
| Comments (11)
| TrackBack
Standing up for our kids
By Micaiah Evinger-Gould, Sterling
I am a frustrated parent. I am looking for answers and support. I have a sophomore in the Sterling High School, and 2 children in Caliche Elementary. I have expressed my concerns with the Superintendent. It has been a week and there are no answers or resolutions.
This Speakout has not been edited
By Micaiah Evinger-Gould, Sterling
I am a frustrated parent. I am looking for answers and support. I have a sophomore in the Sterling High School, and 2 children in Caliche Elementary. I have expressed my concerns with the Superintendent. It has been a week and there are no answers or resolutions. My son has been attending the High School for almost 2 years. We are not new to the community. I am a graduate of a Re 1 valley school and long time resident of Logan county.
My Son , is not an honor roll student or a star athlete. He is just my Son. A pretty normal 16 year old. Not an angel by any means. He is a typical teenager that likes to test his parents and make immature decisions. My Son has had his share of teenage woes.
He has learned a great deal about life in the last year. He has learned it is hard to respect those that, show you no respect. He has learned about honesty and betrayal. He has learned intimidation, embarrassment and harassment. All at the hands of those who have already passed judgment.
He has been in trouble with the School on a couple of occasions. Which is very concerning. One of the occasions was lack of communication. The school speculated for several months he was getting himself into trouble. Not once did they contact us. We were never given an opportunity to try and rectify the situation. Only when he was caught with undeniable proof, I was notified. At which point it was no longer in my control.
That is a major concern to me. As a parent I try to teach my children respect and dignity. There are the times they listen and sometimes they don’t.
They have learned and try to put to use some of lives valuable tools. It is very hard to instill these values when people have forgotten them.
Some of our schools have staff that play favorites, for many reasons. Then there are those kids that are singled out because they are different. Then you have students that rub the staff the wrong way. It feels as if some of the staff has already given up on the ones that challenge them.
My Son has been singled out and discriminated against. He always tells me how he was treated a certain way, at school. I tell him that it is impossible! “They do not discriminate in schools especially here!” But on the day he had broke the dress code, I saw it first hand. I had watched more than a handful of girls wearing skirts and shorts that did not pass the dress code. All passing members of staff.
No action was taken. I picked him from school that day and watched them come out wearing the same things from the morning.
My son did question the staff member he told my son, he does not have time to stop everyone who violates the dress code. Some might say that short skirts and shorts are easy on the eye to some people. As a parent I find it appalling and offensive. Why is it the staff can pick and choose who follows the rules. If the rules apply to one they should apply to all.
I hope that this opens the eyes of those who have done wrong. I hope they see that education and educators should be fair and just to all. Rather than ignore a situation, try to resolve it. Don’t show favoritism.
One of the founding principals of education is the golden rule. Interpreting the golden rule: Treat others only in ways you are willing to be treated in the exact same situation. Now it is time to stand up for my children, because if I don’t who will?
Posted by denver-admin at 12:01 AM
| Comments (9)
| TrackBack
Can we get ahead of gang recruiting?
By Steve Schweitzberger, Littleton
If it took this long to take “threats” seriously at schools and on trains, when will we get ahead of gang recruitment? I saw an excellent speech by William Leone to the Denver City Club.
This Speakout has not been edited
By Steve Schweitzberger, Littleton
If it took this long to take “threats” seriously at schools and on trains, when will we get ahead of gang recruitment? I saw an excellent speech by William Leone to the Denver City Club. It was from Feb. 13th but I just saw it last week on KBDI. Have they begun to shuffle programming? Halleluiah.
Friday I attended a “gang forum". The guest speaker was the politician who bumped Leone...Troy Eid of Federal justice. He spoke after Terrance Roberts did. Troy didn’t recognize me.
Eid could not answer my question about gangs in prisons, it’s more a “state and county jail” issue he said, because by the time federal prison is involved, felons serve long sentences and age has it’s effect on gang recidivism. Leone had talked about 100,000 (yes one hundred thousand) prisoners released every year in Colorado, and they virtually all have gang ties after incarceration (survival) even if they had not when they went it! Leone said prison administrators actually encourage gangs to help with discipline...confirmed by a lady at the forum who talked personally with me about her experience as a former prison administrator.
How in the hell are we supposed to counter gangs-recruiting in prisons? Is the outreach of gangs in prisons how a prisoner can reach out and kill a Denver Bronco? Hey, they sit in a cell running their in-prison gang, but releasing 100,000 members who owe them big time, and have to perform services if they want the same gang as their resource on the outside? Gangs provide a source of income (who else hires the ex-con?) and they provide lawyers for their members to help protect the illegal activities which provide the income. A discussion of Latino vs. Mexicano also explained why illegal immigrants join gangs in large numbers, “gangs don’t care about papers", says Cisco.
You should see the City Club speech or interview Leone. I wonder if it was his comment about “gay marriage” that got him bounced by the Bush administration. Yeah right. Talk also with Ciso Gallardo if you can handle the truth about immigrant issues.
I collected several e-mail contacts and if you want more I can share them without explaining why. Or you can contact the sponsor of the forum...Ralph Rojas Jr. at rrojasjr@mscd.edu
The “gang forum” was all day at Arapahoe College...cost me a c-note (I told them they should have paid me) to attend...and provided a look at political issues and the work ethic of some lackeys from government who have a gazillion excuses why they are not doing their assignments. You should have been a fly on the wall when graffiti came up because of the RMN photo of Hickenlooper (and graffiti on city property) where the 2-year old drown. Excuse me?
My highlight was being “outed” by speaker Terrance Roberts. Boy does he tell truths. I wore a Hawaiian shirt and thought I was incognito (there are so many gang colors that I didn’t know how else to dress). There were three Hawaiian shirts in the crowd...hmmm...and a few “badges” carrying guns openly. I appreciated the security. I met a really good cop from the Springs. Met a really bitchy representative from the City of Denver. Not a single politician who received copy of Upon Further Review has yet responded to acknowledge receipt of my work.
The Broncos were respectful at least (Dave Abrams their security chief). Call me incorrect.
Is drug-user suicide-gonzo Hunter Thompson still an icon? Gotta love selective law enforcement. Has SWAT knocked on any doors recently in Aspen, Telluride, or Vail..."oh my".
Posted by denver-admin at 12:01 AM
| Comments (2)
| TrackBack
Fixing broken health care system
By Representative Claire Levy, House District 13
The legislature created a commission in 2006 to solicit and evaluate proposals to reform Colorado’s health care and health insurance system. You can review the submittals at www.colorado.gov/208commission. The legislature is expected to enact major health care reform legislation 2008.
This Speakout has not been edited
By Representative Claire Levy, House District 13
The legislature created a commission in 2006 to solicit and evaluate proposals to reform Colorado’s health care and health insurance system. You can review the submittals at www.colorado.gov/208commission. The legislature is expected to enact major health care reform legislation 2008.
Here are some of the factors we must keep in mind as we consider health insurance reform. First, with 770,000 Coloradans uninsured, a similar number underinsured, and many more financially strained by their current health insurance costs, radical changes are necessary. The number of people who receive health insurance benefits from their employer continues to decrease, throwing an increasing number of people into the prohibitively expensive individual market, or into the ranks of the uninsured.
The health care costs of the 770,000 who are currently uninsured don’t just go away. People get sick even if they have no insurance. Uncollectible bills are recouped by adding an average of $930 to the annual premium of those who have health insurance.
Our health care dollars must go farther by putting more of what we spend into providing care. The United States spends approximately 16% of its gross domestic product on health care. Other industrialized western nations spend far less, yet our health indicators lag behind theirs. As much as 20 to 25% goes to insurance company overhead, and an additional 12% is spent by doctors and hospitals to process insurance papers and sort out what benefits are available under the many different plans. As much as one-third of the premium dollars spent in the private sector do not go towards health care.
Our current system burdens businesses in the private sector with costs that are unrelated to the goods and services they provide. Employers who provide health insurance spend approximately $8500 per employee for family coverage, while the employee spends $3000.
Employers incur administrative costs in the form $57 per employee for staff to analyze benefit plans and administer their benefits packages. The cost to employers of providing health insurance currently operates as an 8% payroll tax.
Companies that do provide health insurance are at a competitive disadvantage as compared to those that do not. It also places American companies at a competitive disadvantage compared to the other major industrialized nations.
Health insurance can be provided without devoting dollars to activities whose purpose is to maximize profit rather than make people healthy. The Medicare system spends 3.10% of its costs on administrative expenses. Non-profit Blue Cross and Blue Shield companies spend 16.30% on administrative expenses. Twenty to twenty-five percent of what commercial carriers collect in premiums is spent on advertising, screening out unhealthy applicants, executive compensation, shareholder profit, and paying a staff whose job is to second guess doctors and deny benefits. This spending saves money for the health insurance company and increases profit. But the cost of health care for those who are denied coverage is shifted to the taxpaying public or to the premiums of those who have coverage.
An employer based benefits system disrupts the labor market and hampers competition. Employees who have health insurance benefits are reluctant to change jobs for fear of losing their coverage or seeing an increase in cost. Health insurance considerations may prevent them from fully utilizing their potential in a different job and unproductive employees stay on the payroll because of medical issues. Employers may not hire the best candidate for the job due to concerns about increased health insurance costs, or may not expand because of the cost of additional benefits. Companies that cannot afford to provide insurance may lose out on the most experienced, talented employees. In a myriad of ways, health insurance drives employment and business decisions.
So what is to be done? We must begin with the premise that health care is a basic human right. We implicitly acknowledge this already by the substantial government funded programs that provide health care to children, the elderly, poor and disabled.
Hospitals must provide emergency treatment to anyone who needs it. Our laws, policies and ethics require treatment yet our health care financing system is not built to deliver it.
We must decouple employment and health insurance. Whether one is self-employed or works part time, whether one’s employer chooses to offer health insurance, and what insurance plans one’s employer selects should not determine whether a person can afford health care.
Employers should be focused on providing goods and services.
Our system must put health care dollars into health care and allow doctors to focus on medicine. Reducing administration costs to the 16% spent by non-profit insurance companies would save $982 per person. Reducing these costs to the level of Medicare or the Veterans Administration would save still more. Eliminating the staff hospitals and physicians dedicate to claims administration would free up even more dollars. The money saved on administration and profit could cover all of the uninsured and enhance the coverage provided by basic plans.
Last, we must acknowledge that governments, employers and individuals already spend a substantial sum of money on health care. If we spend that money according to a broad comprehensive plan instead of filling gaps, we can achieve the goal of universal health insurance.
Posted by denver-admin at 12:01 AM
| Comments (19)
| TrackBack
Selling out our children's future
By Darrell D.B. Damschen, Esq., Bennett
This Speakout has not been edited By Darrell D.B. Damschen, Esq., Bennett
Rosemary Jenks, Senior Analyst of the Center for Immigration Studies, a non-profit, non-partisan research institute established in 1985, said in recent House testimony “People understand that rewarding illegal behavior will inevitably produce more illegal behavior. If I were to steal car, for example, and a highway patrol office pulled me over and wrote me a $2,000 ticket for stealing the car, but then told I could keep the car, as long as I paid the ticket, there would be a lot more car thieves once the word got out about my good fortune. The officer’s actions would tell the public that the law against stealing cars is not taken seriously. The $2,000 ticket is simply a cost of doing business that will be built into decisions to break the law in the future.”
She further stated “The most helpful definition of amnesty I’ve seen is: Pardoning immigration lawbreakers and ‘rewarding them with the objective of their crimes.’ Thus, any legislation that rewards illegal aliens who came here for jobs by giving them a work permit is amnesty. It makes no difference whether they are granted temporary residence or green cards; whether they have to pay a fine or back taxes; whether they have to learn English and civics; or whether they have to ‘touch back’ across the border to launder their status. If the end result is that they get legal permission to work, it is amnesty.” What we are witnessing now is the representation by our government of foreign born peoples from all over the world, over and above the lawful citizens of this great country. Our fathers, brothers, sisters, sons and daughters have fought and died to protect our freedoms and our way of life. The Government they gave their lives and limbs for is now spitting on them by giving that country away.
In a May 17, 2007 press release the anti-illegal immigration group, NumbersUSA, decried the immigration deal announced by the Senate last week.
They say that the proposal would allow virtually all illegal aliens currently in the United States to remain and work in this country. In addition, it would raise legal importation of foreign workers over its already peak historical level. Over the next 13 years alone, they believe it would increase the current number of foreign-born green card holders from about 25 million (who arrived over 75 years) to around 50 million.
“The Senate negotiators would have us believe we can solve illegal immigration by rewarding it, and that we can deal with the American people’s sense of being overwhelmed by a 20-year flood of accelerated immigration by increasing the numbers still further,” said NumbersUSA Executive Director Roy Beck. “These Senators have sold out the American public and the rule of law by agreeing to craft such a disastrous bill that gives illegal aliens exactly what they broke the law to obtain — permission to live and work in the United States. Several of these negotiators ran for re-election on platforms promising not to legalize immigration lawbreakers or have promised constituents for months that they would never be part of this kind of amnesty. Their betrayal of trust was made official when they stood at the press conference this afternoon announcing the amnesty.”
In 1986 Senator Kennedy said, ‘This amnesty will give citizenship to only 1.1 to 1.3 million illegal aliens. We will secure the borders henceforth. We will never again bring forward another amnesty bill like this.’ Senator Kennedy lied to us then, and should not be trusted now. Attrition through enforcement is the only realistic way to deal with the 12 to 20 million illegal aliens currently in the United States. The Senate’s current proposal guarantees that the problem of illegal immigration will grow exponentially as it did after the 1986 amnesty. Call, write, e-mail and fax your Senators and Representatives right now; tomorrow may be too late.
Posted by denver-admin at 12:01 AM
| Comments (3)
| TrackBack
By Fr. Bill Carmody Respect Life Director Diocese of Colorado Springs
This Speakout has not been edited By Fr. Bill Carmody Respect Life Director Diocese of Colorado Springs
This was one of the issues the voters of Colorado rejected last November. Governor Ritter stated the day after the election that the people of Colorado have spoken and rejected ref. I and not to push it. The democrats in the House and senate ignored the Governor and more importantly ignored the will the people in Colorado and push gay adoption anyway. Then the governor goes back on his word and signs 1330. My question is this. Why Vote? Why express your views and then the governor and State legislature simply ignore the will of the people and push it down our throats anyway. Adoption agencies were opposed to this. Adoption agencies have worked for several years to screen applicants for adoption and insure the protection of our children. Their views were ignored by the Governor and State legislature. Now, simply by being gay trumps adoption agencies ability to protect children and find the best parents for children. This is a sad day for the State of Colorado.
1292 is so-called science-based sex education. It is basically the planned parenthood monopoly on public education. Abstinence only education was working in Colorado. The teen pregnancy rate was going down. More and more teens were waiting for sex. This is good news for Colorado and bad news for Planned Parenthood. Business was going down. Planned parenthood lobbied hard to get their monopoly back. Abstinence only education was so named by then President Clinton in 1996. It did not mean that contraceptives were not talked about. It simply demonstrated the failure of contraception and the only full proof method of protecting oneself from STD’s and pregnancy was abstinence. Abstinence only education is similar to DARE programs to prevent drug use among teenagers. It comes from an abstinence perspective and it teaches young people refusal skills and teaches them to stand up to peer pressure and do what is right. Abstinence education is the same. Now with the planned parenthood model of education, young people will be treated like animals in regard to their sexuality. The issue will not be refusal skills and saving oneself for marriage.
Rather, the message will be; you will have sex anyway just don’t get pregnant and do not get a STD.
What a sad day for our children and a great day for planned parenthood.
Governor Ritter stated he would govern from the center. He misled us. He is governing from the far left when it comes to family values and the gay agenda.
Posted by denver-admin at 12:01 AM
| Comments (6)
| TrackBack
By The Most Rev. Charles J. Chaput, archbishop of Denver
When you’re a priest for 37 years, you hear a lot of wild and angry comments. I don’t mean in confession. I mean right out in the open. For a lot of people, the current debate on immigration reform drills directly into the nerve of a bad tooth.
By The Most Rev. Charles J. Chaput, archbishop of Denver
When you’re a priest for 37 years, you hear a lot of wild and angry comments. I don’t mean in confession. I mean right out in the open. For a lot of people, the current debate on immigration reform drills directly into the nerve of a bad tooth. And what squirts out is an e-mail like this: “There is a special place in hell for you. (Expletive) you and your illegal, wetback church.”
That’s a real e-mail. I received it just last week, and it’s only one of many others just like it. I’ve received more unhinged, vindictive mail on immigration than any other issue in my decade as archbishop of Denver. The Native American part of me — I have Potawatomi blood on my late mother’s side — is always tempted to respond that “illegal immigration” has a very long and embarrassing tradition in this country. But that would achieve nothing. Name-calling, exaggeration and posturing are exactly what we don’t need in solving our country’s immigration problems.
Americans are right to worry about public security, jobs, respect for the law and the solvency of our public institutions. People who seek justice for immigrants sometimes downplay these worries, or write them off as veiled prejudice. This is a mistake. These are legitimate concerns and proper areas for debate. But they need to be weighed in light of other legitimate concerns.
Millions of undocumented workers already live here. They already contribute to American life. Most are innocent, hard-working people. They deserve more than a daily stream of overheated anxiety from talk show hosts. If we conduct the immigration debate in a stupid and thuggish way, we will get stupid and thuggish laws.
The immigration crisis will not go away by calling anyone names. It won’t disappear with drastic but ultimately impractical penalties and threats. Serious immigration reform will only come from intelligent, realistic compromise. That’s the job of our political leaders. Our elected officials, representing the interests of their constituents, need to seek common ground.
Colorado’s Sen. Ken Salazar and other leaders from both political parties have taken the right course in advancing the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007 (S. 1348) as an immigration-reform compromise. The compromise is not ideal. The senators who support this legislation have taken ferocious heat from both sides of the debate. But S. 1348 does push a vital reform process forward.
Many groups, including the American Catholic bishops, oppose some elements of the current legislation and hope for changes during the legislative discussion. Nonetheless, the Senate debate on immigration, which will continue into early June, is the start of the reform effort, not the end of it. It should be welcomed and supported in that light. We can’t keep saying we have an urgent problem, and then do nothing about it.
The current Senate legislation is not an amnesty. It is not a giveaway. It provides no quick and easy road to citizenship. It does not ignore U.S. security concerns. It is a rigorous bill that would, nonetheless, regularize the status of more than 12 million persons.
The legislation would also expedite the processing of many family members who have been waiting to join their loved ones for as long as 20 years. This would improve the lives of millions of our fellow human beings. It would also serve the needs of the American economy.
While areas of the proposed legislation do arguably need improvement, S. 1348 is a promising start.
Immigration reform needs to happen this year, since no one will be eager to handle it in an election year. We can no longer wait to address this pressing issue. Delaying a solution will only lead to more enforcement raids, bitter debate, confusion and resentment.
We need to get past the tribalism that makes the immigration issue so explosive and, at the same time, so intractable The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007 deserves our support.
Posted by denver-admin at 12:01 AM
| Comments (37)
| TrackBack
By Stacey French
This Speakout has not been edited By Stacey French
I am dismayed by the current attack on my profession. I chose to work for Denver because I felt I could do the most good in an urban district. In addition to my teaching responsibilities, I also deal with many societal issues as well. Last week I had a student who was shot in the back in a gang related incident. Her mother will be going to jail in June for an accessory to murder charge and she will be left homeless because her father is also incarcerated. Another student was threatened with a gun on the way to school. J. came to me because his mother picks him up drunk and he doesn't know what to do as he doesn't want his mother to get in trouble. E. is a junior who is here illegally and doesn't see why he should finish school when his opportunities for college and a legitimate job are limited.
I am not complaining, I knew what I was getting into when I chose this school district. What I did not realize is how forcefully I would be attacked; by the media, superintendent, and city for doing my job to the best of my ability. I can only teach students who come ready to learn. This does not mean that they must have a perfect home life, but they need to have the built in resiliency to realize the importance of school. Try as I may to teach them, students cannot learn when they come to school stoned everyday, especially with parental support and supply. They cannot grasp subject material when they don't come to school on a regular basis because they are taking family trips, translating for family members at court hearings, or would rather hang out on the street. Students won't succeed on CSAP's when they see more profit in drug dealing than in an education and are only attending school to make connections to further their illegal careers. Students can learn when they come to school ready to accept my help in overcoming their difficulties and realizing the importance of their education.
The superintendent has said DPS teachers have received a 21% raise in the last couple of years. I guess I must be the exception but basic then I realized how statistics can be manipulated. The fact remains that with my graduate degree and seven years of service I would receive the following in other school districts compared to my salary in DPS.
DPS — $42,877
Cherry Creek — $48,905
Douglas County — $47,053
Aurora — $47,067
Jeffco — $46,449
Adams County 50 — $53,500
This does not include the fact that I would top out at a much higher salary. The district has offered the cost of living allowance but after paying my increase in health care costs, it leaves me with a 1.44% raise, This is 53.58 dollars per month which barely covers the gas increase and does not compare to salaries in other districts. I want to stay in Denver but when do I put my children's financial security first?
While ignoring the social and family contributions to a child's educational experience, Denver Public Schools is sculpting an environment where creative, affective teachers are going to other districts that appreciate their service and pay them accordingly. Unfortunately, the bad teachers will be left behind. I left a successful job in policing to help students rather than throw them in jail. I knew I would never become rich in this job, but I would like pay comparable to other districts.
Posted by denver-admin at 12:01 AM
| Comments (7)
| TrackBack
By Al Gold, Executive Director Colorado Rural Housing Development Corporation
Another growing season has arrived in Colorado, and with it hundreds of hard-working individuals and families who work long, exhausting days to plant, cultivate and harvest our crops.
This Speakout has not been edited By Al Gold, Executive Director Colorado Rural Housing Development Corporation
Another growing season has arrived in Colorado, and with it hundreds of hard-working individuals and families who work long, exhausting days to plant, cultivate and harvest our crops.
Colorado is largely a rural state, and migrant farm workers are the backbone of the rural economy. They're part of the reason Colorado is among the top 10 states for producing agricultural products such as apples, peaches, pears, sweet corn and onions.
Agriculture contributes nearly $16 billion annually to our economy, according to the Colorado Department of Agriculture.
Many of our crops grow in southern Colorado's San Luis Valley - the largest and highest alpine valley in the world capable of producing controlled crops.
The San Luis Valley also is home to the nation's largest and most innovative migrant farm worker housing developments - Tierra Nueva in the town of Center and Tierra Nueva II in Alamosa. Together, they provide safe, affordable homes for hundreds of migrant workers and their families.
This helps stabilize Colorado's farm worker population in an increasingly tight labor market.
In many parts of the country, farm workers migrate from place to place because of deplorable living conditions. They spend the growing season sleeping on cardboard mattresses or in cars as they search for a decent place to live while they work.
A lack of adequate housing impacts the availability of labor, resulting in the loss of millions of dollars to farmers and the economies they support.
That's not the case in the San Luis Valley, where the Colorado Rural Housing Development Corporation's nationally recognized Tierra Nueva neighborhoods help stabilize the migrant farm worker population, the local economy and the entire community.
Here, employers have a reliable source of farm workers who return season after season because of stable living conditions. And, many farm workers with families now stay year-round instead of leaving for the winter.
This means business owners don't have to spend additional dollars re-training workers each growing season, and farm workers can live with dignity.
The unique housing developments are a place to call home. They are well-designed and well-maintained. In fact, Tierra Nueva holds a distinguished American Institute of Architects national award for superior design achievement.
It also is the only farm worker housing showcased in a Washington D.C. exhibit at the National Building Museum for demonstrating that low-cost housing doesn't have to mean low-quality housing and that good design benefits residents and the broader community.
For example, Tierra Nueva features Saguache County's first daycare facility. It also has a county nurse's office and a community center that offers a computer learning lab and financial literacy classes. And, the popular Azteca de Oro restaurant, with its authentic Mexican food buffet for $7 a person, helps the community embrace farm workers - encouraging them to sit side-by-side as part of a solid community to which everyone contributes.
CRHDC, a member of the nationwide NeighborWorks network of organizations that revitalize communities across America, participates in the NeighborWorks rural initiative to enhance housing and economic development in rural areas. In its first five years, the rural initiative generated more than $1 billion in investment in rural communities across America.
With more than 500 units of migrant farm worker housing in Colorado, CRHDC has helped create a stable work force for local farmers facing a stretched labor market by providing safe, affordable living conditions for farm workers and their families.
Here's food for thought. Colorado farm workers and ranchers help feed the world, exporting nearly $900 million in products. It's a good investment - in capital and humanity - to provide them a decent place to lay their heads at night.
Al Gold is the executive director of the Colorado Rural Housing Development Corporation in Westminster, Colo. - a member of the national NeighborWorks network. He grew up in the San Luis Valley, is the son of migrant farm workers and attended the University of Colorado on a scholarship for children of farm workers.
Housing for farm workers
Posted by denver-admin at 12:01 AM
| Comments (4)
| TrackBack
By Michael P. Mazenko, Greenwood Village
While criticizing the inadequacy of public education, John Stossel recently said he'd "give Rocky Mountain News readers $100 if they can tell [him] one thing the government does better than the private sector."
This Speakout has not been edited By Michael P. Mazenko, Greenwood Village
While criticizing the inadequacy of public education, John Stossel recently said he'd "give Rocky Mountain News readers $100 if they can tell [him] one thing the government does better than the private sector."
In all fairness, I enjoy Stossel, but where should I start?
The most obvious answer is national defense. No private sector militia could more effectively defend the United States. Would the private sector have been able to assemble the forces currently fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq? To quote Bill O'Reilly, "that's ridiculous." Not even Grover Norquist, who wants to "shrink government until it's small enough to drown in the bathtub," would eliminate the nation's military.
Having enjoyed numerous episodes of Stossel's "Myths, Lies, and Stupidity," I understand and agree with his core philosophy. The government is too big, too corrupt, and too expensive. Being fiscally conservative, I regularly lament Alaskan "bridges to nowhere" and other examples of bureaucratic disasters. However, the government is best at providing not-for-profit services such as fire protection. I support volunteer fire departments, but no private organization could replace tax-supported firefighters.
Additionally, Stossel cannot rationally argue that private security forces - the likes of which patrol malls and gated communities - could adequately replace police departments. Interstate highway construction, nuclear energy regulation, NASA, The Clean Water Act, the Center for Disease Control, and the National Institute of Health are other examples of effective government.
As America's original libertarian Henry David Thoreau said, "I ask not at once for no government, but for a better government."
Sadly, Mr. Stossel did a poor job of paraphrasing a statement Rush Limbaugh made twenty years ago in his book "The Way Things Ought to Be." Limbaugh was astute enough to say "excepting the military, name one government program that has worked and alleviated the problem it was created to solve." Stossel should at least give credit when he borrows his material.
Stossel's comment was made in criticism of American public education. It's easy to blame ineffective government for that. Anyone who has seen Stossel's special "Stupid in America" knows he provides ample evidence of absurd inadequacies in schools nationwide. His examination of the New York City public school's union contract is enough to make me lose faith in the system, and I'm a teacher.
The problem is Stossel's generalizations. No one can reasonably argue that "public education does not work." Consider Cherry Creek High School. By all accounts - including comments from real estate agents who say parents regularly limit their housing searches to the surrounding neighborhoods - Cherry Creek is an extremely successful public school. Additionally, I have friends and family who attended New Trier High School and Stevenson High School in the Chicago suburbs. Anyone from Chicago knows there's nothing wrong with "public education" in those neighborhoods. I've had students transfer to schools like Scanton College Prep in Jacksonville, Florida.
Readers of Newsweek's Best High Schools list will recognize that one. All of these schools, as well as thousands of others, are phenomenal public schools.
These schools are not failures of a government program. Nor do they support the belief that teacher's unions and tenure are the reasons that public schools fail. Obviously, the success or failure of a school isn't simply linked to public funding. Sadly, the issue is far more complex than that.
Thus, Stossel does his profession a disservice by oversimplifying such an important issue in American society. He is guilty of such obvious flawed logic that my AP Language students would enjoy deconstructing his argument.
I am all for social criticism. Teaching novels of social criticism is a fundamental component of my job. However, I am also a teacher of critical thinking. In that respect, Stossel fails as badly as many of the programs he criticizes.
Mr. Stossel, you can make the check out to Michael P. Mazenko, and you can send it care of Cherry Creek High School.
Posted by denver-admin at 12:01 AM
| Comments (1)
| TrackBack
By Harry Puncec, Lakewood
What do you say when words aren't enough? The question struck me with force when I turned away from the clerk at the Post Office to find a neighbor standing there. In an instant I recalled her adult daughter living in California had committed suicide just before Christmas, and this was the first time I had seen her since before the tragedy. Without thinking I went up to her, looked into her eyes, and said lamely, "I'm so sorry to hear about your daughter".
This Speakout has not been edited By Harry Puncec, Lakewood
What do you say when words aren't enough? The question struck me with force when I turned away from the clerk at the Post Office to find a neighbor standing there. In an instant I recalled her adult daughter living in California had committed suicide just before Christmas, and this was the first time I had seen her since before the tragedy. Without thinking I went up to her, looked into her eyes, and said lamely, "I'm so sorry to hear about your daughter".
"Thank you! I know you know what we're going through," she replied.
She was right. Our 21-year-old son had been killed in a flying accident 18 years ago and he had gone to Bear Creek High School about the same time as her daughter. For one of those extremely rare moments in my life I was grateful that I too was a member of the Shot-in-the-Heart Society. I did understand.
After a hug we began to talk about the shared experience while I looked closely at her to see how she was doing - really doing. I saw the pain, the beginning of a tear in the corner of an eye, but also a special melancholy strength. She had taken a few of those shaky first steps down the path of survival, and I felt she had a chance.
Later I thought about how the language of grief and comforting is often the language of religion. You "pray" for them, you assure them that their child is in "heaven", and you recall the soothing words of the 23rd Psalm. Even those without great insight rely on it when they say, "God needed another angel". We use those words because they express feeling so profound and deep that nothing else works.
In truth how can anyone say that the departed is in a better place when we'd rather not go there ourselves right now? Can we speak of the abyss of darkness and despair experienced by the survivors when we see only the sun?
Those ritualistic words handed down for centuries and spoken from the alter offer a safe haven from our own feelings of fear, the dread that our time is coming.
So what else can you say? For one thing the name of the deceased has become precious. The individual is gone but the wake of their life still ripples across the lake of our experiences. Use their name. Savor their name.
Immortalize their name.
Recall experiences. It's okay to discover after their death that everyone knew that they had snuck out the family car to visit their girl friend, and in the process dinged the front quarter panel. You can laugh - yes, laughing is permitted - when you remember how innocent they looked when you discovered the damage. It's not important that they pretended to be as mystified as you were over the mark. Everything is forgiven in death.
Touching works. The human touch has a language of its own. A firm handshake is fine but a handshake combined with a grasp of an elbow or forearm is better. A quick hug says one thing while a lingering one says much more. Touching with your eyes is perhaps the most intimate of all.
The word 'sorry' is only spoken from lips, but it is shouted by a direct and unblinking look into the eyes.
And then there's the language of silence. To listen as the pain spills out and you fight the urge to flee is the ultimate gift of support. Even if your heart is breaking, all you need to know is that what you are doing is the right thing. You don't have to have the answers; you only need to be there.
Posted by denver-admin at 12:01 AM
| Comments (1)
| TrackBack
By Sen. Wayne Allard
Memorial Day allows us the opportunity to reflect on the brave men and women throughout our nation's history who have made the ultimate sacrifice in order to preserve our freedoms.
This Speakout has not been edited By Sen. Wayne Allard
Memorial Day allows us the opportunity to reflect on the brave men and women throughout our nation's history who have made the ultimate sacrifice in order to preserve our freedoms. Undoubtedly, we would not be the great nation that we are today had it not been for those who answered the call to duty, fought and defeated our enemies. For their service and sacrifice, we as Americans are eternally grateful and I encourage every Coloradan to take the time this Memorial Day to honor our heroes.
Originally known as "Decoration Day," Memorial Day was recognized three years after the Civil War ended - May 5, 1868. The first large observance was held at Arlington National Cemetery where children decorated the graves of over 20,000 Union and Confederate soldiers buried on what is now some of America's most hollowed ground.
This year, I have the honor and privilege of spending Memorial Day on hollowed grounds in Europe. I will join Secretary of Veterans Affairs R. James Nicholson, Senator Larry Craig, the ranking member of the U.S. Senate Committee on Veterans Affairs, and other colleagues on a trip to pay respects to our fallen American service members buried in France, Luxemburg, and Italy. I will stand beside the graves of many Coloradans who sacrificed everything on the battlefields of Europe in World War I and World War II. In total, more than 100,000 American Soldiers, Sailors, Airman and Marines are buried in American cemeteries in Europe between the two wars. These heroes, who perished in order to keep the U.S. free of tyranny and whose actions defined the "greatest generation," never had the opportunity to make it home.
As I honor our veterans overseas, I ask that you join me this Memorial Day by honoring our veterans at home. I encourage all to visit the final resting places of our servicemen and women following in the Memorial Day tradition. Colorado has two National Veterans Cemeteries: Fort Logan National Cemetery in Denver and Ft. Lyon National Cemetery in Las Animas. Additionally, Colorado's State Veterans Cemeteries are located in Grand Junction and Monte Vista. With the combined efforts of Colorado's Congressional Delegation, we are fighting for and intend to bring a third National Cemetery to Colorado to the Pikes Peak Region. This cemetery would be a fitting tribute to those veterans who have given so much to the nation and to Colorado.
This Memorial Day, remember not only our fallen heroes, but all of our servicemen and women who fight for the freedoms that we enjoy today. Let us join together on "Decoration Day" and let America's bravest know how grateful we are for their sacrifices.
Posted by denver-admin at 12:01 AM
| Comments (2)
| TrackBack
By J. Greg Schnacke, Executive Vice President Colorado Oil & Gas Association
The recent request by Congressmen Mark Udall and John Salazar to stop the Bureau of Land Management from leasing the Naval Oil Shale Reserve (AKA Roan Plateau) will hurt Colorado gas consumers and deprive the State, its schools and local governments billions of dollars of leasing bonus payments, royalty revenue and production taxes if enacted by Congress.
This Speakout has not been edited By J. Greg Schnacke, Executive Vice President Colorado Oil & Gas Association
The recent request by Congressmen Mark Udall and John Salazar to stop the Bureau of Land Management from leasing the Naval Oil Shale Reserve (AKA Roan Plateau) will hurt Colorado gas consumers and deprive the State, its schools and local governments billions of dollars of leasing bonus payments, royalty revenue and production taxes if enacted by Congress. The public process that began in 2004 should be allowed to proceed and the carefully crafted plan to produce clean, low greenhouse effect natural gas while protecting the NOSR should be implemented.
This small part of the Roan Plateau, host to nearly 200 miles of existing roads, can and should be tapped for the enormous natural gas reserves that lie underneath. There is enough gas under the NOSR to heat every home in Colorado for the next quarter century.
COGA estimates that the lease bonus payment alone could generate up to $1 billion the year the Roan is leased. In addition, over $5 billion in royalties and production taxes could be realized over a thirty-year period ($166 million annually!), and the state would benefit through the economic impact of the substantial investment by the industry of over $11 billion dollars over the life of the project.
The plan, which will protect wildlife, views, and hunting, is the product of unprecedented public involvement and innovation. In summary, the plan calls for: No ground disturbance on 52 percent of the area and access restrictions on an additional 42 percent; Clustered development and directional drilling from common pads to reduce land disturbance with a density of well pads being only four per square mile; Phased drilling in only one of six designated areas at any given time. No drilling would be allowed in sensitive valley bottoms; Trout habitat and scenic waterfalls are off limits.
By limiting disturbance to just one percent of the total area, impacts to natural areas are extremely limited and successful reclamation is mandated.
After the natural gas is extracted, the NOSR can be restored and Colorado can have the benefit of domestic natural gas production while preserving the NOSR.
American energy consumers are already facing record energy costs, and our reliance on foreign sources of energy is impacting national security. Closer to home, over 100,000 households in Colorado alone required some type of energy assistance last year.
Further delay is not the answer when it is now proven that this development can occur in the most environmentally way achievable.
Posted by denver-admin at 12:01 AM
| Comments (0)
| TrackBack
By M Donahue, Boulder
The pro-nuclear puff piece ("A nuclear renaissance?" 5/19/07) compiled by Hereward Bradley effectively presented one side of the issue. It could not have been written better by the Nuclear Energy Institute, which in fact provided some of the information for the report.
This Speakout has not been edited By M Donahue, Boulder
The pro-nuclear puff piece ("A nuclear renaissance?" 5/19/07) compiled by Hereward Bradley effectively presented one side of the issue. It could not have been written better by the Nuclear Energy Institute, which in fact provided some of the information for the report.
Mr Bradley's wrap up of "the challenges ahead" contains wording that favors the nuclear power industry (I add emphasis): "nuclear power must REMAIN economically competitive..." "...current plants must CONTINUE to operate safely..." .
Based on this article, you'd never imagine that there is a valid, market-based reason that no one has ordered a new US nuclear power plant for over 30 years: nuclear power is very costly, polluting, and its proliferation jeopardizes our futures. This conclusion remains valid despite literally BILLIONS of dollars in ongoing federal subsidies given to private nuclear industries in an attempt to resuscitate this dinosaur.
Why doesn't Mr. Bradley mention that nuclear power is so unsafe that private, for-profit insurance companies will not touch it? It is we, the taxpayers, who have been forced to insure the entire nuclear industry against disastrous events. Our insurance coverage kicks in at a relatively low level and has NO upper limit. We taxpayers are thus on the hook to bail out these uninsurable private companies when their product fails, as it has in the past, and inevitably will again. (Google "Price Anderson Act" for further information about this odious form of corporate welfare).
Why doesn't Mr Bradley detail the fact that nuclear waste must be stored safe from leakage, terrorism, ground water, etc, for tens of thousands of years? Again, despite heavy federal subsidies, no safe storage site is even on the horizon.
Why doesn't Mr Bradley mention that a nuclear power plant, if ordered today, will not even come on line for a decade? That despite federal intervention to shortcut the safety reviews, and the taxpayers being forced to pay one-half the cost of the application process for these private, for-profit plants, no one has committed to building even one new nuclear power plant?
Why doesn't Mr Bradley mention the greenhouse gas release from uranium mining and processing (no less than the Better Business Bureau chastised the Nuclear Energy Institute over misleading advertisement on this issue)? Nor that the cheapest current sources of electrical energy are increased efficiency, and wind power?
Sadly, nuclear power lobbyists and PR firms speak to Congress -and to the Rocky's editors- louder than do citizen activists who, unlike the industry, have no profit motive in their attempt to save us all from costly, polluting mistakes.
Posted by denver-admin at 12:01 AM
| Comments (3)
| TrackBack
By Rep. John Kefalas, Rick VanWie and Julie Connor
Election Day is an important hallmark of freedom. Our democracy and our cities, counties and state are strengthened by the electorate expressing its will at the voting booth.
By Rep. John Kefalas, Rick VanWie and Julie Connor
Election Day is an important hallmark of freedom. Our democracy and our cities, counties and state are strengthened by the electorate expressing its will at the voting booth.
However, even this centerpiece of American liberty needs to be occasionally evaluated. Our elected officials should always be looking at ways to make voting more meaningful and effective while reducing costs to the taxpayers.
The recent elections in Denver point to the need for reform. Between the November 2006 election and the May 1, 2007, election, Denver citizens were asked to cast ballots three times. Additionally, in three City Council districts, electors will be asked to vote again in a runoff round.
Each of these elections costs the taxpayers money, while at the same time voter turnout decreases with each round.
One way to fix this problem is an advanced voting system called Instant Runoff Voting. With IRV there is no need for a second election.
IRV is easy for voters to use. Instead of only selecting one candidate in a contest where there are three or more candidates, the electors may rank them in order of preference. Tthe votes are tabulated, if any one candidate gets more than 50 percent of the vote, that person is declared the winner. If there is no majority winner, then the candidate who received the fewest votes is eliminated. For all of the electors who voted for the eliminated candidate as their first choice, their second choice is counted. This process guarantees a majority winner without a runoff, while still ensuring “one person, one vote.”
In partisan contests it can help prevent the “spoiler” effect when a third-party or unaffiliated candidate is running. IRV will allow such contenders to enrich the marketplace of ideas while addressing the “spoiler” effect.
Here in Colorado, a major effort to investigate how IRV and other advanced voting methods could be applied is about to begin. The 11-member, multipartisan Voter Choice Interim Task Force, chaired by Rep. John Kefalas Advanced voting methods can save taxpayer money and promote greater voter participation because they enfranchise voters by allowing them opportunities to vote their values and conscience. State and local governments across the U.S. are either studying advanced voting methods or adopting them, specifically IRV. Colorado is now part of this movement.
By Francis Wardle
Could today’s schools produce another Einstein?
As I read the new book on Einstein by Walter Isaacson, Einstein: His Life and Universe, I continually ask myself this question. As an educator By Francis Wardle
Could today’s schools produce another Einstein?
As I read the new book on Einstein by Walter Isaacson, Einstein: His Life and Universe, I continually ask myself this question. As an educator My conclusion, unfortunately, is no.
Not because of our current fixation on standards, incessant assessments and so-called accountability. It’s bigger than this: it’s Why did Einstein, a low-level bureaucrat working for the Swiss government, develop so many revolutionary ideas and theories (in 1905) when his compatriots in the most prestigious universities of N So, why was Einstein able to solve these problems and make such a giant leap in our scientific knowledge?
According to Isaacson, he did so because he was a visual, not a verbal or mathematical The educational implications of these factors are clear: Visual thinker. As a result of the federal No Child Left Behind Positivist philosophy. Einstein was a disciple of David Hume and other positivist philosophers whose philosophy grounded him in a healthy scientism that Practical experience. Einstein’s parents owned a company that built electrical generators and provided electricity for small towns. On occasion A nonconformist. In school Einstein refused to read the instructions for his physics lab. He dropped out of another school simply because he could not stand its authoritarian and repetitive approach to education. According to Isaacson, Einstein was by temperament a revolutionary thinker, while his contemporaries were conservative thinkers. As such, he liked to challenge both traditional, established professors, and old, cumbersome ideas and scientific “truths Clearly, then, we are going about education all wrong. I can just see our enlightened politicians including these ideas in the next revisions of our state and national standards.
Nah!
Francis Wardle has a Ph By Rep. Diana DeGette
For the last six years I have observed President George W. Bush govern based on rigid ideology, not facts. I have watched him disregard peer-reviewed data, experts and science on everything from the Iraq war to stem-cell research.
By Rep. Diana DeGette
For the last six years I have observed President George W. Bush govern based on rigid ideology, not facts. I have watched him disregard peer-reviewed data, experts and science on everything from the Iraq war to stem-cell research. When presented with evidence contrary to his preconceived ideas, instead of altering his views, he simply sticks his head in the sand and becomes ever more steadfast in his beliefs.
The latest example of this attitude of willful ignorance is President Bush’s continued support of abstinence-only sex-education programs, despite recent strong evidence demonstrating these programs do not work.
In April, Mathematica Policy Research released a congressionally authorized study that examined the impact of abstinence-only programs. The study looked at more than 2,000 teens over a four- to six-year period.
The findings were striking. Abstinence-only programs had no impact on teen sexual behavior whatsoever. For example, the study found that teens participating in abstinence-only programs had a similar number of sexual partners as their peers not in the programs and that the age when both groups first had sex was comparable as well.
Yet, once again, the president is ignoring the evidence and continuing to mandate the federal government’s role in abstinence-only education. This year alone, the federal government is spending $176 million to impose abstinence-only programs on our children. As study after study demonstrates, there is no meaningful evidence that these restrictive programs are effective. In fact, some studies suggest abstinence-only programs put teens at greater risk because they diminish young people’s willingness to use contraception.
Abstinence-only programs fly in the face of scientific and medical research, public opinion and common sense by prohibiting the teaching of contraceptive use to prevent unintended pregnancy, HIV/AIDS and sexually transmitted diseases.
The United States has the highest teen pregnancy rate in the Western world with more than 800,000 teens becoming pregnant every year; clearly, what we are doing is not working.
Instead of putting our heads in the sand, we must responsibly educate our children. Legislation I have authored with Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y., the Prevention First Act, would begin to do just that.
The bill supports honest and medically accurate sex and abstinence education and redirects federal efforts and taxpayer dollars away from programs that don’t work and into medically-based education.
It is imperative to provide young people with age-appropriate information about contraception and sexually transmitted diseases, as well as coaching abstinence to protect their health and prevent unwanted pregnancies.
Colorado and other states have enacted similar laws. While the states lead, the federal government continues to live in the 19th century. With all we know about how to prevent teen pregnancy and reduce sexually transmitted diseases, it is high time to redirect the millions of federal dollars that we squander every year on abstinence-only education to programs that actually work.
If President Bush truly wants to reduce unwanted pregnancies and keep our children safe, he should let facts, not ideology, dictate his policy. Our children’s well-being is at stake.
U.S. Rep. Diana DeGette is in her sixth term in Congress representing Colorado’s 1st Congressional District.
Posted by denver-admin at 12:01 AM
| Comments (6)
| TrackBack
By Jessie Ulibarri
Before he was fired, Errol Hohrein worked as a boilermaker at the Front Range Energy ethanol distillery in the northern Colorado town of Windsor. Hohrein and his co-workers came together to form a union with the Steelworkers to bargain for better working conditions. The company fought the workers’ efforts tooth and nail, threatening the workers with lower wages and even threatening to fire Hohrein — a vocal union supporter.
By Jessie Ulibarri
Before he was fired, Errol Hohrein worked as a boilermaker at the Front Range Energy ethanol distillery in the northern Colorado town of Windsor. Like many of his co-workers, Hohrein was hired with the promise of good pay and affordable health-care benefits. Despite the distillery’s monthly million-dollar profits, the company callously reneged on their pledge of wage increases and benefits. Hohrein and his co-workers came together to form a union with the Steelworkers to bargain for better working conditions. The company fought the workers’ efforts tooth and nail, threatening the workers with lower wages and even threatening to fire Hohrein — a vocal union supporter.
Sure enough, after the union election, Hohrein was fired.
In Hohrein’s words, “It was revenge for my talking up the union.” The National Labor Relations Board’s office of general counsel agrees. In February of 2007, it charged Front Range with violating federal law by firing Hohrein.
Sadly, Errol Hohrein’s story is not unique. Every day corporations deny employees the freedom to decide for themselves whether to form unions to bargain for better wages and benefits. In 2005 alone, there were 31,358 cases of illegal firings and other forms of discrimination against workers for exercising their federally protected labor law rights.
Twenty percent of union activists are likely to be fired when trying to form unions, according to a new study by the Center for Economic Policy Research.
Seventy-eight percent of employers force supervisors to meet with the people they supervise, and urge them to vote “no.” Fifty-two percent of employers threaten deportation or other forms of retaliation during organizing drives that include undocumented- immigrant employees. In more than half of worker campaigns, employers threaten that the workplace will close if workers unionize, although 99 percent of plants remain open after organizing drives.
As a working-class person born and raised in Colorado, it has become painfully clear to me that working people in this state are being squeezed. The costs of housing, education and health care are on the rise. Household income in Colorado has dropped over the past five years. If we add to this list the destructive effects of the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights, it’s clear Coloradans are being forced to carry the burden of a broken state budget while For decades, unions have given workers a toehold in the middle class when everyone else has failed them. Workers who belong to unions earn 30 percent more than those who don’t and are much more likely to have employer- provided health coverage and pensions, according to government statistics. Beyond being good for workers, unions are good for communities. Better wages and benefits mean that more families can make it on their own — thus shifting the cost burden off the taxpayers’ backs.
But for too long now, working people have been denied the opportunity to have a union because employers routinely violate workers’ freedom to form unions and the law lacks the power to stop them. The result is an America where CEOs are showered with lavish pay packages while everyone else is struggling to get by.
Approved by a bipartisan majority in the House, the Employee Free Choice Act would protect workers trying to form unions by enacting new penalties when employers threaten workers’ rights and by bringing in an outside mediator to settle a first contract when the employer and workers can’t agree. The bill restores balance to the process of forming unions by giving workers, not bosses, the option of deciding how they will choose whether to form a union — either through ballot elections or majority sign-up, a process that enables people to form unions when a majority of employees indicate in writing that they want one.
We’re counting on Colorado’s U.S. Sens. Wayne Allard and Ken Salazar to stand up for working people like Errol Hohrein and his co-workers. They deserve better, and the Employee Free Choice Act is a solid first step to righting this terrible wrong.
Jessie Ulibarri is the director of the Colorado Progressive Coalition’s Campaign for Economic Justice (www.progressivecoalition.org).
Posted by denver-admin at 12:01 AM
| Comments (11)
| TrackBack
By Clay Hinman, Thornton
The one thing neither corporations nor the government is prepared to deal with is a vocal majority. The American middle class is on the verge of becoming quite vocal. None of us wants to do something that would harm anyone. The truth is, we are being harmed. Big business is pressuring the government saying, “Don’t throw the immigrants out. We have a labor shortage.”
This Speakout has not been edited By Clay Hinman, Thornton
The one thing neither corporations nor the government is prepared to deal with is a vocal majority. The American middle class is on the verge of becoming quite vocal. None of us wants to do something that would harm anyone. The truth is, we are being harmed. Big business is pressuring the government saying, “Don’t throw the immigrants out. We have a labor shortage.” We know people 30, 40, and 50 years old who are standing in line to go to work at WalMart with a starting wage of $6.50 per hour—less than half what the government says is a minimal living wage. The labor supply is so high that the bottom has dropped out of the market. Businesses like it because they don’t have to compete to buy our services. There is NO labor shortage. We have a labor surpluss.
We’ve been paid so little that we’re forced to take on more than one job. Doing so only floods the market with even more cheap available labor. In the long run, we don’t earn enough to live up to the standards established in the media. Many of our young have become so discouraged and overwhelmed by the situation that they willingly fail to launch. They sit at home after graduating high school playing video games and complaining that there aren’t any good jobs.
Money hoards are gone and businesses are pushing us to take on credit card debts. Even that doesn’t stimulate the market enough so many businesses have stopped dealing with people and turned their focus towards business to business goods and services.
Still trying to maximize their profits, powerful corporations over the years have pressured our government to offer them more and more tax advantages.
We’re told that the wealthy pay too much while the majority of us can not afford most of the tax write-offs, shelters, declarations, and advantages of the wealthy. The wealthiest in our nation brought unfair equalizers to the bargaining table and the workers were told to be quiet because they don’t have anything to think with. This isn’t the American Dream. Enough! Living in the United States is a privilege. What lays ahead are tough decisions about immigration, available labor supply, minimum wages, secure boarders, campaign reform, campaign financing, socialized health care, and international relations. We need a smaller labor supply and less government collaboration with wealthy powerful special interest groups. We need government officials who are willing to respect rather than bend the laws. If we can’t ship at least half of the immigrants out of the U.S. and register the rest, perhaps the rising vocal majority should pass a petition around to deport the politicians. By filling their posts, at least some of us would get to retire.
Posted by denver-admin at 12:01 AM
| Comments (6)
| TrackBack
By Tracey L. Fanning, Thornton
This Speakout has not been edited By Tracey L. Fanning, Thornton
The couple recently arrested in Aurora starved a 7 year old to death.According to reports many calls for help were ignored.In one report it stated a social worker looked at the child and said he was fine.No one saved this boy in time.The gaurdians were immediately arrested and charged with 1st Degree Murder.As they should be.
Then we have the Midyettes of Boulder. In Feb. 2006 they brought their 10 week old son to the hospital because he stopped breathing.After the autopsy showed the 10 week had 48 broken bones and a massive skull fracture,no charges were brought against the parents.Mary Lacy around the same time was asking for more money to investigate the Jon-Benet murder.
The Midyettes lawyered up and were never questioned and the case was forgotten until The O’Reilly Factor producer went to Mary Lacy’s house and confronted her and asked why there were no charges a year later in the baby’s death. After Bill O’Reilly started asking why and expressing outrage that the murder’s of this little baby were not being brought to justice,Mary Lacy called for a Grand Jury.
It took over one year just to do that.Then the Grand Jury comes back with charges to be filed. The parents are charged with Child Abuse resulting in death.The Grand Jury got it wrong. This was not a child abuse case.
This was a murder.The parents should be charged with murder.How can you break 48 bones and cause a skull fracture on a little 10 week old baby and not be murder?
The Aurora couple got no bail.The Boulder couple is out on bail,with lenient surveilance.There one extreme stipulation is not to be around a family member that is an infant.They are suffering I’m sure.
Mary Lacy is a disgrace to the legal profession.When are the people of Boulder going to rise up against something important and try to get rid of her?
The Midyettes should be charged with 1st Degree murder.They should not be out living their lives without a care. It took 15 months to charge these parents in the murder of their baby.I can’t remember a child murder in this state wher it took 15 months to charge someone in a slam dunk case.
Like I said, A Tale Of two Cities.
Posted by denver-admin at 12:01 AM
| Comments (1)
| TrackBack
By Charles E. Beck, Colorado Springs
This Speakout has not been edited By Charles E. Beck, Colorado Springs
While Blair demonstrated his conviction about world-historic events, the other questioned how Blair’s acknowledged friendship with Bill Clinton affected George Bush at the start of the that administration.
A real-life political news reporter would recall that leaders like Republican Ronald Reagan actually had a good relationship with Democrat Speaker Tip O’Neil – but a wide-eyed, superficial news person can’t fathom such possibilities.
The superficial news personality conveys the anti-Bush undercurrent on is sleeve, with an implied “how can you remain steadfast with the likes of George W Bush?” Yet the statesman recognizes the common core values that both leaders share in their responsibility for the good of civilization. Likewise, superficial perspective continually conveys the undercurrent of petty politics, consumed by the significance of popularity and implied poll numbers, yet amazed when the statesman re-affirms leadership conviction and sense of duty.
Further, a sense of petty partisan politics conveys a anti-American theme of “blame America First,” questioning how anyone could stand up with America after the mess Bush has made; yet the Statesman’s conviction resounds, reaffirming the foolishness of not standing tall with America. Of course, a mature political reporter would see the obviousness in the Prime Minister’s comments in France’s mandate for a pro-American Nicolas Sarkozy to replace the anti-American Jacques Chirac, and see France resembling Germany’s replacing the anti-American Gerhard Schroder with the American leaning Angela Merkel. But the petty reporter of small stature remains oblivious to the obvious.
The interview contains multiple, exaggerated, soap-opera gestures that try to further a primary agenda – to get the PM to concede that GW was wrong and the war was wrong. The most emphatic soap-opera gesticulation leads to the question of how Blair envisions himself as he leaves office. The statesman conveys his strength of conviction in facing the challenges of the past decade, and in a humbled way acknowledges feeling honored to have served.
The reporting ends with Brian Williams, like a kid in a candy shop, touring #10 Downing Street, proud to glimpse behind the scenes as few other media ever have. While scarcely containing his glee at this media scoop, the newsboy fails to recognize the gravity of world events, the continuing threats to civilization, and the significance of the values proclaimed by this Statesman.
Charles E. Beck, PhD, is Associate Professor, Management & Communication, College of Business, University of Colorado at Colorado Springs
Posted by denver-admin at 12:01 AM
| Comments (0)
| TrackBack
By Willard D. “Wick” Rowland Jr.
In his Rocky Mountain News column of May 4, “The unfairness doctrine,” Mike Rosen asked whether there was an alternative to either private-sector media or government-run media. Well, yes, Mike, there is an alternative, and a very significant one at that: public broadcasting, which occupies the rich middle ground, the “third way,” between the marketplace and the state.
By Willard D. “Wick” Rowland Jr.
In his Rocky Mountain News column of May 4, “The unfairness doctrine,” Mike Rosen asked whether there was an alternative to either private-sector media or government-run media. Well, yes, Mike, there is an alternative, and a very significant one at that: public broadcasting, which occupies the rich middle ground, the “third way,” between the marketplace and the state.
The public-service model is a well-developed and central part of the media culture in all other advanced democracies. It would be in the U.S. too, if it weren’t for the continuing misrepresentations of it as nothing but “state media” and for the claims about how the private, commercially-based system can deliver all aspects of the public interest.
Reasonable people can disagree on the merits of the old Fairness Doctrine, but the reality is that in the current climate of nearly total deregulation it is highly unlikely that the doctrine will be reinstituted, and most of its opponents know that. The phony fairness doctrine debate and the hand-wringing about governmental censorship is used to distract public discourse from consideration of the no less serious censorship by the marketplace. It also helps avoid communications policy arguments for substantive, public-media structural alternatives to the commercial system.
And to lump PBS and NPR into a category of “corporate media” that includes ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN is ludicrous. It represents a new low in the talking-points process by which the conservative and libertarian think tanks manage the public debate not only about public broadcasting, but all of public culture and any notion of tax-based support for it.
Altogether, corporate broadcasting and cable in the U.S. yield about $150 billion annually. By contrast the total budget of all of public radio and television is less than $2 billion, with only about a quarter of that for PBS and NPR together. To try to link those small organizations in any serious way to the resources, ownership patterns and control mechanisms of the huge, ratings-based, profit-oriented commercial system is disingenuous.
The demise of serious news in commercial radio since the advent of deregulation, that is, of anything deeply engaging of political, social and cultural issues, is readily documented. The way NPR and the public radio system have filled that gap should be a source of great pride, not snide derision, among informed pundits.
The same goes for public television. To pretend that the commercial television regimens of weather, sports, accidents and crime constitute adequate local news, or that advertising-supported cable channels playing endless repeats of Big Technology projects, crab-fishing perils and World War II air battles are adequate replacements for PBS’ thoughtful, continuously new work in history, science, nature, performance, children’s programming and public affairs is patently absurd.
That we can know anything substantive about the world beyond the U.S. borders and that we have any opportunity in U.S. broadcasting and cable to understand the complexities of the universe — physical, social and political — is a testimony primarily to the hard, dedicated work of public broadcasters.
That public radio and television could do much more along the lines of their older, counterpart institutions abroad, there is no doubt. But those societies situate their public-service broadcasting institutions at the heart of their media cultures. As a result, they have funded their public broadcasting systems at much, much higher levels than what we provide in the U.S.
Sure, they fight about them all the time; the debates about political balance and interference are strong in all those nations. But when push comes to shove, the public media charters are renewed and their funding arrangements regularly ratified, because the citizens — the voters — in country after country know that it is necessary for informed democracies to have a strong media component that is not hostage to the censorship of commerce. Concern about that form of interference and how to avoid it is at least as worthy of debate as the Fairness Doctrine.
Willard D. “Wick” Rowland Jr., Ph.D., is president and CEO of Colorado Public Television, KBDI-Channel 12, and is dean and professor emeritus at the University of Colorado’s School of Journalism and Mass Communication.
Posted by denver-admin at 12:01 AM
| Comments (4)
| TrackBack
By David A. Lien, Colorado Springs
Loss of habitat is the biggest threat to wildlife and hunting today, and hunters understand that habitat means wild, rugged country not overrun with drilling rigs, roads, pipelines, and OHV trails. That's what we have on Colorado's Roan Plateau.
This Speakout has not been edited By David A. Lien, Colorado Springs
Loss of habitat is the biggest threat to wildlife and hunting today, and hunters understand that habitat means wild, rugged country not overrun with drilling rigs, roads, pipelines, and OHV trails. That's what we have on Colorado's Roan Plateau. If you've ever driven through Colorado on I-70 between Grand Junction and Glenwood Springs, you have likely had your gaze drawn north up the stunning white cliffs that tower 3,000 feet above the highway, to the Roan Plateau.
Every single town and city in Garfield County, where the plateau is located, has expressed support for protecting it from drilling, as have thousands of citizens who wrote or emailed the BLM regarding the agency's development plans. They have been joined by more than 70 area businesses and outfitters who know firsthand the local economic value a pristine plateau provides through tourism and recreation. Citizens and businesses alike want to preserve the natural capital and quality of life that it brings in steady revenues year after year.
Hunting, fishing and wildlife watching generate more than $1 billion per year in Colorado, and hunting on the Roan Plateau alone is worth nearly $4 million annually. Local economies depend on the plateau's abundant wildlife, scenic intact landscapes, and plentiful recreation opportunities to attract visitors and new business alike. Coloradoans have identified four potential wilderness areas (the gold standard for wildlife habitat and hunting grounds) on the plateau's top, encompassing 48,000 acres.
In addition to being a pristine and remote wilderness, the Roan Plateau is one of the top four most biologically diverse areas on Colorado's West Slope.
Besides, the known oil in Colorado would only supply national demand for a paltry 11 days. The entire Rockies region has known oil supplies sufficient for 100 days of national use, and these projections are contingent on zero demand growth. And fully 88 percent of the public lands in the Rocky Mountains are already open for oil and gas drilling. In Colorado, between 1982 and 2004, oil and gas companies had access to 15.8 million acres of public land-about one-fourth of the entire state. But from 1989 to 2003, they produced enough oil to power the country for one day, and enough gas for less than two weeks. Colorado issued a record 5,904 oil and gas drilling permits in 2006, more than double the permit total from two years earlier.
"Not every place on God's green earth needs to be open to natural-gas exploration," says George Orbanek, the conservative publisher of Colorado's Grand Junction Daily Sentinel. In Wyoming, where the oil and gas boom began first, studies have documented the industry's impact on wildlife. One study funded by the oil and gas industry found a 46 percent decline in migratory mule deer in a heavily drilled area near Piñedale. Studies also show that more than 2 miles of road per square mile leads to a 50 percent reduction in elk populations.
As Citizens Protecting the Wyoming Range co-founder Gary Amerine said, drilling in the Wyoming Range is replacing current multiple uses on public lands with a single use: "There's no room for hunting and fishing in an oil and gas field...no room for snowmobiling and camping where oil and gas wells flare and compressors thump 24 hours a day." So it's destined to be here in Colorado, if we don't act today, as outfitter Jeff Mead is learning the hard way.
Mead has been guiding hunters on the west slope for 15 years. "Elk and deer move out when rigs move in," says Mead. "Up on the mountain during hunting season, if you sneeze, you can hear the elk running. So, don't tell me they like eating by a drilling rig." Mead's outfitting business has already taken a hit. He usually has 40 hunters signed up for fall trips, but had only 18 people lined up during the fall of 2005. He blames the drilling, which he said has decreased the number of elk, deer and bear.
According to a recent report released by the National Wildlife Federation, drilling on federal lands in five Western states (Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, Montana, and New Mexico) has doubled over the last decade, and the BLM has leased 23 million acres of mule deer habitat, 18 million acres of antelope habitat, 17 million acres of sage grouse habitat, and 13 million acres of elk habitat. How much is enough? This rush to drill is squeezing hunters off of public land and destroying irreplaceable habitat for big game and other species.
We need oil and gas resources to heat our homes and to provide energy for our daily lives, but given the insignificant reserves found in Colorado it need not come at the expense of the wildlife habitat and hunting opportunities that have been part of Colorado's and the West's heritage for generations.
Posted by denver-admin at 12:01 AM
| Comments (23)
| TrackBack
By Landy Stinnett, Lakewood
This letter is in reference to your Sunday Speakout column regarding proposed in situ uranium mining and how this would somehow threaten Fort Collins' reputation.
Unfortunately I find that most of the opinions getting published in print these days are the negative ones, typically written by persons unknowledgeable about the subject matter and unwilling to do even a modest amount of research to understand the topic about which they rail.
This Speakout has not been edited By Landy Stinnett, Lakewood
This letter is in reference to your Sunday Speakout column regarding proposed in situ uranium mining and how this would somehow threaten Fort Collins' reputation.
Unfortunately I find that most of the opinions getting published in print these days are the negative ones, typically written by persons unknowledgeable about the subject matter and unwilling to do even a modest amount of research to understand the topic about which they rail.
Perhaps we could quote from just the second paragraph of the opinion by Jay and Robin Davis; i.e., "...the less-than-honorable mention of Fort Collins' proximity to toxic uranium mining and contaminated underground water supplies...", and examine the content. Since the uranium is already present in the ground (or else why would the mining company wish to extract it), did the Davises ever wonder why the water supplies are not currently contaminated by natural forces?
This relates to the deposition of the uranium initially, which is mobile in an oxidizing environment, and immobile in a reducing one. At one time oxidized groundwater carried the ion downward through a somewhat porous, permeable formation until it encountered the zone of reduction, at which time the uranium precipitated out of solution and deposited where we find it today. In situ mining is a means of simply reversing that process temporarily by injecting oxygen into the formation, mobilizing the uranium, and pumping the solution to the surface where it is processed into yellowcake, a saleable product. At the close of operations, the formation is flushed to restore the quality of original formation water, and the natural reducing state ensures that any remnant uranium in the ground stays in place as it did originally. The additional statements by the Davis's regarding the "unpredictable impact of the leaching solution on the rock formations", the risk that deadly, radioactive leaching compounds will spread outside of the uranium deposit and contaminate Front Range water supplies", etc., etc., are without foundation since the moment oxygen injection ceases, the underground environment once again (after appropriate flushing) converts to a reducing state.
This is heavily regulated industry. As an example, in Colorado there are a minimum of 17 permits required from a multitude of agencies just to initiate a simple sand-and-gravel operation. With a radioactive element there is an overprint of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission as well, with its impositions and requirements. For an operation to actually come into being means that considerable time and money have been expended to satisfy federal, state and local regulations. Now, if a person cannot trust his/her government, just who can you trust these days?
This type of mining is far less disruptive of the environment than is surface mining, and is safer for the workers than extracting from underground. Certainly we need nuclear-generated power, as an adjunct to electricity derived from plants, and possibly as a replacement to coal-fired units, if we are to ameliorate greenhouse gasses. A mine offers industrial-wage jobs, and of course would contribute to the property tax rolls for the county, and income taxes for the state and federal governments. A downstream multiplier for industrial jobs varies, but conservatively is at least 3 to 1. Incorporating an advertising slogan from years ago, "Where's the beef'?
Since we need nuclear power, in situ mining is the most responsible method of uranium extraction both from a safety and environmental viewpoint, such an operation would contribute to the welfare of Fort Collins and other agencies-all to the public good.
It would seem to me that the most toxic aspect of this whole issue is the misinformation provided by the Davises.
Posted by denver-admin at 12:01 AM
| Comments (0)
| TrackBack
By Mike ‘Max’ Clow, Colorado Springs
The other day I realized that we tend to adjust our lives to accommodate the things around us that we have to wait for. Not unlike Newton getting hit with the apple, this occurred when I tried out my new $12 dollar toaster.
This Speakout has not been edited By Mike ‘Max’ Clow, Colorado Springs
The other day I realized that we tend to adjust our lives to accommodate the things around us that we have to wait for. Not unlike Newton getting hit with the apple, this occurred when I tried out my new $12 dollar toaster.
The old (three household, pre-divorce) toaster oven, that my daughter won’t let me get rid of due to historical significance, toasted quickly but it seemed to use a lot of energy and had printing from a few bread bags melted onto it. I thought a regular toaster would be faster with less area to heat.
I was wrong. It is actually slower but probably does use less energy. Then I realized that affected the sequence in which I make breakfast.
Since I eat about 10 to 15 eggs a week (no carbs) the breakfast routine is not without significance and the start sequence is, of course, crucial. Where I used to start the toast after the eggs, I now must start it just ahead of the eggs, leaving time for a coffee refill. That’s when I realized that I had already adjusted my routine to fit into the new toaster time frame. The extra wait wasn’t annoying or anything. I just adjusted my overall operation, stole one bite of apple pie, tossed the spoon into the sink, and cracked some eggs.
We adjust to other time frames as well. Most of us vary our rates of spending based on the time left until our next pay check. If an unexpected cost comes up, we amend our thinking to make it to that Friday.
Some of us may be unconsciously observing a time frame, for example, until we can get a better car, that might include getting some other things payed off or a kid through college. Some, myself included, find a timeframe involved for when we can pony up for our next half tank of gas.
It’s not unlike making a phone call and being put on hold. If we had the good fortune to talk to an actual human and that person told us it’s going to be a few minutes because the person we’re trying to reach has to be paged, we can adjust and read the paper or a couple blogs. If we are put on hold without explanation or some sort of expectation it quickly becomes unbearable.
Some Americans are in a far more serious hold pattern. For family members of those who have been called to duty in Afghanistan or Iraq they are not only putting much of their life on hold, it has got to be more like holding their breath for 12, or now more like 15 months. They are squeaking through, praying to God, trying not to upset any part of the flow of the universe, for at least the next year. For far too many it will be years before they are able to fully exhale that last breath that was taken when their loved one was alive and there with them.
Those of us who ramble through our daily routines with minor time frame adjustments like traffic jams, long lines at the checkout, and cars stacked up at the carwash on a sunny day, can’t have an inkling of what it’s like to let your dearest loved one go, for at least a long time, hoping it is not forever.
Part of being a soldier and soldiers’ family includes taking those orders in stride without question or complaint because there is no other way. There’s no way they can question a war that has cost the lives of people close to them or even talk about wishing they were going home soon.
Those of us who do not know the grasp of that particular hold pattern have to be the ones to remind Washington that it is not fair to lengthen tours. It is not fair to double and triple deployments. And it is really, really unfair to refuse to talk to other countries, or leaders, or refuse to pursue any and all means to get closer to an end to hostilities.
Those are not the Presidents or Vice Presidents troops. They are Americas’ sons and daughters and brothers and sisters and Fathers and Mothers.
We can not accept arrogance, or stubbornness, or Pride as reasons for failing to find a solution and an end to this War.
We want them back right away.
Posted by denver-admin at 12:01 AM
| Comments (5)
| TrackBack
By Dixie Griffin Good and Steve Kalmon
This Speakout has not been edited By Dixie Griffin Good and Steve Kalmon
A significant proportion of the students who leave the system — either for alternative learning environments or for the dismal prospects of life without a diploma — are responding to the disconnect between the education agenda and the current social-cultural-economic milieu. The real world and school are out of synch.
We need to re-think the educational enterprise with utmost urgency. Not because of failing students or failing districts, but because our nation’s long-term wellbeing depends on engaging all people in learning. Not achieving, performing or attaining a narrowly defined notion of success, but increasingly powerful individual and collective learning. This summer the Council on 21stst Century Learning will convene Colorado educators and stakeholders to develop a state vision for education that is engaging and relevant to all learners. It’s an important step on a long road.
Desire to learn is innate and self-reinforcing. Rather than cultivating this natural desire, school, unfortunately, leaves many students with an aversion to learning. At least 30 percent of Colorado’s youth drop out before earning a high school diploma, often because school does not seem relevant to their lives. This is the cruelest symptom of educational dysfunction, and our society can no longer afford to ignore it.
We have no interest in fixing blame on schools, administrators or policymakers, and certainly not on educators. Indeed, in many respects the nation is providing a better education for more students than at any time in history. Nor do we suggest that standards be less rigorous or that students should be exempt from mastering core knowledge.
Our intention is that Coloradans envision and implement new ways to engage all people in learning. Beyond content knowledge, education must guide all learners toward acquiring the skills and habits of mind that will enable them to thrive in a rapidly changing society.
Superintendent Michael Bennet and the DPS school board have invoked the need to bring our teaching and learning practices into the 21stst century. Far from being “corny,” as the Rocky editorialized, bringing education in synch with the times is critical work. The district and the state can meet this challenge. If we succeed, the seemingly intractable problems facing school districts like DPS will dissolve in the presence of students and educators who are enthusiastic, committed learners.
Dixie Griffin Good, Research and Evaluation; Stevan Kalmon, Director Council on 21st Century Learning at www.C21L.org.
Posted by denver-admin at 12:01 AM
| Comments (2)
| TrackBack
By Hilary Reynolds-Burton
The fearful decision-makers in Greenwood Village should stop trapping and killing coyotes.
The coyote is a natural part of the Colorado ecosystem, and has as much right to be here as the esteemed Greenwood Village City Council.
By Hilary Reynolds-Burton
The fearful decision-makers in Greenwood Village should stop trapping and killing coyotes.
The coyote is a natural part of the Colorado ecosystem, and has as much right to be here as the esteemed Greenwood Village City Council.
Coyotes are no more or less than an undomesticated version of the dog you love and the dog that loves you. To use leg-hold traps is inhumane and they are banned in many areas because of the suffering they cause. The animal struggles in a frenzy of pain and confusion, often mutilating itself, dislocating joints, breaking teeth, chewing a leg or paw — all in an attempt to break free.
Trappers have a name for the phenomenon of animals chewing off their own extremities to escape; they call it “wring-off.”
This is also the month of May when new pups are born; female coyotes caught in Greenwood Village’s traps have families to feed, making the entrapment even more painful. The puppies will slowly die of starvation or, in a weakened and unprotected state, might be eaten by other predators.
Is this the image Greenwood Village wants to portray to its community? Trapping in humane traps and relocating would be preferable to the intolerable physical and mental pain the city is inflicting.
It is widely known that coyotes would rather attack a rabbit than a person, and following someone and snarling — while frightening — should not be a death sentence. In all of North America, a coyote has killed only one person since 1980.
Perhaps an education program combined with proper deterrents could alleviate the problem of overpopulation.
It seems to me that Greenwood Village has purposely chosen the most painful and uneducated of all possible solutions. The city’s fear is way out of proportion with the reality of your situation. I ask Greenwood Village officials to please reconsider — for the good of all.
Hilary Reynolds-Burton is a resident of Nederland.
Posted by denver-admin at 12:01 AM
| Comments (8)
| TrackBack
By J. Bradford Churchill
On his By J. Bradford Churchill
On his No one should be so shortsighted as to oversimplify the confluence of factors that led to the Great Depression. Impoverished European nations had taken out massive loans from others either to rebuild their own infrastructure or to pay crushing reparations required of them by the victors in Two successively higher tariffs were added during the early 1920s Smoot-Hawley did not help when it more than doubled the existing record tariffs (to 50 One might also point to the fact that unemployment was high, somewhat less than 9 That does not prove Smoot-Hawley caused deepening unemployment by itself, but it cannot inspire confidence in those who would argue it was of little consequence. And it is important to note that FDR’s policies had barely brought unemployment to below 15 The best On balance, then, the Great Depression does provide evidence that trade barriers and artificial price supports cause economic problems. Thus By Richard Moe, Washington, D.C.
It happens all too often: People are drawn to a locale by some quality – scenery, affordability or historic character, for instance – that makes the place distinctive and appealing. But then, as more and more people flock in, the very qualities that attracted them get compromised or even destroyed.
This Speakout has not been edited By Richard Moe, Washington, D.C.
It happens all too often: People are drawn to a locale by sIt happens all too often: People are drawn to a locale by some quality – scenery, affordability or historic character, for instance – that makes the place distinctive and appealing. But then, as more and more people flock in, the very qualities that attracted them get compromised or even destroyed.
We can all name places right here in Colorado where this sad scenario has played out, and the Telluride Valley Floor was about to join their ranks. Over the past few weeks, however, residents and visitors alike have made it clear that they don’t want it to happen in Telluride – and what’s more, they’re prepared to put up the cash to make sure that it doesn’t. I’ve never seen a community rally more effectively for the preservation of one of its most important assets. The outcome reminds me of a statement attributed to Margaret Mead: “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.” Today’s Telluride is known as a vacation magnet for skiers, hikers and fans of jazz and films, but those of us who love the place know that there’s more to it than this. It’s a real community – a community worthy of our very best efforts to ensure that it remains a good place to live and visit. That doesn’t mean trying to recreate the Telluride that used to be, or “freezing” it as it is now by trying to prevent all new development. Even if we could do those things, we shouldn’t. The question isn’t whether Telluride will grow, but how. We can’t stop change, but we can ensure that it occurs in ways and locations that we won’t regret later. As the National Trust noted in 2001 when we named the Telluride Valley Floor one of America’s 11 Most Endangered Historic Places, context matters. Anyone who visits Telluride quickly recognizes that the town is a genuine historic treasure – but what truly sets it apart is its stunning setting, the context of mountains and meadows that is a constant link with the town’s history as a tough mining town clinging to the ragged edge of civilization. That’s what was at risk in the planned development of the valley floor: context. The thing about context is that once it’s gone, it’s gone forever – and that sobering fact is what motivated so many people to take action. There are those who will say that the whole episode represents an erosion of the doctrine of private property rights that we all cherish. In fact, the courts have consistently advocated a balance between individual rights and public benefits. In this case, a Colorado jury set a price for the land and a time limit for raising the money. Deep-pocketed donors made big contributions – but, as the news media reported, plenty of less affluent people kicked in their dollar bills and loose change as well. In the end, everybody won something: The owner of the land stands to make a big profit, and people who care about Telluride – including many who don’t call themselves “preservationists” – won the assurance that more than 500 acres of the valley floor won’t be carved up and paved over. A community should be shaped by choice, not chance. If the community doesn’t take steps to plan its own future, someone else will, with consequences that could be disastrous. In this case, people had an opportunity to make a choice that could shape the appearance and livability of Telluride for generations to come. They seized the opportunity, and they made the right choice. Richard Moe is president of the National Trust for Historic Preservation. By Rhonda Hackett, Denver
By Rhonda Hackett, Denver
Both practices are core elements of what has become commonly known as affirmative action. Yet, here in Colorado Somewhere along the way Those folks riding on the Clearly if Rhonda Hackett is a clinical psychologist living in Denver. By Mark O’Brien, Denver
It has become clear in the past few weeks that president Bush and the Congress are rolling over on fair, just, and equitable immigration reform. The President is throwing immigrants under the bus as he seeks to appease his conservative base and create a significant domestic distraction from the failing War in Iraq.
This Speakout has not been edited By Mark O’Brien, Denver
It has become clear in the past few weeks that president Bush and the Congress are rolling over on fair, just, and equitable immigration reform. The President is throwing immigrants under the bus as he seeks to appease his conservative base and create a significant domestic distraction from the failing War in Iraq. American citizens, the media and the religious community’s attitude on immigration ranges from indignant to apathetic.
Now that we are into the presidential election cycle, the probability of any meaningful comprehensive immigration reform legislation is doubtful. Talk with any influencer in Washington and they will tell you that the Democratic leadership is not going to take up this fight to do what is right. Indeed, Sen. Arlen Specter commented last week that if the Senate does not approve a bill next week that it is unlikely that there will be any legislation this year and certainly not in a national election year.
President Bush with a 28% approval rating and a quickly deteriorating situation in Iraq has abandoned the one issue that reflected his “compassionate conservatism". As someone who has provided some leadership on the matter, he has now flipped in favor of pandering to his conservative base.
No one knows what if any legislation will come from the Senate next week. They may begin with the Chairman’s Mark bill S. 2611 passed last year by the Senate Judiciary Committee. It may be that a revised Senate bill will reflect elements of the STRIVE ACT (HR 1645) introduced several weeks ago in the House by Rep’s Gutierrez (D-IL) and Rep. Flake (R-AZ). While putting forth many good provisions, this bill is also wrought with elements that are unworkable such as the “ touch-back” provision requiring immigrants to return to their home country in order to apply for residency. There are also no funding mechanisms to cover the billions in costs to implement to provisions of the legislation, it increases border militarization, requires local law enforcement to become immigration agents thereby breaking their vital trust with the immigrant community, it puts forth prohibitive fees that are a roadblock to legal permanent residency, creates an untenable employment verification system that according to the GAO suffers from a high failure rate, unfairly ties a worker permit to one employer making these workers highly susceptible to exploitation, it creates massive detention centers and a permanent underclass of workers not unlike the Bracero program of the 1940’-1960’s.
As of this week Sen. Kyle (R-AZ) is insisting on a zero increase in the worldwide ceiling on “green cards” in future years, elimination of family preference categories, elimination of current employment based categories and instead introducing a merit/point system scheme, elimination of any path to permanent residency for new essential nonimmigrant workers and make no effort to reduce family backlogs effecting a million families already in the waiting line.
One thing is certain, and that is that Congress will once again fail in their fiscal, legal and moral responsibility to lead, govern and legislate. This Congress that during wartime took more days off from work last year than any Congress in the past 60 years, a legislature that approved the Iraq war and has created the largest budget and trade account deficits in history, a governing body that has increased our national debt by $1.2 trillion dollars.
If the Congress of the United States can violate their oath of office and show such a dereliction of duty on these matters, how than can we expect them to pass responsible and just immigration legislation. How then can expect them to respect the will of the American people, a significant majority of whom favor a guest worker program and a pathway to earned citizenship. The answer is, we can not.
Just because our government cannot get its act together, does not mean that we should project our misery, fear, frustration and anger on 12 million immigrants. We need not seek to make these human persons the source of our problems. We need not attempt to criminalize and demonize a hard working people who are caught up in a failed system that we created.
Mark O’Brien is an immigrant and human rights advocate and volunteer with Coloradans for Immigrant Rights. He resides in Denver.
Posted by denver-admin at 12:01 AM
| Comments (26)
| TrackBack
By Robert Hardaway, University of Denver School of Law
As the legal and political battle over raising property taxes heats up, the underlying assumption upon which it is based — namely that increased expenditures will improve the quality of Colorado’s public schools — is not currently being addressed.
This Speakout has not been edited By Robert Hardaway, University of Denver School of Law
As the legal and political battle over raising property taxes heats up, the underlying assumption upon which it is based — namely that increased expenditures will improve the quality of Colorado’s public schools — is not currently being addressed.
Public schools in this country currently spend more than twice as much money per student as private schools. Yet many parents are willing to dig deeply into their own pockets for the privilege of sending their children to private schools where far fewer resources are expended on them.
Why?
Expenditures on public schools in the U.S. exceed those of any other country on earth. Since 1970, teacher salaries have exploded 18 percent in inflation-adjusted dollars, while teacher-faculty ratios have declined by one-fourth. During the 1960’s and 70’s, federal aid to education rose by 83 percent and federal aid doubled as proportion of the nation’s total education budget. As expenditures rose, however, student performance has declined precipitously.
If money were the solution, America’s schools would be the best in the world. In fact, however, American public school students ranked 19th out of 20 countries in international achievement tests (nudging out Jordan), although American students did excel in “self-esteem” and the number of hours watching television (managing to nudge out Mozambique for that distinction).
In the U.S., a study has shown that Iowa, which ranked No. 1 in the nation in SAT scores, ranked 27th in per capita student expenditures. Utah, which ranked dead last among the states in per capita expenditures, finished 4th in test scores. Harrison, Arkansas, which spent less than one third as much per student as New Jersey, ranked in the top 5% in student performance.
In Japan, where public schools students consistently finish first or second in international tests, per-student expenditure is about a third of that in the U.S., despite a higher cost of living. It is not unusual for classes to have 40-45 students. Most classrooms lack central heating, and students are asked to carry coal in buckets every day to fuel the stove. To reduce expenses, students are routinely asked to perform janitorial functions that would be considered beneath the dignity of U.S. students.
Japanese students are issued cheap paperback books costing about a dollar or less. Such amenities as counselors, cafeterias and carpets considered to be necessities in American schools have been described as “nonessential in Japanese schools. Even school libraries are poorly stocked. The average Japanese would simply be overwhelmed with the facilities in (U.S. public schools).”
There is no secret, however, as why Japanese students perform so high on international tests, while lavishly equipped American counterparts struggle to nudge out Jordan in international comparisons. Students are exposed to a rigorous but basic curriculum of math, science, literature, history, geography and language skills. In the U.S., the bureaucracy has consistently resisted a back-to-the basics curriculum, and instead emphasized such soft subjects as “social studies”, or “rainforest math”.
The problem with our public schools is not lack of money. Rather, the problem is that our public schools refuse to grant authority to teachers to discipline students or to protect innocent students from disruptive ones. The Model School Disciplinary Code issued by Harvard University, and which is purportedly based on principles of “due process”, states that no serious disciplinary action can be taken against any public school student unless that student is provided with “due process” in the form of a “hearing before an. impartial panel…the right to legal counsel… the right to present evidence, and cross examine adverse witnesses…” Not surprisingly, discipline in the public schools has become problematic and impractical.
As a result, a public school student now has a 5% chance of being harmed by a deadly weapon.
A study conduced by the U.S. Office of Education, entitled “Public and Private High Schools”, concluded that private schools enjoyed one great advantage over public schools —namely a lack of funding. One student of that study has observed that with less money, private schools “retain a traditional curriculum and academic structure that have fallen victim to pop trends and political pressure in public schools… and thus elicit greater achievement, even from students with comparable family and socioeconomic backgrounds.”
In short, what private school parents are paying for is not better resources, or higher paid teachers (in fact teachers are paid less in private schools). Rather what they are paying for is a safe learning environment for their children.
In short, what our public schools need is not more money, but a re-ordering of priorities and the institution of the disciplinary measures used by private schools to provide a safe learning environment, a slashing of the unnecessary and wasteful bureaucracy, and return of authority to teachers.
Raising property taxes will only increase the monthly payments of Colorado homeowners and increase our already devastating foreclosure rates, especially among the poor. The one thing it will not do is improve our public schools.
Robert Hardaway is Professor of Law at the University of Denver College of Law and the author of “America Goes to School: Law, Reform, and Crisis in Public Education” (Praeger Publishers).
Posted by denver-admin at 12:01 AM
| Comments (5)
| TrackBack
By Scott Shirai,
As Americans, we often take a lot for granted until something goes wrong or breaks down. We are used to being comfortable and not inconvenienced.
But during Public Service Recognition Week, it’s a nice time to reflect on all the great work performed by our public servants, work that goes unheralded day after day.
This Speakout has not been edited By Scott Shirai,
As Americans, we often take a lot for granted until something goes wrong or breaks down. We are used to being comfortable and not inconvenienced.
But during Public Service Recognition Week, it’s a nice time to reflect on all the great work performed by our public servants, work that goes unheralded day after day. Government workers are also called public servants because most willingly take a government job knowing that they could probably make more in the private sector. They have a strong desire to serve and to make a difference in this community we call home.
The 40,000 federal, postal and military employees in the Denver metro area not only provide exemplary service day in and day out. They deliver our mail on time, protect our borders and country, secure our airports, while protecting our environment, food and airways. They are among the most generous federal employees in the country and donated nearly $4 million dollars to hundreds of local, national and international charities last year.
At a time when many boomers are retiring from jobs, including those in the federal government, it’s also a good time to consider public service and to remember the words of our late President John F. Kennedy, “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.”
Scott Shirai, APR, Fellow PRSA Executive Director Denver Metro Combined Federal Campaign
Posted by denver-admin at 12:01 AM
| Comments (10)
| TrackBack
One in six Coloradans can't get needed medical and preventive care simply because they lack health By Dr. Jeremy Lazarus, Denver
One in six Coloradans can't get needed medical and preventive care simply because they lack health Taking steps toward reform, Colorado joins the many states making notable efforts to get their residents covered. Here at home, the Blue Ribbon Commission for Health Care Reform created by Gov. Bill Owens is working to reach consensus on the best ways to expand health SCHIP has provided health insurance to millions of America's lower-income children for more than Second, Congress must act to improve the enrollment process to ensure that all eligible children are signed up. There is room for improvement: The vast majority of uninsured Americans are in working families. Many lower-income parents who work can't afford health insurance for themselves or for their children. A new tax credit could help provide coverage to kids whose parents earn too much to qualify for SCHIP, but can't afford health care for their children. This advanceable tax credit would provide parents with the means to purchase coverage for the checkups and prescription drugs their kids need.
America's children are our future, and without proper health care, children are not given a fair chance to grow, learn and succeed. If the U.S. health The AMA is committed to action. Physicians, business leaders, health insurers, hospitals, consumer groups and others are working together to move forward with the first phase of the By Christopher Juniper, Denver
This Speakout has not been edited By Christopher Juniper, Denver
Nor has he seen estimates by major electricity users, as I have, that a 20-year wind energy contract will very quickly be less costly than existing utility mixes. In general, Blake seems to be advocating for the good old days when energy policymakers including the PUC could pretend externalities don’t exist, climate change isn’t an environmental and national security threat, and renewables were actually more expensive. Those days are over. Instead, he just throws cold water on promising new rules that are, if somewhat imperfect (which rules aren’t imperfect?), are much more appropriate for 21st century realities. At least the folks making new rules are trying, in good faith, to look ahead instead of backwards. Perhaps Blake should bone up on energy and economic realities a bit more before accusing Xcel of being incompetent to understand their own industry - which they clearly are not; my mother always said not to criticize unless you have a better idea...I suggest Blake follow that sage advice and get more informed before throwing around inaccurate broadsides under the cover of “politics." See the attached and below. I am all in favor of healthy debates on this topic, but not when the discussion starts with undocumented, mostly wrong broadsides that end up poisoning rational debate instead of promoting it.
Study: Wind to blow $251M off energy bills The Denver Business Journal, August 23, 2006. A study released Wednesday by a trade association representing companies invested in the wind energy industry says Colorado customers of Xcel Energy Inc. are expected to save about $251 million in energy costs over the next 20 years through the use of wind energy vs. natural gas-fired power plants.
“It’s a great hedge against natural gas and coal prices; it’s a stable energy source,” said Craig Cox, spokesman for the Interwest Energy Alliance, which paid $4,500 for the study.
The study also said that consumers could have saved an additional $186 million if all the wind projects Xcel pursued had come to fruition.
Several wind projects have fallen by the wayside in recent years due to a number of factors, ranging from higher costs of steel poles to support the turbines to difficulties negotiating agreements between developers and the utility.
But Xcel (NYSE: XEL), based in Minneapolis and Colorado’s largest provider of electricity and natural gas, is among the nation’s leaders in wind energy.
Colorado has about 282 megawatts of wind-generated power on its system today and another 775 megawatts of wind power are expected to be online by Dec. 31, 2007.
“We’re very proud of what we’ve added to our system in terms of wind,” said Xcel spokesman Tom Henley. “We’re the No. 1 utility in the country in terms of wind, and we’ll continue to grow our lead with the addition of the 775 megawatts slated for Colorado.”
One megawatt of power, generated from coal or natural gas, typically serves up to 1,000 homes. A megawatt of power generated from wind serves less than that because the wind doesn’t always blow at a steady pace.
Authors of the study were Jane Pater, who has worked on energy and environmental issues, and Ron Binz, former head of the Colorado Consumer Counsel’s office.
The study also repeated the need for additional transmission lines, essentially highways for shipping electricity from rural and remote power plants to urban consumers.
“More transmission from Colorado’s eastern plains wind resources would help struggling rural communities reap economic benefits from investment and jobs in wind plants, while Front Range consumers would have access to cleaner, more secure and lower cost electricity,” said Ron Lehr, attorney and a former chairman of the Colorado Public Utilities Commission, in a statement. Lehr now represents the wind industry.
“It’s time to ‘connect the dots,’ get transmission planned and built, and bring wind power benefits to the whole state,” Lehr said in the statement.
Christopher Juniper is a member of the Technical Advisory Group, Colorado Springs Utilities and a sustainability planner for Fort Carson Mountain Post
Posted by denver-admin at 12:01 AM
| Comments (10)
| TrackBack
By V. Sanchez and R. Allen, Lakewood
I am writing in response to Daniel Chacon's article in the April 17, 2007 Rocky Mountain News titled "Council OKs deal to pay $30,000.00 to shoplifting suspect hurt by cop". As a reporter, he failed to report all the facts or the whole story.
This Speakout has not been edited By V. Sanchez and R. Allen, Lakewood
I am writing in response to Daniel Chacon's article in the April 17, 2007 Rocky Mountain News titled "Council OKs deal to pay $30,000.00 to shoplifting suspect hurt by cop". As a reporter, he failed to report all the facts or the whole story.
Although Leonard Trujillo's family does not condone his actions that day, the gross injustice that was done against him was far greater then what he did. Did you know that Leonard was pinned under the police car for 50 minutes? There were at least 15 policemen and supervisors on scene. They all showed total neglect by not attempting to lift the car off of Leonard. Witnesses in the crowd stated that they offered to help lift the car and were told to stay back. Could it be that this is the Police Departments definition of "To Serve and Protect"?
Does the report state that Leonard was dragged more than 10 feet causing road burn over his entire back and part of his legs? Is any of this stated in the court documents you are reporting on? Or do you just support police brutality? Since when is such force justified in apprehending a shoplifter?
For the record, Leonard is not "pocketing" anything. The money that was awarded to him is being used to pay the extensive medical bills due to the severity of the additional injuries caused by the "accident". He was in the surgical intensive care unit for six weeks. His lungs were totally collapsed, causing him to be on the respirator with two tubes on both sides draining the blood out. He required 30 units of blood. His heart and liver were bruised, he had several broken ribs, his upper vertebrae was fractured and in order to keep his head still they had to put an instrument, called a halo, in place with at least 4 metal screws drilled into his head. This caused swelling on the brain. The lower vertebrae in his back was crushed, there was a puncture in his thigh from a metal bar from the car. I could continue with his injuries, but I don't see any point, because I don't think you even care.
The doctors told Leonard's parents that they didn't think he would survive the night. And if he did survive he probably would never walk again, due to the extensive damages in his back. With God's grace, Leonard did survive and he is able to walk because of all the surgeries, a permanent metal plate in his back, and several weeks in a rehabilitation hospital. So, in fact, the only thing that Leonard did truly walk away with was a permanent metal plate in his back for the rest of his life. Quite a price to pay for beefjerky, wouldn't you say?
The $30,000.00 that Leonard was awarded, is nothing compared to the extreme medical bills and the total mental devastation that Leonard and his family has been through.
We have family members that work in the police department and in the court system that cannot believe the way that this whole matter was handled by the police department. It's totally amazing how law enforcement officials can get away with simply saying, it was an "ACCIDENT". As Hise said in his interview. Deliberately leaving the car on Leonard was "NO ACCIDENT". The police department that Officer (and I use that term loosely) Hise worked for has a high rate of "ACCIDENTS" and "INCIDENTS" against suspects.
Our family feels that maybe we could appeal to your sense of decency and print this side of the story. Things are not always black and white, as is the print of a newspaper. And in America everyone is entitled to "Freedom of Speech".
V. Sanchez, sister and R. Allen, aunt
Posted by denver-admin at 12:01 AM
| Comments (3)
| TrackBack
By Scott Gilmore, Denver Parks and Recreation Advisory Board
This Speakout has not been edited By Scott Gilmore, Denver Parks and Recreation Advisory Board
In the year that I have served on the Parks Advisory Board, I have seen Ms. Bailey running a very efficient agency. With no dedicated funding source from the city, she has not only increased programming, but has jump started projects that have been sitting on city shelves for over a decade.
She has taken on issues where there have been no set procedures or policies in place. In the past few years she has spearheaded the effort to create policies and ordinances to help staff deal with issues that come up, such as Utility Policies, Alcohol Policies, Parkway Policies and the Tree Ordinance.
These i ssues are very contentious to people within the city and I believe Ms. Bailey has done a great job in listening to all sides then proceeding. For example the Excel deal that has been mentioned a few times in the paper within the last week; this has been a very complicated issue with Ms. Bailey trying to find the best outcome for the Parks Department and the citizens of Denver.
For example, at Sanderson Gulch Park, Excel had originally wanted to upgrade existing power lines going through the park. Ms. There will always be que stions and concerns about issues and that is why they go through the process of going from staff, to the Advisory Board, to Council and then to the Mayor. The whole Advisory Board was briefed about the Tree Ordinance and it was sent on to Council where concerns were raised and it was sent back to staff, which is what the correct process is Regarding the time off that Ms. Bailey has taken in the past year; it had all been approved by the City Personnel Department. She had the hours and she took them. She should not have to justify to anyone her reasons for taking leave that had been approved or that she has accrued. It is a shame that when as a society we are struggling to have our youth pursue a college education, even going as far to promise them $3,000 to attend, you have an African-American female role model attending college for her Doctorate that relates specifically to her job and she is vilified in the media.
According to the article, in the past 8 months she has spent less than three hours a week working on her Doctorate and part of that was doing playground observations at city schools. Denver Parks and DPS have been working closely together on shared facilities, such as athletic fields, buildings and playgrounds. Ms. Bailey working on this degree in design and planning will directly benefit the city in coming up with creative and innovative ways for how Denver Parks operates and manages our very large park system.
As someone that works with youth in the community, I understand how important role models and mentors are and Kim has been a great role model not only for all kids in Denver, but especially young females wanting to succeed in this world. I hope she continues her great work for the City of Denver and I look forward to working with her in the future. In fact I hope the issues that have been raised will encourage people to become more involved with the running of this city. There are numerous ways for people to get involved, from serving on boards, committees, or just volunteering within a neighborhood organization or school. Please don’t just sit around and complain, get up and get involved with this great city.
Posted by denver-admin at 12:01 AM
| Comments (11)
| TrackBack
By Dr. Mark Johnson, executive director, Jefferson County Department of Health and Environment
The American health care system is grounded in public health, and preventive services are its roots. But both prevention and public health are currently underutilized and under-funded, and no system can survive if its roots die. If we are going to get serious about health care reform, we must care for the roots first.
This Speakout has not been edited By Dr. Mark Johnson, executive director, Jefferson County Department of Health and Environment
The American health care system is grounded in public health, and preventive services are its roots. But both prevention and public health are currently underutilized and under-funded, and no system can survive if its roots die. If we are going to get serious about health care reform, we must care for the roots first.
High-tech medicine, with its array of new imaging techniques, more precise laser treatments, and advances in surgery and pharmacology can significantly improve the health status of some Americans. But it will greatly increase the costs for all of us.
High-impact, cost-effective public health and preventive services will significantly improve the health status of the overall U.S. population while at the same time saving valuable health care dollars.
The relationship between high-tech medicine and public health is not adversarial. Both grow from the same historical roots, and both have the same goal of quality, affordable health care for all Americans. But while our nation has poured resources into a health care industry that focuses on cure rather than prevention and treating disease rather than avoiding its onset, the overall health status of Americans is deteriorating and costs continue to climb.
We give lip service to prevention and public health. Twenty years ago, many lamented the fact that for every $97.00 dollars our nation spent on treatment, only $3.00 was spent on prevention. This discrepancy continues today. We are, in effect, pouring resources into making fruit look good, while the root system below is slowly failing. Such a system cannot survive.
The health care problems we face in this country are extremely complex, and the answers are not simple. We must provide care for an aging population, and we should take advantage of the technical advances that are being made. But building and maintaining a solid public health foundation is the key to meaningful health care reform. At the Jefferson County Department of Health and Environment, we are doing our best to ensure that this county has that strong foundation.
Posted by denver-admin at 12:01 AM
| Comments (1)
| TrackBack
By John Yee, Aurora
This Speakout has not been edited By John Yee, Aurora
Sociologists and anthropologists tell us that all human beings besides the basic needs of food, clothing and shelter, have three more important basic psychological needs. These are: Security, Status and Sociability.
Traditionally, the family is thought of as the best social institution for providing security and nurture of the young,; and if security is one of man’s basic needs, then broken homes should raise serious questions of mental health issues. In America, many find security not in homes but in joining social clubs or groups as a temporary alternative. In an open society, status and sociability are very fluid and changeable. Thus one can enjoy the popularity of a hero’s worship but on the other hand failure may lead to complete psychological isolation with few support systems easily available.
Core values are important in all societies, but, like laws, there needs to be periodic reviews and modifications as social and natural conditions change. History has shown us that societies that clung to values incompatible with changed conditions did not fare well. Rugged Individualism does not need to be so “rugged” any more. Instead, we might spend more time thinking about how to improve our community and human relations. The right to bear arms was written into law during a time of national crisis, and should no longer be a right, especially when hard evidence shows that America has more people killed by hand guns per day than any other civilized society in the world, with the possible exception of places of civil or “uncivil” war. In an enlightened democracy, laws should exist that are conducive to the health, welfare and life continuity process of society as a whole.
John H. Yee, WWII Veteran, member “Flying Tigers,” Aurora
Posted by denver-admin at 12:01 AM
| Comments (1)
| TrackBack
By Sol Shapiro
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Mitigation Section issued its Summary for Policy Makers on May 4. For the first time in a summary for policy-makers,, the panel included a “backhanded” reference to the feasibility that geo-engineering may be able to stop global warming in short order.
By Sol Shapiro
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Mitigation Section issued its Summary for Policy Makers on May 4. For the first time in a summary for policy-makers,, the panel included a “backhanded” reference to the feasibility that geo-engineering may be able to stop global warming in short order. That reference on Page 20 of the Summary is presented below:
17. Geo-engineering options, such as ocean fertilization to remove CO2 directly from the atmosphere, or blocking sunlight by bringing material into the upper atmosphere, remain largely speculative and unproven, and with the risk of unknown side-effects. Reliable cost estimates for these options have not been published (medium agreement, limited evidence) [11.2]. What is sorely lacking in this inclusion of geo-engineering is a call for study! Instead the panel placed emphasis on negative effects and uncertainties, rather than that it represents a potential to keep Bangladesh from flooding and reduce the risks of hurricanes in the Atlantic. Study of geo-engineering has been recommended over the past 30 years by such notables as the president of the National Academy of Sciences, Ralph Cicerone, in 2006 and Edward Teller, the father of the hydrogen bomb, in 1998. The panel would have served the world better if it had called for significant funding for these studies, rather than leave the issue of what to do hanging. The IPCC has Most of the environmental community, similarly, does not want to discuss the feasibility of a short-term solution to global warming. Many of my phone calls to such organizations as the Sierra Club have not been returned. But if we are closing in on disaster, as has been suggested by Al Gore, it is now a moral issue to put major funding toward studying geo-engineering leading to possible deployment. I fear that there will be some hurricane or major flood over the next several years, and if the public blames the IPCC and the environmental community for not looking at these short-term solutions, they will be deserving of the condemnation of the public. Sol Shapiro is a resident of Aurora. He was a member of the Western Governors’ Association’s Solar Task Force. By U.S. Rep. Doug Lamborn
When I took office as a new congressman this past January, the words of the oath weighed heavily on me. Elected officials have a sworn duty, as the Constitution says, to “provide for the common defense.” Yet I have grown increasingly concerned that the United States, despite much good work in the past five years, remains in large part undefended against ballistic missile attack.
By U.S. Rep. Doug Lamborn
When I took office as a new congressman this past January, the words of the oath weighed heavily on me. Elected officials have a sworn duty, as the Constitution says, to “provide for the common defense.” Yet I have grown increasingly concerned that the United States, despite much good work in the past five years, remains in large part undefended against ballistic missile attack.
What is more, while we are not currently on track to field the necessary defenses during this administration, potential funding cuts by Democrats would set us back even further.
North Korea defiantly staged missile tests last July 4. China recently shot down one of its own satellites. Iran is in the headlines daily with its efforts to build or buy nuclear warheads and the missiles to deliver them. The EMP threat — a single, massive electromagnetic pulse that could disable all our computers and communications through a nuclear detonation in near space — is a matter of record from Congress’ own commission several years ago. Yet our homeland is still virtually unprotected against our enemies. How did this come about?
In the 1980s, President Reagan began the Strategic Defense Initiative, which resulted in a number of studies, but, ultimately, no deployments.
In 1999 the Congress passed by a veto-proof margin an act declaring it U.S. policy to deploy missile defenses to protect against limited attacks, whether accidental, unauthorized or deliberate. But although President Clinton signed the bill into law, for years no deployments would in fact take place. The old Cold War approach of mutually assured destruction remained largely intact.
In June 2002, under President George W. Bush, the United States withdrew from the rigid and outdated ABM Treaty. A few initial deployments in Alaska and California began by 2004. To date, 17 interceptors have now been put into silos at Forts Greeley and Vandenberg. Upgrades to our proven Aegis sea-based interceptors have also taken place. Both sea- and land-based systems have had impressive testing in recent years, so we know we have the capability.
However, a serious missile threat does not come just from a would-be enemy’s intercontinental capability. A Scud or Shahab missile armed with a weapon of mass destruction and launched off the East Coast from a ship could reach one of our cities within 20 minutes. The technology for such short-range ship-launched missiles is already within the hands of many countries, including both Iran and North Korea. Even if our strategy is to prevent only limited strikes from a rogue nation, rather than defend against Russia or China, we are not doing what we are capable of doing.
To the extent that the Missile Defense Agency has plans to develop and deploy either coastal or space-based defenses, they appear to have been pushed five or more years into the future, which might as well be a lifetime in politics.
The president’s budget for missile defense is $8.9 billion, but Democrats appear intent on slashing it. Under Democratic leadership $764 million was removed from the top line, thus delaying the current long-range planning further. The strategic defense of the country is far too important to be left to a long-range plan, as the president proposes, much less a plan with wholesale cuts as some Democrats propose.
The United States cannot afford to be without defenses for our citizens and our cities, should our best efforts at diplomacy and counterproliferation fail. Voices must be raised — and I intend to be one of the loudest — calling upon members of Congress and the administration, and upon those running for office in 2008, to examine seriously the missile threat to the United States and what is being done to address it. Fighting the war on terrorism should include serious and urgent attention to defending against missile attack. All of us who have sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution can do no less.
Doug Lamborn, a first-term Republican, represents Colorado’s 5th Congressional District in the U.S. House of Representatives.
Posted by denver-admin at 12:01 AM
| Comments (6)
| TrackBack
By A. Page
There is another side to that word in relation to these illegals who block our streets with their protests and demands.
This Speakout has not been edited By A. Page
There is another side to that word in relation to these illegals who block our streets with their protests and demands.
Where is the dignity when they cross the border illegally and drop their trash on our side of the fence creating tons of their garbage for our bulldozers to spend hours regularly scooping it up?
Where is the dignity for millions of them using our emergency rooms free of charge when the rest of us work our tails off to pay our own way and then higher medical fees to cover their costs?
Where was the dignity for the thousands of them who commit crimes in a country that has to pay their judicial costs?
Where is the dignity for those who steal from our markets and clothing stores? I saw a Mexican man run from King Soopers carrying two, large trays of deli ribs to a waiting car without plates. I saw a Mexican woman with an armload of clothing run out of Ross Dress For Less to a waiting truck with no plates. I saw a man the other day run from Wal Mart with a bicycle and something rolled up under his arm and rode away as fast as his stealing legs could go.
I have been hit by them twice now and they had no legal papers or insurance to drive; I was stuck by them once again, or rather, twice again. I saw them hit a car at an intersection and run away after the accident. I could go on and on not only with my observations, but with accounts of others who suffer at their illegal hands. Where’s the dignity in it, Mr Johnson?
If they were here to simply work with dignity at a dignified job, they wouldn’t be on welfare, they wouldn’t be stealing from our stores and they would do nothing to be a burden on our society; nothing.
My third generation Mexican friends tell me this a very well planned invasion of the U.S. and that they come here for what they can get; not what they have to offer. That would be too dignified.
Then you have the short sightedness to quote some poor, pathetic whiner that “you are never going to see an American scrubbing toilets and picking up trash and humiliating themselves...” Again, what a patheic whiner. How does she think America got built into what it is? How does America stay so clean and such a tempting place for her to sneak across the border to partake of all that this amazing country has to offer? We gringos take out the trash every day and we clean our toilets every day and when I’m doing it I have never felt humiliated; just clean. There is much dignity in being clean and being the one keeping things clean. When this same woman has her baby twins that are due on Halloween who is paying her maternity bills? Who will pay their way in this country? Will she be one who has dignity and pays her own family’s way or will she be a sponge on American taxpayers and still cry for respect because she only wants recognition for being “dignified?”
Where I come from Bill, I’ve had to earn the title, not demand it. I take out trash, and I clean all the time. I don’t steal or ask others to pay my way. I don’t block American streets and demand honor or dignity. I earned it along the way and never left trash behind me for others to pick up.
So, Mr. Johnson, when you speak of dignity, as a reader, I’d like a more complete, honest, story and not one with a bleeding heart, liberal bias.
I like open minds, but the prospect of being so open minded that your brains fall out, well, it just ain’t dignified.
Posted by denver-admin at 12:01 AM
| Comments (9)
| TrackBack
By Ellen Contard, Aurora
Mother’s Day is a time to celebrate very important women in our lives. Let us take a moment to reflect – why are mothers so important? What about mothers merits an entire day just to celebrate them? This Speakout has not been edited By Ellen Contard, Aurora
Mother’s Day is a time to celebrate very important women in our lives. Let us take a moment to reflect – why are mothers so important? What about mothers merits an entire day just to celebrate them? Perhaps the most important characteristic that distinguishes mothers from all other women in a person’s life is unconditional love. However, few people ever think of the first acts of unconditional love – often the most important, since they have a huge impact on her child’s future well-being – the ones that made the mother who she is: carrying a child in her womb for almost a year and giving birth. During pregnancy, a mother is very conscious of how she affects her developing baby. Every morsel she eats, every drop she drinks, goes to the baby – so she chooses her sustenance carefully. Every drug she takes is going to the baby, so she may weather a headache without Advil, or a cold without Nyquil, for her baby’s sake – not to mention giving up those cocktails at a dinner date! In birth, mother and baby work as a team to make the miraculous transition from womb to world happen, often supported by a husband, family member, close friend, and/or professional labor coach (a doula), and cared for by an expert care provider who can help to determine if special help is needed. The goal of everyone invested in this miracle should be the same – a healthy mother, baby, and family. For over 90% of women, this goal is best met by avoiding the use of drugs during labor. She would not use heroin or cocaine during pregnancy for love of her baby – why would she then take remarkably similar narcotic drugs while in labor (therefore still pregnant) via a shot or an epidural? Why would she allow these drugs to impair her ability to give birth as she was designed to – possibly creating a “cascade of interventions” that could lead to a surgical birth – or to cloud those first magical moments with her baby, making one or both of them sleepy and unable to cuddle and gaze into each other’s eyes? The drugs and medical procedures offered in the labor and delivery wards of most hospitals are wonderful advances in technology and can be lifesaving to mothers who truly need them, but they are overused on mothers who don’t. Giving a baby a healthy start by avoiding unnecessary drugs in labor requires commitment on a mother’s part, but it is almost always possible – and it is almost always the safest way to go. Proper nutrition and exercise during pregnancy can prepare a mother physically; education and the right support can eliminate fear and allow relaxation and comfort measures to be the “drugs” that help a normal, healthy mother give birth to a normal, healthy baby. Mothers who educate themselves, opt for natural childbirth, and prepare themselves physically and emotionally for this great work are not “martyrs,” nor are they “thrill seekers” or “extreme athletes.” They are simply mothers, doing what is best for their children. There is no single greater act of unconditional love for their children than to make the commitment to giving them the safest and healthiest start – whether that means surgery (which a small number of women truly need to have their babies) or going drug-free (of which the vast majority of women are truly capable). For any mother, making educated choices in birth is not making the experience “all about themselves.” It’s all about the love of a mother for her child – which is what we are truly celebrating on Mother’s Day. Ellen Contard is a teacher of the Bradley Method® of Natural Childbirth and a certified birth doula who lives in Aurora with her husband and two daughters, both Bradley® babies. By Michele Swenson, Health Care for All Colorado
A Colorado insurance broker’s recent newsletter warns against “government healthcare” like “the failed systems of Canada and Europe, where quantity and quality of healthcare is declining rapidly.”
This Speakout has not been edited By Michele Swenson, Health Care for All Colorado
A Colorado insurance broker’s recent newsletter warns against “government healthcare” like “the failed systems of Canada and Europe, where quantity and quality of healthcare is declining rapidly.”
Odd assertions, considering every other industrialized nation has better health outcomes while averaging half the health costs per capita as the U.S. Such fear-baiting by the private insurance industry can be understood in light of the broker’s subsequent statement, accusing single-payer advocates of coveting the “one-seventh of the U.S. economy that is healthcare.”
The fact is, over 30% of health care dollars don’t go to health care, but rather to wasteful administrative costs of providers, hospitals and multiple private insurances; as well as to marketing, lobbying, profits, and unseemly CEO salaries. Accusations of government bureaucratic waste don’t hold a candle to the failed, wasteful corporate health care bureaucracy.
Truthfully, government Medicare (before the Medicare Part D prescription drug reform was written to assure billions of dollars of taxpayer-subsidized profits to the insurance and pharmaceutical industries) has run 3% overhead costs, contrasted with average 15-20% overhead costs of private insurances. Private insurers frankly fear losing the profit-centered health insurance model of escalating premium dollars in return for less coverage, whereby profits are guaranteed by insuring the healthy and wealthy and eliminating everyone else.
Big-money insurance and pharmaceutical lobbies have a stranglehold on the legislative process, writing health policy to insure their bottom lines, while spending big bucks on media to scare people with misinformation ( recall “Harry & Louise” ads). In the current environment, meaningful health reform desired by the majority becomes an uphill battle. Even the term “politically feasible health reform” implies acquiescence to the inordinate political power wielded by the big lobbies whose policies create inflationary health costs and reduced access. Better to ask, how can we develop the political will to achieve meaningful reform?
Health Care for All Colorado drafted one of 19 comprehensive reform proposals submitted to the 208 Commission for Health Care Reform. Because we don’t have the funding enjoyed by those profiting from the current system, our efforts have to be grassroots – people around the state rising up to lead the leaders and counteract powerful lobbies. Following is a brief overview of the HCAC proposal. Read it and judge for yourself; then talk to your legislators.
The Colorado Health Services program represents systemic health care reform designed to ensure integration of financing, delivery and administration in order to provide quality health coverage for all in place of our current fragmented, chaotic, profit-centered multiple-insurance model. CHS is a comprehensive, public-payer (insurance), private provider (health facilities, providers) system that permits free choice of providers and hospitals. By eliminating wasteful administrative spending, the program is designed to provide quality, equitable health care access at greatly reduced cost by creating a single, statewide risk pool for all residents.
Comprehensive benefits encompass a broader range of coverage than currently available through any single private insurance plan.
CHS administrative savings alone are projected at 15-20 percent of health spending. Additional savings result from elimination of insurance profit-taking, and negotiation of costs for pharmaceutical and durable medical goods. Providing universal access to primary, preventive care avoids resort to higher-cost delayed, crisis emergency room care. The elimination of multiple duplicative insurance paperwork reduces hospital and providers’ costs. Treatment instead of imprisonment of many suffering substance abuse or mental illness would significantly reduce prison/jail expenditures. Universal access to continuous health care greatly reduces costs of malpractice premiums and awards.
Key to any successful systemic health care reform is a statewide fully integrated Information Technology network, permitting simultaneous tracking of expenditures, utilization and outcomes, with assessment of best practices and resource utilization to improve quality of care and expedite chronic disease management; and to reward hospitals and providers for excellence. Statewide coordination of public health and infrastructure prevents duplication of services and administrative waste. Accountability and transparency of data facilitates informed health care decisions by all.
Federal, state and local monies now earmarked for health care would be transferred to the CHS Trust, insulated from the general state budget. Waivers would be sought for federal programs (e.g., Medicaid and Medicare). The medical expense portion of liability, Workers’ Compensation and automobile insurance would be folded into the program, eliminating administrative and adjudication costs for auto and job-related injuries. Exercising administrative oversight, a governing board representing five state regions would remain accountable to the people. CHS would be operated as a publicly-owned not-for-profit insurance company.
Employers and employees would contribute through payroll deduction or a progressive tax. Health costs for the vast majority will be substantially reduced below current premium and out-of-pocket health expenditures (currently averaging $11,000 per family annually). Divorcing health coverage from employment also frees businesses to better compete in the global marketplace. All institutions, including public education and the state, would realize savings when relieved of responsibility for inflationary health coverage costs. Coloradans will no longer experience threat of bankruptcy due to high medical bills (the cause of an estimated 50 percent of U.S. personal bankruptcies), or denial of coverage due to ‘pre-existing’ health conditions.
Equal access to health care across the state would be facilitated, as providers and hospitals receive the same reimbursement for the same level of care, negotiated annually. Education funding for health care providers and incentives for service in high-needs areas are key features, as is wellness education for the populace and job-retraining for displaced workers.
Read the full Health Care for All Colorado proposal and background information at www.healthcareforallcolorado.org .
Posted by denver-admin at 12:01 AM
| Comments (0)
| TrackBack
By Michaell Duane Archer, Golden
My youngest son, Anthony, plays Warhammers at the local Games Workshop store in the Colorado Mills shopping center. Warhammers is a combined game and hobby. It’s a tad on the expensive side but keeps his face out of the darn video games and the ever-nefarious Tube.
By Michaell Duane Archer, Golden
As every parent knows, it is too easy for children to find trouble these days. Violence and sex are everywhere and negative news is trumpeted loudly and instantaneously by the media. Video games and technology downplay social interaction. Society as a whole has become more uptight since I was a youngster; kids today are in a tight box and even small infractions seem to be dealt with harshly now. Good clean fun is hard to find circa 2007.
My youngest son, Anthony, plays Warhammers at the local Games Workshop store in the Colorado Mills shopping center. Warhammers is a combined game and hobby. It’s a tad on the expensive side but keeps his face out of the darn video games and the ever-nefarious Tube. For that, my wife Elaine and I are grateful.
The entire store concept is sort of a back-to-the-future hobby shop. They offer free game lessons, contests, assembly and painting classes. As long as the kids are over 12 years of age and behave themselves, they are welcome to come by and play a game on one of the store’s three large game boards. Parents, too, are welcome.
The manager, Dan — or “Dan the Man,” as he is affectionately known — and his staff keep the kids focused and occupied. The hobby side requires the kids to assemble an army, paint and decorate them. The game side is quite complex and encourages reading, planning, independent study and thinking. There is a tremendous amount of social interaction between staff, kids of all ages and adults who play Warhammers. We’ve never encountered the “buy something or move along” attitude prevalent nowadays. The place reminds me so much of my own childhood haunt, the Model Hobby Shop.
The Model Hobby Shop, located just west of Federal Boulevard on West 38th Avenue in northwest Denver, was owned and operated by Ernie Katz and his son, Gene. Two nicer and more patient men you could never meet. And patience was an operational prerequisite in dealing with mostly poor pre-teens who could take weeks to make a decision about a $2 purchase. In those days many small stores made their way not with cut-rate prices but with service.In the late 1950s, plastic model cars by AMT, Monogram and Revell were all the rage. The store had a front-window display case showing some of the customers’ finer efforts. It was a real honor to have your car in there for a few months. I had a 1957 Ford on display, with doors, hood and trunk that all opened and closed. It was painted a special reddish copper my dad mixed for me, and had lots of cool detail such as sparkplug wires and cloth-covered seats and dashboard.
By the early-1960s the slot-car racing fad had taken over our imagination. It was more expensive, but more fun, also. Model Hobby Shop had a six-lane track in the basement, down two flights of narrow, rickety stairs. It cost just 25 cents an hour to rent a lane, with races on Saturday night and Sunday. From Friday afternoon to Sunday night the place was SRO for several years. With perhaps 30 or 40 kids jammed into the space — and an exposed car battery powering the track — it would never today pass a fire inspection.
Gene hand-built the track and it was a dandy. To start a race he would stand on the lower stairs and flash the lights on and off. Today when I see lights flash I still think of Gene and clearly see him standing there with a big grin on his face.
It is amazing how thoroughly kids planned things in those days. Money was tight, so one had to deliciously savor each spending opportunity. Though the boomers learned frugality from their Greatest Generation parents, they haven’t been as good at passing the virtue on to their kids. But, blessedly, I see the boomer thoughtfulness in my son and the kids who play at the Games Workshop store.
Greed killed slot-car racing as it does so many good things. The prices of the best motors and parts soared beyond the means of the kids. The adults took over the hobby, won all the races and quickly ruined it for everyone. But a fad back then lasted years as opposed to months or weeks today.
By offering a variety of games requiring small, medium or large armies, it appears the Warhammers players will never meet the same, sad fate. I hope the game and the store are around to nurture my grandchildren one day, too. There is still good clean fun for kids out there circa 2007.
Posted by denver-admin at 12:01 AM
| Comments (5)
| TrackBack
By Tom Goldsmith, Denver
I went to the Cherry Creek Whole Foods a few days ago to buy some tuna salad. I like their tuna salad; it’s tastier than other tuna salads.
This Speakout has not been edited By Tom Goldsmith, Denver
I went to the Cherry Creek Whole Foods a few days ago to buy some tuna salad. I like their tuna salad; it’s tastier than other tuna salads.
I asked an employee what type of tuna they used in their tuna salad and was told it wasn’t albacore. I’d asked because I’d been reading that tuna, especially albacore tuna, should be avoided because it contains mercury which is bad for us. When I pressed for more info, the employee said he’d show me a typical can of the tuna they use to make their tasty tuna salad.
Well, let me tell you, he became back with a really BIG can of tuna. Several pounds big. So big that I could easily read: “made in China", or some such language, on it.
Wow! Canned tuna made in China, the land from whence cometh adulterated pet food.
I left the store. Without the tuna.
I don’t know about you, but I’ve become reluctant to buy foods that are produced outside the United States and Canada because foods produced elsewhere, including China, may not be safe to eat.
I’ve searched the internet and have found lots of articles claiming that many foreign governments do a very poor job regulating their food producers, that the current administration in Washington is not putting enough pressure on foreign food providers and is doing a very poor job keeping adulterated foods out of American markets. These articles express special concern about tuna because of the mercury much of it contains, which is particularly bad for pregnant women and infants.
Most of us believe, don’t we, that alternative super markets ("Health Food Stores” and “Natural Food Stores” such as Whole Foods are our best source of safe food; however, my recent experience suggests it is unwise to assume that alternative supermarkets really do supply safer food than do conventional markets.
The big natural food conglomerate that’s resulted from the recent merger of Whole Foods with Wild Oats can be expected to claim that it is doing the best job it can to provide Americans with healthy food. And that may be so, but, query, is it really doing a better job than conventional supermarkets?
Is it really safe to buy foreign foods such as Chinese tuna salad in any market today?
Posted by denver-admin at 12:01 AM
| Comments (7)
| TrackBack
By Joel Pousson, independent military analyst
The terror-sponsoring government of Iran is rushing to develop a nuclear weapon. There is no doubt that the Mullahs in Teheran will be ready and willing to use it, preferably on a Western target, to assert their supremacy in the Islamic world.
This Speakout has not been edited By Joel Pousson, independent military analyst
"A Free Man who cares not to help the oppressed deserves not his own Freedom" The terror-sponsoring government of Iran is rushing to develop a nuclear weapon (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,430649,00.html). There is no doubt that the Mullahs in Teheran will be ready and willing to use it, preferably on a Western target, to assert their supremacy in the Islamic world. Knowing a threat exists is the key to defeating it. However, once a threat is identified, the next step is identifying the best strategy to stave off the attack. With Iran, the West is faced with two distinct, but drastically different, courses of action. Option One is a military attack on Iranian nuclear facilities, removing its development of a nuclear weapon, but leaving its government in place to continue the pursuit of a nuke. Option Two, the smarter option, is to eliminate the Iranian government itself and replace it with a representative republic, obviating the need for a nuclear weapons program, and removing the very heart of international terror. In Option One, attacking the Iranian nuclear facilities would be feasible (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/05/04/frustrated_mit_risk_loving_eggheads/), but an extremely shortsighted operation, especially in light of strategic goals. The United States has demonstrated quite inarguably its military capabilities, and its capacity for removing military threats quickly with minimal loss of US military lives. The Iraqi campaign to remove Sadam Husayn was carried out in short order, with a bare minimum of Coalition battle casualties; the military victory was achieved quickly and the nation secured with far less casualties than many analysts predicted. However, in the aftermath of the military campaign, the US and coalition forces have faced a drawn-out strategy of insurgency and terror attacks, not only on Coalition forces, but upon the Iraqi people themselves, as well as the infrastructure the Coalition is striving to establish (http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=16657). Hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis have faced terror attacks, and thousands of Coalition and tens of thousands of Iraqi troops have died in this campaign of roadside bombs, suicide attacks, and outright brigandry tearing away daily at the modern nation the Iraqis and their allies are attempting to establish. The very same thing can happen in Iran. By attacking Iranian nuclear facilities, Western forces could actually trigger galvanization of the Iranian people around their government, notwithstanding its own nefarious motives (http://globalpolitician.com/articledes.asp?ID=2629&cid=2&sid=4). In removing the nuclear threat, a Western attack may very well more firmly entrench the theocracy in Iran. Option Two is removing the Iranian government permanently. Focusing on assisting the overthrow of the Iranian government, fostering and capitalizing upon internal discontent, the West can achieve two goals simultaneously: The elimination (or rendering as a moot issue) of the Iranian nuclear program, and the dismantling of the terror-supporting government itself. Iran is the focal point of the Global War on Terror; it has funded, supplied and commanded terror groups, the most visible examples being Hezbollah, al-Qaeda, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad. Iranian terror masters have been tied to the majority of terror attacks against Western targets, and have not been brought to bear, as of yet, in the crosshairs of the forces conducting the Global War on Terror. A ground campaign in Iran is simply unfeasible. The land mass is too large, the population far too great, and the forces of the West are involved in too many places conducting important work to enable concentration of mass for a ground campaign. Airstrikes and cruise missile attacks could destroy Iranian nuclear facilities and other valuable targets, but after those are eliminated, what then? For years, the Iranian government has prepared networks of terrorists throughout the world to conduct retaliatory attacks on Western targets the moment Iran was hit (http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/week/040812.htm), and the West would suffer tens of thousands of innocent lives lost. With this option, the Iranian government would still exist, well able to continue terror operations to respond to follow-up strikes. However, if an indigenous revolt can be triggered, the Revolutionary government removed and the command and control of international terrorism eliminated, the West will see made moot the threat of nuclear-tipped missile attacks on Europe, and terror groups like Hezbollah will be left leaderless, bereft of support and dangling in the wind, and nations like Lebanon will have the chance at a decent future. Many in the West are blind to the growing discontent in Iran. Over sixty-five percent of the Iranian populace is under the age of 30, and 55% of those are female (www.eisenhowerinstitute.org/programs/globalpartnerships/islamicworld/project-papers/Waite), and most of those are pro-Western, ready to resist the the theocracy there. Protests are growing daily, and life is becoming increasingly untenable in Revolutionary Iran (one such sign is that traditional bribes for building permits in Tehran have risen over 200% in recent years {http://www.townhall.com/columnists/column.aspx?UrlTitle=irans_latest_hostage_gamble&ns=AustinBay&dt=03/28/2007&page=2}). By holding off on a military attack and instead funneling money to resistance groups inside Iran, millions of lives can be saved, and terrorism can be set on its heels. Is it not more reasonable to spend a few million dollars to force internal revolt in Iran than throw away millions on munitions only to ensure the government its continued existence? Joel Pousson is an Independent Military Analyst and a Human Rights Activist. By John Conlin, Littleton
Having just returned from an annual lobbying trip to Washington D.C., I find myself disheartened and distressed. The weather was beautiful so I walked about and visited many of the awe inspiring memorials. The words of Lincoln, Jefferson, and Kennedy echoed in my mind.
This Speakout has not been edited By John Conlin, Littleton
Having just returned from an annual lobbying trip to Washington D.C., I find myself disheartened and distressed. The weather was beautiful so I walked about and visited many of the awe inspiring memorials. The words of Lincoln, Jefferson, and Kennedy echoed in my mind. The horrors of the Holocaust museum brought more than a few tears to my eyes. The honor, courage, and sacrifice of those represented at Arlington, the Vietnam Wall, Korea, WWI and II memorials brought even more tears… and a questioning of my own worth and gratitude for these others. That these individuals gave their all for this country, in most cases for the freedom of others shook me to my core.
Now this great country again finds itself in a titanic battle, yet it seems many of our political leaders pale in comparison. They claim the battle lost, even as brave individuals shed their very lives for us. They wish it had never started. Who hasn’t wished they could turn back the clock and with their new knowledge choose another path? But in economics this is called a sunk cost, the investment has been made… wishful thinking won’t change a thing. Although I doubt most of these leaders have ever been in an actual fight, once started there is only one way it ends, with one or the other side winning. Wishing you were anywhere but here won’t change this reality. We are in the fight whether we like it or not and quitting is simply not an option. Our enemies are not going anywhere and hiding only postpones the inevitable. Have any of these leaders been involved in managing a company? In a well-run organization a free flow of ideas is essential in management meetings. But these meetings aren’t democracies… although everyone should feel free to voice their opinions; the decision is made by those who have the highest organizational position. And once you walk out of that management meeting, you publicly support that decision whether you personally agree or not. When dealing with the issues of this country at war, the same holds true for the political process. Does this require tremendous political courage? Without a doubt. Will there be a short-term political price to pay? Very likely… but that doesn’t change a thing. Do contrary public statements help motivate our enemies? Of course. If you were an alley of the US anywhere in the world, would you ever seriously trust our word and resolve? Hardly. Do you see many profiles in courage up on the Hill? Sadly no. All while brave young men and women give their lives for us. Perhaps some late night, when all the tourists have abandoned the memorials, our political leaders of all stripes should sneak down and have a quiet talk with John and Abe and Thomas. Read what they said… what they did. Perhaps they should run their hands over the names on the Wall. Perhaps they should weep at Arlington. The words are right there: “Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price – bear any burden – meet any hardship – support any friend – oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty” “In the long history of the world, only a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom. In the hour of maximum danger I do not shrink from this responsibility, I welcome it” “… It is for us the living rather to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us – that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion – that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain…” “…, we mutually pledge our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.” Re-read that last quote. The individuals who formed this country really did risk those things. But today, do our political “leaders”, who swear a sacred oath to this country – not to this or that political party – actually believe those words? Or have those words simply become a suckers game? Where sacred honor is laughed at? Where fortunes aren’t to be risked but rather to be made? And where only those who believe such outdated sentiments put their lives on the line? Disheartening indeed. John Conlin is a management consultant located in Littleton By Meghan Smiley, Woodland Park
I am a survivor of sexual assault. And that was the hardest sentence I’ve ever written. According to the American Medical Association Twenty-five percent of all women and ten percent of all men have survived sexual assault by the age of eighteen.
This Speakout has not been edited By Meghan Smiley, Woodland Park
I am a survivor of sexual assault. And that was the hardest sentence I’ve ever written. According to the American Medical Association Twenty-five percent of all women and ten percent of all men have survived sexual assault by the age of eighteen. Almost no people will ever talk about being sexually assaulted according the U.S. Department of Justice.
Sexual assault is defined by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists as any act of sex, ranging from unlawful sexual contact to actual intrusion or penetration, where the actor has not obtained consent from the other person. According to the Center for Disease Control ninety-seven percent of sexual assault is committed by someone the victim knows. So the real problem is not lurking in the bushes or back allies instead it is sitting under our noses. Sexual assault is a problem now. Sexual assault is in the United States. And sexual assault needs to be stopped.
Like most people I don’t even know how to talk about sexual assault most of the time. Let’s face it; in a society that can’t even openly discuss healthy sexual relationships, discussing sexual assault is beyond taboo. I think most people see sexual assault as something separate from themselves, something invisible or something that is not part of their lives. The fact is that sexual assault has a role in most people’s lives, whether the person is a survivor or the friend of a survivor. I know sexual assault is wrong, so wrong, yet society seems to treat it like it is something that just happens, or even something that’s not wrong.
The worst part about sexual assault is that most of the time society blames the victim. Society tells victims that they should have dressed differently, drank less, screamed or said no, but these things should not be a factor. There is no logical reason to blame the victim because it is not the victim’s job to stop assault. It is impossible for people to heal and move on when society tells them that they made the mistake.
Personally, sexual assault has made me scared of relationships, scared of trusting people, guilty for my lack of action and scared of being vulnerable. Luckily for me I have found the people who will discuss sexual assault with me and support me in the healing process, but many people will never find this.
There are valuable resources for survivors of sexual assault in the U.S. such as the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Women’s Health Network and the nation sexual assault hotline, which operates under the Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network. Unfortunately, these resources are only a start to creating change in the United States.
Current social norms tell people that it is okay to objectify people through both language and action. Whether media is a reflection of what people already are or a way of creating who people are, it seems absurd to treat people like dispensable commodities. It seems that political correctness has the power to stop important conversations about sex because people don’t want to discuss uncertain subjects. I think today’s society likes to hide its problems because people want to be seen as perfect, but there is no way to solve a problem if it is not even acknowledged.
Everyone can be a part of stopping sexual assault. Each person needs to recognize that the U.S. does have a problem with sexual assault. The best thing that people can do is to talk openly about sexual assault in order to work toward changing social norms. Also people need to understand how important it is to believe and support survivors of sexual assault. Survivors need to be empowered so that they don’t blame themselves. Everyone needs to understand that consent is cooperation in act and attitude, and only a sober adult can give consent. Silence is not consent.
Posted by denver-admin at 12:01 AM
| Comments (1)
| TrackBack
By Tom Anthony, Denver
Simplistically, those who believe “no borders is good borders” would, by inference, leave their front door open and, in fact, welcome any intruders. If such uninvited guests grabbed a few beers out of the fridge and plopped down to watch TV, no prob. But then, where would you draw the line?
By Tom Anthony, Denver
Simplistically, those who believe “no borders is good borders” would, by inference, leave their front door open and, in fact, welcome any intruders. If such uninvited guests grabbed a few beers out of the fridge and plopped down to watch TV, no prob. But then, where would you draw the line? The intruder grabs the remote and switches channels on you? Even a Quaker might experience a touch of umbrage at such chutzpah.
Let’s get real. In our world, and even in our world of say, 120,000 years ago, borders exist(ed). Some tribal group had a nice hunting area or gathering area or weathertight depression or cave and, by golly, they defended it. Just as you would if someone walked in through your screen door and grabbed your remote. So let’s be clear: people like borders. They really do.
In fact, while The World Population Data Bureau in Washington, D.C., now estimates that the United States will have a population growth rate rivaling that of any Third World country for the next 40 years, and during that time 85 percent of the U.S. population growth will be Hispanic. While nobody knows what our world will actually be like in 2050, the bureau relies on existing trends to inform their predictions, and there is clearly a trend in place. The question is, does the United States want to see it through?
Coming from a family where five of my siblings chose not to have children, at least several of their decisions largely influenced by the obvious negative consequences to the planet by human overpopulation, I would say this is a reasonable question. However, to ask it invites a barrage of invective from enlightened activists (usually on a government salary or grant) who call such things elitist, gentrified, racist and isolationist.
I personally have seen the type of poverty that drives people to undertake the Sonoran Desert barrier and seek new opportunities. Frankly, if I found myself in that predicament, I’d do the same. And, unfortunately, with the Mexican government showing no signs of internal restructuring, and the wealthy padrones and multinational corporations benefiting most from the North American Free Trade Agreement pleased with the current arrangement, Mexico isn’t about to undertake its own transformation.
The Mexican and Central and South American aristocracy, led by Mexican mogul Carlos Slim Helu (the third richest man on the planet), is the rock. The U.S. border is the hard place. And, as we’re finding, the rock is a lot harder. The real question for Americans is this: Which would you prefer the American Southwest of 2050 to resemble, Bill Gates’ country or Slim’s?
Posted by denver-admin at 12:01 AM
| Comments (7)
| TrackBack
By Lisa Mieritz, MSA, Director, Economics in Education, Inc.
In her 4/29 Op/Ed, “Think Tank Project Exists to Please NEA”, Ms Seebach complains about critiques of ‘Think Tank’ studies, and, while she notably finds no fault with the critiques themselves, she impugns the motivations of their authors and of the NEA, which, she suggests, partially funded the critiques. This Speakout has not been edited By Lisa Mieritz, MSA, Director, Economics in Education, Inc.
In her 4/29 Op/Ed, “Think Tank Project Exists to Please NEA”, Ms Seebach complains about critiques of ‘Think Tank’ studies, and, while she notably finds no fault with the critiques themselves, she impugns the motivations of their authors and of the NEA, which, she suggests, partially funded the critiques. In presuming the irrelevance of Educational School research, however, finding it, “obviously just standard ed-school drivel, not worth more of my time”, Ms. Seebach betrays that her comments serve no purpose other than a political one. Her topic, however: Who finances educational research, couldn’t be more important. Ms. Seebach failed to mention that the Paige/Spelling Department of Education has spent well over $200 million dollars to fund pro-charter groups and research. No wonder these pro-charter Think-Tanks produce significantly more research than other groups with more meager means—such as universities—which conduct fewer but more rigorous studies. No wonder these voluminous Think Tank studies lack academic oversight and are susceptible to scrutiny. No wonder these Think Tank studies provide fodder in disproportionate number for critiques compared to university studies, which are already critiqued before being published. I see no comparable $200 million source of national funds to conduct “charter-neutral” research. In its funding these pro-charter groups, the Department of Education pre-supposes that charters are academically “superior” to regular public programs, a faulty presumption. Recent authoritative reviews of charter performance conclude that, instead of out-performing regular public programs, charters, at best, equal regular public programs, but may actually under-perform regular public programs when accounting for race and poverty. (see ncsp@columbia.edu, article #111). Neither do I see research funding the question of whether charters are “cost-effective”. Shouldn’t we try to find the most “efficient, cost-effective” educational model? Don’t all businesses look for the most efficient model? But, pro-charter groups resist research on “cost” because doing so would reveal that ‘charter-choice’ is exceedingly costly—much more costly than regular public programs. The truth about the cost of charter programs would shatter their favorite myth: That charters are a ‘financial wash’ to taxpayers. In fact, charters may cost 50% to 80% more than regular public programs. Using the economic measure of ‘opportunity cost’, a 2005 School District-11 study found that, while D-11’s Per Pupil Revenue is about $6,000, each D-11 charter pupil costs D-11 $10,858: 180% of its PPR. My 2005 state-wide study found that, while the state-wide PPR is approximately $6,164, the state-wide per-charter-pupil cost is around $9, 246: 150% of the average state PPR. Both of these studies were presented before the State Board of Education. In the final analysis, charters appear to reduce choice, overall, by placing more students in programs which have higher per-pupil costs. Increasing the average per-pupil cost of educating Colorado’s children either reduces overall instructional dollars or increases taxes, or both. But, progressive groups are also complicit in the dearth of research into efficient educational models. Public education currently enjoys considerable public support. Despite being hard-pressed to explain how charters bankrupt school districts, however, progressives are still afraid that even investigating the cost of ‘charter-choice’ may adversely impact public support. Both sides, and all taxpayers, however, are being blind-sided, not understanding economic costs and efficiencies in public education. As a taxpayer, I simply want to fund the most efficient educational model. I object to supporting inefficient educational models—models which cost up to 50% more than regular public programs but which produce no increased achievement. Even if charters cost only 30% or 40% more than regular programs, shouldn’t charters produce some increased achievement for the increased cost? Colorado taxpayers deserve transparency in educational funding. Educational programs should be subjected to cost-benefit analyses and scale-efficiency studies, just as businesses are. As a state, let’s fund this research. By Doug Sims, president, Citizens Commission on Human Rights of Colorado
Two studies have come out recently in the U.S. and the UK, which found that large numbers of people are erroneously being classified with a mental disorder.
This Speakout has not been edited By Doug Sims, president, Citizens Commission on Human Rights of Colorado
Two studies have come out recently in the U.S. and the UK, which found that large numbers of people are erroneously being classified with a mental disorder. People suffering from normal sadness, divorce, rejection and economic misfortune are diagnosed with “depression” after answering simplistic questions such as, “During the past month have you been bothered by feeling down, depressed or hopeless?” Despite grossly inept diagnostic criteria- one study admits a 60% misdiagnosis rate, the other 25%- and without use of any objective, physical tests such as blood tests, brains scans or x-rays, the person diagnosed will more often than not be prescribed powerful, mind-altering drugs.
Despite the growing concern over the correlation between prescribed mind-altering drugs and acts of violence, the pharmaceutical companies are spending $4 billion on direct-to-consumer marketing of psychiatric illnesses and the drugs used to “treat” As a result, the psychiatric/pharmaceutical industry earns more than $80 billion annually for psychotropic drugs, including stimulants, antipsychotics and anti-depressants.
International regulatory bodies have issued 24 warnings in the last two years on the serious side effects of psychiatric drugs, including heart attack, stroke, suicidal behavior, mania, psychosis, hostility and “homicidal ideation.” A USA Today study of adverse events reported to the FDA between 2000-2004 found at least 45 child deaths in which antipsychotics were listed as the “primary suspect,” in addition to 1,328 reports of serious, even life-threatening, side effects.
The “dark cloud” isn’t on the horizon but is here in mental health misdiagnosis, pharmaceutical profiteering, professional disregard of FDA warnings and the disastrous effects of drugging our populace with so-called “treatments” that have side effects that put us all at risk.
Posted by denver-admin at 11:41 AM
| Comments (0)
| TrackBack
By Pete Klammer, Wheat Ridge
This Speakout has not been edited By Pete Klammer, Wheat Ridge
We assume that the two major parties want to take turns at the levers of the same government, that they are two “brands” of the same basic product: public service. We are occasionally duped by the marketing of this illusion.
The revealing occasion, this time, is the Justice Department scandal (or “non-scandal,” if you listen to that marketing), on Albert Gonzales’ watch (or non-watch, if you take his testimony before Congress last week seriously).
“To the victor go the spoils!” Apologists for the lumped-together firings of non-team-player U.S Attorneys — based, it turns out, on such things as Federalist Society membership — are spinning the positions as “political appointees ... at the pleasure of the President.”
Indeed, we traditionally tolerate the doling-out of discretionary offices by the newly-elected victor as an acceptable — but final — partisan act of campaign closure; yet even then, only as nominations, to be ratified by the Senate, as check-and-balance on that “public service” part of the jobs.
Normally.
But nothing is “normal” in the wake of 9/11, at least according to the party now in power: the duty of the President to seek “the Advice and Consent of the Senate” has been sideswiped by a dead-of-the-night fine-print insertion the the USA PATRIOT act, allowing the Attorney General, in an emergency, to not just nominate, but appoint, anyone to US Attorney without the traditional Senate-May-I permission. Is there an emergency? Depends on what your definition of “is” is. Or Gonzales’ definition.
The violated illusion, that either party does the same, ignores the inauguration-only tradition and forgets that the “drown it in the bathtub” My burning question: by what definition of “victory” could the White House ever construe that they were entitled to spoils appointments in December, 2006?
Posted by denver-admin at 11:38 AM
| Comments (11)
| TrackBack
By Debbie Gentry
We are writing this letter on behalf of CORA, a Not for Profit Association of 512 lots and over 1,000 tax-paying property owners regarding the proposed shooting range that the South Park Shooting Association, Inc. is trying to develop adjacent to our property at 6820 South Hwy 285.
This Speakout has not been edited By Debbie Gentry
We are writing this letter on behalf of CORA, a Not for Profit Association of 512 lots and over 1,000 tax-paying property owners regarding the proposed shooting range that the South Park Shooting Association, Inc. is trying to develop adjacent to our property at 6820 South Hwy 285.
DID YOU KNOW… The proposed shooting range would be located approximately 500 feet from Buffalo Creek Reservoir which augments our water wells and serves as a fishing and picnicking area for the families of CORA.
Our biggest concern is for the safety of our families who use and enjoy this area every day.
Accidents can and do happen. A bullet can travel miles and as mentioned, our reservoir is only 500 feet away and our closest owners are approximately 1000 yards away. They will be severely impacted by the continual noise of gunfire if this site is approved.
The proposed shooting range site, if developed in Pony Park, would forever destroy this pristine Part of Park County Colorado.
This is hunting Area 49 – a prime draw for elk hunters. The elk population is such, that there are special flashing caution signs on US 285 located at the entrance to Pony Park Road warning drivers to be aware of the danger of crossing elk. Most of us chose this area to live because we love the quiet beauty of this part of Colorado and to observe the wildlife; elk, deer, antelope, ducks, geese, hawks and eagles are abundant in this area. The shooting range will negatively impact all the wildlife.
It will also negatively impact our property values. We don’t believe that anyone would knowingly choose to live next door to a shooting range. The Fairplay shooting range was shut down for the very same concerns we have – SAFETY for the owners and environmental impact, including noise.
CORA is a special place to a lot of people and it is for these reasons that we are reaching out to as many concerned groups and individuals as possible to stop this effort by a small special interest group to force their will on the residents who live here.
We are not opposed to a shooting range in a remote part of Part County, away from a populated area.
Is there an alternate location within Park County? We have acquired a listing of properties available in Park County and hope to gather more site information from the Bureau of Land Management.
Would you want to have a shooting range developed this close to your home?
We would appreciate everyone who is willing to support our opposition for this shooting range from being developed to attend the meeting at Park County Planning and Zoning, 501 Main Street Tuesday, May 8 2007, at 9:00am.
Thank you for your time and consideration, CONCERNED PROPERTY OWNERS of CORA
Posted by denver-admin at 11:32 AM
| Comments (0)
| TrackBack
By Ronnie Maynes, MA Counseling Psychology
When we look for solutions we have to know the social emotional needs of our young people. First and foremost every young person wants to belong, that could be family, school, church, sports team, rec centers, boys & girls club, small circle of friends, an after school job, or be in a relationship with a girlfriend.
This Speakout has not been edited By Ronnie Maynes, MA Counseling Psychology
When we look for solutions we have to know the social emotional needs of our young people. First and foremost every young person wants to belong, that could be family, school, church, sports team, rec centers, boys & girls club, small circle of friends, an after school job, or be in a relationship with a girlfriend.
When this is missing in a young person's life the gang can make them feel like they belong with no criteria attached all are welcome open door policy in the gang culture we accept everybody! No one is ever kicked or pushed out. Secondly, young people have the need to have power and control over themselves and another person(s) in their life.. This could be a sibling, a cousin, a close friend(s), or girl friend and often a parent or grand-parent that can be manipulated. This is their time to be macho by demonstrating power over others. When a young person is missing power in their life, the gang will give them this feeling of power and control over others by the use of fear and intimidation toward others. Furthermore, young people need to have independence/freedom in their life as well. Yes, we as parents want this freedom earned and respected with communication and ground rules attached. However, in the gang culture young people have total freedom in their life and they make every choice and decision for their daily routine. Finally, all young people need to have fun in their life. In the gang they have fun, mostly reckless and rebellious fun, but to them it's a real high! To combat the growth of gangs, families, schools, city agencies, youth organizations, colleges, churches, government and police need to address and make young people feel that they 1. belong, 2. Have fun, 3. Have freedom 4. Have power over others in a positive way. The gang culture has the patent on what young people need in their life. Let's learn from their tactics as to how peer pressure in its most powerful form is taking kids away from us. Let's build our community based on these four emotional needs. We need to rid of criteria like charging fees, having try-outs, cutting athletes, showing favoritism, propelling rivalries, pushing students out, and find ways to reduce pressure and stress related to perfect achievement in school. Avoid living the dream through our children that we as parents failed at. Young people today need more support systems in the aforementioned agencies they can turn to, like many of us had while growing up. Yes, we still need to mandate zero tolerance on violence in schools and communities. The most imminent need right now is Jobs for youth in the summer! Very important for ages 14 and older, too much free time gives gang members opportunity to recruit. Ronnie Maynes has been an educator for 30 years in high school and middle school. I took a passionate interest in gang culture after my son was recruited into the gang and our home was hit in a drive-by shooting. By Dan Omasta, University of Colorado
I'm a freshman at the University of Colorado at Boulder and am currently majoring in Political Science with a minor in Leadership and Philosophy. In the future I want to become a lawyer and a Representative of Colorado in the Federal Government. I want to be at the forefront of social change and help as many people as I can!
This Speakout has not been edited By Dan Omasta, University of Colorado
I'm a freshman at the University of Colorado at Boulder and am currently majoring in Political Science with a minor in Leadership and Philosophy. In the future I want to become a lawyer and a Representative of Colorado in the Federal Government. I want to be at the forefront of social change and help as many people as I can! Unfortunately, I will graduate with approximately 40,000 dollars worth of debt from CU and law school should at least double that number. What's worse is that my story is only one out of thousands -- students across the country are all affected by high education costs; they watch, powerless, as their rightful funds dwindle away into the pockets of loan firms and their dreams squandered under the weight of corporate profit. In the past weeks, student lenders were held accountable.
New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo opened investigations into the premiums and kickbacks commonly used by the lenders to induce colleges into business. Relationships like these can result in students taking out private loans with bad terms and high interest rates âEUR" loans that trap them in deep debt after graduation. Lenders want these deals in order to avoid the real market competition that would make student loans more affordable for millions of students. While these probes continue to shed light on manipulation in the student loan industry, the next step is to address the broader problems in the industry through congressional action and finding other sources of student funding. Currently, Representative Mark Udall is one of those at the forefront of policy change. Directly, "The importance of making college affordable and accessible to all qualified students cannot be overstated. Having an educated workforce is a matter of economic competitiveness and national security. I have consistently supported increases in Pell Grant funding. And in the first 100 hours of this Congress, I voted to cut interest rates on student loans in half." Our legislators are now starting to fight the growing problem, but they need the continued support of their constituents and communities in order to affect the necessary change. Unfortunately, Colorado ranks 48th nationally for the funding of its higher education programs -- requiring more of its students to fall into the student loan trap. Luckily, interest groups like COPIRG and ASC, along with state and federal legislators, are constantly fighting on our behalf. Now is the time to prepare for our future âEUR" to encourage students to reach for their highest goals and not be burdened by the incalculable weight of student loans. By Randy Brown, a Columbine parent
Let's hypothesize for a few minutes. There were bullies at a local school. The school became more violent. The children in the school noticed. They
saw the atmosphere in this school change to one of fear, bullying and arrogance. One boy grew, through the bullying, to become hyper-vigilant toward bullying.
This Speakout has not been edited By Randy Brown, a Columbine parent
Let's hypothesize for a few minutes. There were bullies at a local school. The school became more violent. The children in the school noticed. They
saw the atmosphere in this school change to one of fear, bullying and arrogance. One boy grew, through the bullying, to become hyper-vigilant toward bullying. Hyper-vigilance is the state that exists when a boy has been repeatedly subjected to
abusive behavior from a source, any source. If he has been bullied 3 times, 4 times, or 5 times, he becomes afraid, in advance, of the 6th time. He begins to see bullying behavior in the actions of everyone. He is afraid of them. A glance in his direction is interpreted as a threat. The mere fact that others do not defend him or stop the bullying
makes him hate them and himself. In the end he is afraid of many people, angry at most people and angry at himself for being a victim.
In the young mind of a teenager, this hyper-vigilant state creates great anger and fear, and a great self-loathing. "What is the matter with me?" "Why am I so different?" Many times a bullied child becomes suicidal. Some become angry and take other Child abuse, as described in this story, leads to bullying, that leads to hyper-vigilance, which can lead to suicide or murder suicide. It is the natural progression of things. After this teenager has been humiliated and bullied without a chance for justice or redress, he acts out. He plans revenge, buys guns and plans to kill students. These students are not innocent in the killer's eyes. They did not defend him. They did Another boy sees this, a boy in college, and he understands. He follows the example of the killer, and he too kills. Lives are lost all over the country, needlessly. The second killer calls the first killer a martyr. We do not understand that comment, but the second killer does. He knows the reasons for that killer's anger: Loneliness, depression, hopelessness, anger, mental abuse, physical abuse, humiliation and bullying. These boys are part of the same club. They suffer the same pain. We do not even see the pain, and they are living it. They are suicidal. They will kill before they commit suicide, and our children will be their targets. In the end, innocent children are murdered, and the public does not understand. "Why?" The answers are obvious to the hyper-vigilant boy who has been bullied and humiliated for years. The answers are so obvious that he cannot understand why no one We must learn to see where it starts. It starts with the first bullies, the bullies who changed the first high school and filled it with fear and humiliation, with no love for the boy who was too small to defend himself. He grew to hate. The bullying Love your children. Don't abuse them. Don't belittle them. Teach them to be kind. Teach them not to be a bully, and don't abuse your children. Find out if your son is being bullied and defend him. Help him. Protect him. Don't laugh at his fear. Don't make fun of him because he is afraid. Don't tell him to "toughen up", he is afraid. If you are being bullied, find a non-violent way to let other people know. Find a non-violent way to be heard. Maybe now we will listen. That is one of the lessons of Columbine. By Peter Mandel, Providence, R.I.
Unless you live in Whoville, which is tucked in the mountains and doesn’t get much news, you know that Dr. Seuss’ The Cat in the Hat is a best-selling classic. 2007 marks the 50th anniversary of the book’s publication. By now, it’s an icon as much as a funny story and one of the most-loved titles of all time.
By Peter Mandel, Providence, R.I.
Unless you live in Whoville, which is tucked in the mountains and doesn’t get much news, you know that Dr. Seuss’ The Cat in the Hat is a best-selling classic. 2007 marks the 50th anniversary of the book’s publication. By now, it’s an icon as much as a funny story and one of the most-loved titles of all time.
You might know that Dr. Seuss’ real name was Theodor Geisel. But bet you didn’t know this: The Cat in the Hat could not be published today. Repeat: It couldn’t make the cut.
Open it up and you’re face-to-face with Rip Van Winkle in hardback. The cat, the kids, the mom, the fish. Even Thing One and Thing Two. The whole thing is a dinosaur between wipe-clean covers. And, well, if you’ve got 2007 sensibilities it’s darned offensive too.
Let’s start with the premise here: Two little kids of maybe 6 or 7 are being harassed by a large, threatening animal and its accomplices. Worse, the two have been left for an entire day without adult supervision. “Sally and I did not know what to say. Our mother was out of the house for the day.” Get the cops. Bring in a social worker and quick.
“Something went BUMP!” complain the two kids. “How that bump made us jump!” I’m sorry to be the one to report this, but according to federal law, the Cat in the Hat’s forced entry is nothing short of felony home invasion, punishable by a minimum of 15 years in prison (going by current sentencing guidelines).
If this isn’t troubling enough, the book doesn’t even try to represent ethnicities, sexual preferences or family situations beyond its obviously Caucasian-owned upper-middle-class suburban home. Admittedly, Thing One and Thing Two have blue hair, but it’s not clear that this adds much in the way of diversity as far as the book’s characters are concerned.
Which reminds me: Since today’s kids’ books must be relevant, what’s with the name “Sally?” I mean, who is Seuss kidding? When was the last time you met someone under the age of 30 named Sally or Betsy or Tom or Tim or — for that matter — Dick or Jane? Too modest, too simple. Too, well, cheery. I mean, maybe Ashleigh or Brianna could work here, but Sally? Get real.
And, come to think of it, what self-respecting kid would call their female parent “Mother”? It’s exclusively a “Mom” world now as anyone knows. Moms, I have to point out, go around in sweatsuits or jeans — never, ever the stockings and dress shoes depicted in The Cat in the Hat’s final illustration!
Want to talk pictures? The book’s three-color art provides awful, outdated examples in almost every way. Why is that fish in a fishbowl? He needs a tank with a filter and aerator. Toys like a boat and a ball and a doll? Where are the electronic games? Milk doesn’t come in a bottle — it might break and cut you — or tea in a teapot. That could spill and cause a burn.
In one of the book’s big spreads we see a formal gown, a butterfly net, a phone with a cord, a handle-topped umbrella, a corn broom, a wind-up clock, and a Japanese fan. This stuff belongs in a museum. And by the end of The Cat in the Hat it is everywhere.
Dr. Seuss, we’ve seen enough. Your outmoded fantasies might have flown back in the ’50s, but they won’t fly now. Get with the program, read some of today’s hot books, and maybe find a new literary agent. Oh, and one more thing:
Don’t call us. We’ll call you.
Peter Mandel is an author of kids’ books including Planes at the Airport from Scholastic and Say Hey! A Song of Willie Mays from Hyperion. He is a resident of Providence, R.I.
Posted by denver-admin at 12:01 AM
| Comments (0)
| TrackBack
By Karen Johnson, Student Nurses Association at the University of Colorado at Denver and Health Sciences Center
The Student Nurses Association at the University of Colorado at Denver and Health Sciences Center, CUSNA, would like everyone to join us in recognizing the nation's 2.9 million extraordinary registered nurses during National Nurses Week from May 6-12.
This Speakout has not been edited By Karen Johnson, Student Nurses Association at the University of Colorado at Denver and Health Sciences Center
The Student Nurses Association at the University of Colorado at Denver and Health Sciences Center, CUSNA, would like everyone to join us in recognizing the nation's 2.9 million extraordinary registered nurses during National Nurses Week from May 6-12.
Nursing is an art and a science that demands intimate knowledge of the body, the disease process, the treatment process, the prevention process, the human response to health and illness, and how one's family, community, and culture influence health care delivery. As student nurses, we are honored to be learning this art from our outstanding nursing faculty and from nurses in the hospital and the community who patiently allow us to work side by side with them as we develop our skills. We have seen first-hand the dedication that the nurses of Colorado bring to their patients. They work long hours, stay late when they are needed, and come in on their days off when unplanned events occur. Remember the holiday blizzards? While many of us were able to tough it out at home, hundreds of nurses around Denver stayed at work or came in from home for 24 hours or more to ensure that their patients were cared for. Since 1999, the public has rated nurses first for honesty and integrity every year but 2001 when firefighters took the honor. The value that our profession brings to the quality of health care cannot be disputed, and to have your trust and respect for the highly skilled care that we provide is truly an honor. With a nationwide nursing shortage that is expected to increase to 340,000 by the year 2020 and a nationwide nursing faculty shortage that forced baccalaureate and graduate programs to turn away 42,866 qualified applicants in 2006, nurses need your support in addition to your trust and respect (1). Nurses make the difference in safe and high-quality care. Consider a study in the January/February journal of Health Affairs which shows that if hospitals increase RN staffing and hours of nursing care per patient, more than 6,700 patient deaths and four million days of care in hospitals could be avoided each year (2). Now consider if one of those 6,700 patients was you or your loved one and if you were paying for one of those four million days of care. Nurses really do make the difference! CUSNA would like to extend a special "thank you" to nurses in all areas of healthcare for the impact they have on our lives. We hope that each of you will take time to thank a nurse this week, as well. CUSNA (University of Colorado Student Nurses Association) (1) http://www.aacn.nche.edu/Media/FactSheets/FacultyShortage.htm (2) http://www.nursingworld.org/pressrel/nnw/nnwfacts.htm "Wheresoever you go, go with all your heart" (Confucius) .........While you're at it, go with all your heart to CUSNA's website: http://www2.uchsc.edu/son/sonweb.asp?section=studentservices&LNav=cusna/cusnaLNav.asp&content=cusna/default.asp By Mike Coffman, Colorado Secretary of State
In a story by Associated Press reporter Steven Paulson, "Coffman gave himself blank check in disaster plan" published in the Rocky Mountain News on April 28, 2007, Paulson mischaracterizes a disaster recovery plan that I had in place during my tenure as Colorado State Treasurer.
This Speakout has not been edited By Mike Coffman, Colorado Secretary of State
In a story by Associated Press reporter Steven Paulson, "Coffman gave himself blank check in disaster plan" published in the Rocky Mountain News on April 28, 2007, Paulson mischaracterizes a disaster recovery plan that I had in place during my tenure as Colorado State Treasurer.
Paulson opens the article by suggesting that the reason why I developed a disaster recovery plan was because I disagreed with former Governor Bill Owens. Framing the story in that context - me against the Governor - makes the story more interesting; however, in reality this is not an accurate representation of the facts. The truth is that after September 11, 2001 the Governor initiated a program to develop contingency plans for all departments - I agreed with the Governor that such an effort was needed. The Governor's office asked each department to develop a plan for their office and the Treasury cooperated in developing such a plan. Paulson then writes that I "stashed blank checks" in a safe deposit box worth up to $1 billion, as part of this plan. Paulson's disappointing word choice belittles the seriousness of the issue and seems to be an attempt to make the story more controversial, regardless of the facts. Blank checks are not worth anything until they are properly executed; so how much they may or may not be worth is an open question. The real issue is not what the checks may have been worth, but the fact that I developed a continuity of government plan to ensure that the State of Colorado could continue to function even in the event of a natural disaster or a terrorist attack that would knock out the state's computer systems. Paulson concluded his story with a quote from Senate President Joan Fitz-Gerald questioning my authority as Treasurer to develop such a plan. It is important to note (because Paulson does not) that the State Treasurer is an independently elected position entrusted with making transfers out of the state's operating account and writing checks on a daily basis to fund government. The sole purpose of the emergency plan I developed was to allow the Treasurer's office to continue performing this function, without interruption, during a crisis. To say that an elected public official does not have the authority to develop a plan that would allow his or her office to continue working during a crisis is bizarre. If Fitz-Gerald is concerned about accountability, which is always a legitimate concern, then she should know (and I'm sure she does) that any actions of the state Treasurer, taken during a crisis or at any other time, are subject to a full review by the state auditor, who, by the way, works for the Legislature. Paulson fails to mention this critical point, leaving the reader with the impression that under this plan the Treasurer is free to write checks without any accountability. It's just another misrepresentation in a disappointing article from a seasoned reporter who should know better. By Steve Schweitzberger, Littleton
Ed Stein, RE the editorial "cartoon" in the rocky Mountain News on April 20th.
Let me assure you that no high school is "that far" from Columbine. And no College campus is "that far" from Virginia Tech. I have one suggestion, it's in raw development form, so maybe your "cartoon family" can ponder the suggestion while I continue to evolve the idea?
This Speakout has not been edited By Steve Schweitzberger, Littleton
Ed Stein, RE the editorial "cartoon" in the rocky Mountain News on April 20th.
Let me assure you that no high school is "that far" from Columbine. And no College campus is "that far" from Virginia Tech. I have one suggestion, it's in raw development form, so maybe your "cartoon family" can ponder the suggestion while I continue to evolve the idea?
What if the college your son were applying for attendance to, required him to list three names of adults who would be on an, "issues requiring a friend" list? I will contact Xcell Energy in my spare time to ask how their "third party notification"
system is legally configured.
As a landlord, I have been encouraged by the gas and electric company to have my tenants list me on a postcard for the utility company's "third party notification" to be notified when tenant utility bills lapsed into past due. Knowing my tenants were falling behind on gas and electric bills could help me know when they were ready to fall behind with rent also, but the program is really to protect income for the utility company. I see a legal precedent for notification.
If your "college student" had to voluntarily (as a condition of contract for attendance) list three persons on an "intervention call list", and the college actually tested the call list every semester, perhaps a "loner", ordered into psychological treatment, would trigger the call list and somebody who cared about the boy would have done something. If parents knew and recalled the college child/adult (tough love) perhaps the evolution of a suicidal mindset could be randomly prevented. Maybe more than a loner/suicide. Would you want to be notified if your adult college son had mental health issues? Do you know that you can not be under the law?
College student suicides have occurred, with bitter regularity, when a student gets too isolated for their first time. Parents can't be told, if the student is an adult, even though law enforcement and college administrators often recognize red flags.
We could change that.
Maybe, while the evil a suicidal attitude can cause is once again in our news, we will reconsider the idea that a young adult can't have anyone who knows them be notified when it is obvious to professionals around them that they are in trouble. My third party notification list, for my adult daughters, would include parents (me and mom) a relative we trust, and at least one of her best friends wherever they lived. Would you and your son agree to three-party notification in the event of a pre-agreed list of conditions such as:
1) more than one DUI or intoxicated on campus report? 2) a mental breakdown requiring professional intervention 3) a faculty member concerned enough to trigger the call list? 4) the background check necessary to purchase a gun? Remember the list of reasons would be individually agreed upon and voluntarily accepted, from a longer list, as conditions of enrollment. Every student enrollment, regardless of age, would be required to check off at least three conditions and list three people to contact. Scary stuff huh? It would be really out of character for my girls to buy a gun, so I think they would agree to have me notified if they seek a background check for this reason, even though they are adults. I presume my adult daughters would also agree to have the college call me if they were thrown out of a class for any reason. Why not is better than "why" later. Thanks for providing me an opportunity to brainstorm out loud. It's how I work. Steve Schweitzberger is author of Forty flags of Columbine By F
Why does wind power and solar energy get so much news coverage? Neither is reliable enough nor scalable enough to support base-load power generation. And neither provides a liquid fuel for transportation.
By F
Why does wind power and solar energy get so much news coverage? Neither is reliable enough nor scalable enough to support base-load power generation. And neither provides a liquid fuel for transportation.
The energy crisis needs a solution for both base-load power and a transportation fuel. Wind and solar are simply too restricted to do it.
But How?
Geothermal energy can be accessed with drilling technology similar to that used in drilling oil wells today. Either with direct injection or binary cycle techniques Geothermal power plants could supply all the electricity needed anywhere. Since they don’t require any fuel For transportation uses Methanol is an ideal fuel for transportation. By Robert E Forman, Lakewood
P This Speakout has not been edited By Robert E Forman, Lakewood
P The scientists are not even sure what the planet is made of. It could be a big ball of ice or a big ball of rock. They don’t know.
It “may” have water — or it may not.
It “may” have an atmosphere — or it may not.
If it does have an atmosphere, they don’t have a clue what in the atmosphere that may not even exist. If the atmosphere that may not even exist actually does exist, it may be too think, making “the planet’s surface temperature too hot to be inhabitable” according to one of the scientists.
Thus there is n-o-t-h-i-n-g either scientific or factual that is really known to support the inference the headline and the sub-headline that some “big step” was made and that this particular planet “may be habitable.”
N-o-t-h-i-n-g.
But if they didn’t get that idea from “science” and “facts,” where did they draw those conclusions from? They did something that no true scientist would ever allow himself or herself to do: They made them up. They let their imaginations run wild. They wrote a piece of “fiction” and attached their names and credentials to it and tried to pass “fiction” off as “science” because they know that they can fool most of the people (and most of the newspapers and most of the news magazines and most of the news media) most of the time.
A few scientists and an observatory and a university got their names prominently mentioned in an Associated Press story that was probably printed in some form or another throughout the world. They got their 15 minutes of fame — maybe more — until the next scientist makes something else up that gullible news people will eat up just as fast.
And that’s what its all about, isn’t it? Whether its scientists trying to find life 120 trillion miles away; or scientists “discovering” the newest oldest fossil that is supposedly 500 million years old; it’s not like anyone can go 120 trillion miles (or go back in time 500 million years) to see if they are right.
They can make stuff up, tell a little tale, write a completely fictionalized account of something that is far, far way in distance and/or past in time, and no one but other scientists are wise enough to know how little those guesses, speculations and tales are supported by science and facts.
Posted by denver-admin at 12:01 AM
| Comments (5)
| TrackBack
By Sally Spencer-Thomas, Regis University
This Speakout has not been edited By Sally Spencer-Thomas, Regis University
Campuses work because they are open communities that emphasize free thinking and independence. Let’s try to retain these values that help develop our scholars and citizens and be mindful of the fact that schools remain one of the safest places for people to be.
It is easy for us to sit back and judge those who responded. However, colleges and universities cannot be thrown into a military-style lock down on a moment’s notice. Institutions of higher education thrive because we are welcoming places. People don’t go around expecting the worst every moment-doing this would seriously deter from a learning environment. The truth is, people don’t want to admit that life is frightening, and no matter what we do, there is ultimately no guarantee.
That’s hard to take. But the flip side is that we are pretty amazing; instead of living in utter fear all the time, we live with positive outlooks and kindness in our hearts.
Over the last several years, I have taken a long, hard look at theories and research about the cause of shootings like those at Virginia Tech.
The explanations do not satisfy me. While I understand looking for answers is a natural part of the human response to trauma, I also believe the barrage of criticism can be very harmful to the healing process of the survivors at this time.
Trauma survivors are already torturing themselves with endless second guessing. What the Virginia Tech community needs now is a wide embrace of love, support, and encouragement. Like we have seen from the tightly knit communities of Littleton and Bailey here in Colorado, the sense of a healing solidarity is clearly evident on the Virginia Tech campus.
Every image on the media shows groups of students holding on to each other, holding each other up, all the time proudly wearing their college sweatshirts, t-shirts, and hats. Belongingness is critical at this time as they try to make meaning and move forward. Let them find the needed refuge in their faith communities, residence halls, student associations, and classrooms. Rather than ask “who is to blame” those of us at the wider circles of impact can ask instead “what can I do to help this situation?” Let’s look for ways to pull together and offer love and practical assistance to those impacted. Our country historically responds well immediately after a crisis, but once the fanfare dies down, the victims are left to wonder, “Where did everyone go?” Hopefully, we can learn from this in a way that promotes wisdom rather than perpetrates blame.
Hopefully, we can continue to lend a hand of hope and compassion to those in Blacksburg long after the cameras turn their lenses to the next tragedy. Let’s continue to listen to how we may best serve.
Sally Spencer-Thomas is the Director of Leadership and Behavioral Health at Regis University. She co-authored the book “Violence Goes to College” and is an expert on leadership, suicide prevention and violence in K-12 schools as well as college campuses.
Posted by denver-admin at 12:01 AM
| Comments (2)
| TrackBack
By Joe Blake, President and CEO Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce and others
We want to thank the Rocky Mountain News for its recently completed series about the challenges facing the Denver Public Schools system.
We also want to applaud the positive response from Superintendent Michael Bennet and DPS board members in Wednesday’s column in the Rocky.
This Speakout has not been edited By Joe Blake, President and CEO Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce and others
We also want to applaud the positive response from Superintendent Michael Bennet and DPS board members in Wednesday’s column in the Rocky. We understand the realities of the daunting challenge facing DPS, and we applaud the undaunted courage and commitment shown by Michael and the board to take positive action for our community and our children. The business community is united in its support of the Denver Public Schools leadership, and we offer both financial support and the talent to assist their committed efforts to succeed.
The problems faced by DPS are not unique to this district. Urban schools across our country face similar challenges. What’s special here in Denver is the leadership we have in Michael and the board and their willingness to transform Denver Public Schools.
Defining and implementing the changes required within DPS are complex matters with no simple solutions. That complexity is magnified for an urban school district. To succeed, the tough decisions ahead for Bennet and the school board must be supported by the Denver community as a whole-including business, political and community leaders. We have it in our power, right now, to unleash the creative energy of an entire city to help DPS become a 21st Century model for urban public education.
Despite these challenges, the reward to Denver’s future is limitless. If we, together as a community, succeed in supporting this vision, we can transform our entire community. We can provide hope where doubt now lingers. Eventually, the innovations defined in Denver can become models for opportunity around our nation.
The Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce will continue to partner with Denver Public Schools to help transform our children’s future.
Joe Blake, President and CEO Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce; Rob Cohen, Chairman of the Board, Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce CEO, IMA Financial Group Inc.;
Pat Vincent, Chair-elect of the Board, Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce President and CEO, Xcel Energy; Jean Galloway Co-Chair, Chamber DPS Task Force President and CEO Galloway Group; Scott Binder Co-Chair, Chamber DPS Task Force Senior Vice President, Colorado Comcast Communications Inc.
Posted by denver-admin at 12:01 AM
| Comments (0)
| TrackBack
By Darrell L. Hanavan, executive director, CWAC/CAWG/CWRF, Haxton
This Speakout has not been edited By Darrell L. Hanavan, executive director, CWAC/CAWG/CWRF, Haxton
Whether to raise the assessment, or even have a check-off program, is the decision of wheat growers and landowners like me. It’s our wheat, our future.
Let’s talk about our future.
The priorities for additional funding are to ensure that Colorado wheat is competitive in the global marketplace. The Colorado Wheat Administrative Committee (CWAC) needs to operate aggressive research, market development and education programs. CWAC is the producer-elected board of control (directors) that administers the “Colorado Wheat Marketing Order” and it’s our job to stretch those funds as far as possible, and keep you apprised of the challenges and opportunities ahead.
Administrative costs would remain low and about 85 percent of the budget will go directly into research, market development and education programs.
The Colorado Commissioner of Agriculture also reviews and approves each proposed budget annually to ensure that our producer funds are being directed as efficiently as possible.
As the battle over public funds intensifies, Colorado wheat growers can no longer rely on public funding to address critical research in key areas, such as yield improvement, heat and drought tolerance, disease and insect resistance and improved quality for both domestic and export markets. More than 50 percent of the increased funding will go into growers’ research priorities and will allow increased focus on key research needs to speed the development process and ensure critical on-going research is able to continue. Many growers have suffered through extreme drought in recent years, making the need to step-up drought and heat tolerant wheat research even greater. Investing more now will help preserve a strong public wheat breeding program so that we don’t become captive to private breeding programs like other crops.
Further, Colorado wheat growers’ position in key international markets is being challenged by new exporting countries driving the need for market development programs given 80 percent of our Colorado wheat is exported. The additional funds will also be directed to efforts keeping Colorado wheat growers competitive by focusing on valuable market development in Mexico and Los Angeles, while continuing to defend markets against Australia, the Baltic state’s, Argentina and European Union.
At a time when the public is largely removed from agriculture, Colorado wheat growers need programs that protect our business and educate consumers about our importance. The additional funds will also allow increased support of programs that protect the wheat industry and defend Colorado wheat growers’ right to do business.
I am optimistic about the future of wheat. USDA recently projected the national average price for wheat to range from $4.25 - $4.55 per bushel during the next 10 marketing years (2007 - 2017) – or an average $4.43 per bushel. That compares with the national average price in the 10 previous marketing years (1996 – 2006) of $3.20 per bushel and the highest national average price for wheat so far in history of $4.30 per bushel in the 1996-97 marketing year. As acres in other parts of the country shift from wheat to corn to fuel ethanol demands, funding research on wheat yield and quality improvement will be more valuable for Colorado wheat producers.
This is a critical time in which Colorado wheat producers must step forward and protect our industry. Just a single penny increase will help growers take greater control of our future. Now is the time to put in place programs that will drive our industry into the next decade and beyond. I urge Colorado wheat producers to join me in voting yes in the wheat referendum! Let’s protect “our wheat and our future.”
Posted by denver-admin at 12:01 AM
| Comments (0)
| TrackBack
By Joe Schallmoser, Lakewood
In his Speakout commentary of April 24, “Guns at school: a teacher remembers,” Rich Hugo By Joe Schallmoser, Lakewood
In his Speakout commentary of April 24, “Guns at school: a teacher remembers,” Rich Hugo As a former police sergeant and school security professional and consultant I, however, refuse to throw my Numerous solutions exist to make schools safer that < The missing link in improving the level of security in our schools is the reforming of the culture in the school buildings and in the relationship between school security professionals and educators that allows for healthy, open discussion on matters of security and a commitment from faculty and administration to implement simple, procedural steps that help to “harden the target These might include: • • A • I • A • I I could go on and on, but the point Joe Schallmoser By Dennis O’Brien, Denver
In the wake of the massacre at Virginia Tech this week, there was, for the first time in a long time, talk of whether gun control should be on the legislative agenda. With a Democrat controlled Congress, advocates of gun control may see this moment as a perfect opportunity.
This Speakout has not been edited By Dennis O’Brien, Denver
In the wake of the massacre at Virginia Tech this week, there was, for the first time in a long time, talk of whether gun control should be on the legislative agenda. With a Democrat controlled Congress, advocates of gun control may see this moment as a perfect opportunity. When asked about this possibility, Gov. Tim Kaine of Virginia (a Democrat) responded angrily, “People who want to take this within 24 hours of the event and make it their political hobby horse to ride, I’ve got nothing but loathing for them.”
Whether you support gun control or not, why is discussing or debating legislation ‘loathsome?’ Because, Kaine says, it is ‘political,’ at a time when the focus should be on healing. Fair enough. However, he didn’t seem to react angrily when questions were raised about the actions (or lack thereof) of the Virginia Tech administration during the two-hour gap between the two sets of shootings; apparently, those questions, asked while the wounds are still raw, weren’t ‘political’ apparently. The Governor himself is appointing a Commission to look into such questions.
Kaine – perhaps unconsciously and for different reasons — is taking a page out of the Bush Administration’s playbook. As Congress and the White House face-off over war funding, the President has frequently invoked the specter of the Democrats ‘playing politics’ while troops are in harms way. Again, how dare anyone dabble in something as frivolous as ‘politics’ at a time like this? The Bush Administration, when confronted with almost any criticism, tars its critics with the ‘political’ stigmata.
The American Heritage Dictionary defines ‘politics’ as “The art or science of government or governing, especially the governing of a political entity, such as a nation, and the administration and control of its internal and external affairs.” While alternative definitions certainly have more negative connotations, the word primarily describes the vital practice of democracy.
There is no question that Americans of every political stripe loathe the way Washington and its denizens work. With good reason. However, politicians decrying the ‘political atmosphere’ or rivals ‘playing politics,’ take this frustration and disgust and turn it on its head.
Claiming to represent the average citizen who hates ‘politics,’ they decry the cynical ‘politicians.’ Of course, they themselves, by using a gross generalization and labeling all advocacy they disagree with as loathsome ‘politics,’ they in turn engage in the same hypocrisy and gamesmanship that people hate so much.
Was Abraham Lincoln ‘practicing politics’ during his debates with Stephen Douglas? What about FDR pressuring Congress to accept Lend-Lease? Or Reagan, using the bully pulpit to convince Washington and the nation that confronting, not containing, the Soviet Union was our best hope for winning the Cold War. Of course they were. It wasn’t wrong then, and it isn’t wrong now.
Dennis O’Brien is Denver Executive Producer, News and Documentaries, for HDNet
Posted by denver-admin at 12:01 AM
| Comments (1)
| TrackBack
By Kas Stogis, Denver
We no longer have log cabins in Denver. At dusk in 2006, before the ARC store was replaced by the new Walgreen’s store I was driving north on Sheridan. After crossing Colfax going downhill, I saw a person with either a baby carriage or shopping cart on the street. Today there is still no public sidewalk for this slight built person to walk on the dirt hillside, forcing that person onto busy Sheridan Boulevard.
This Speakout has not been edited By Kas Stogis, Denver
This won’t waste two hours of time with the mayor’s recent banalities to NW Denver election campaign. These are specifics.
I’m for reasonable development. We no longer have log cabins in Denver. At dusk in 2006, before the ARC store was replaced by the new Walgreen’s store I was driving north on Sheridan. After crossing Colfax going downhill, I saw a person with either a baby carriage or shopping cart on the street. Today there is still no public sidewalk for this slight built person to walk on the dirt hillside, forcing that person onto busy Sheridan Boulevard.
Developers can obtain a permit to level existing brick houses and erect multiplexes faster than the city of Denver can build a simple sidewalk for public safety’s sake. Where is Blueprint Denver priority placed? Now, am I blue or am I seeing red.
Developers see the black ink not the red. The city is seeing green cash flow as the bottom line. What color is that woman and carriage she was pushing? It would be blood red should a vehicle hit her walking on the dark street. Is the city liable? Is the city red faced ashamed?
Why were fancy bowed bridges built on Sloans lake Park not more than one block down on Sheridan Boulevard? Those monies should have been used for a utilitarian sidewalk. How many lives are still at risk on that few block stretch?
Mr. Mayor Hickenlooper, Mr. Peter Park, zoning board, City Council members why not fast track the sidewalk on the dirt hillside alongside Sheridan Boulevard, just as professional developers are. Then this portion would be as the mayor said to make Denver family friendly. Northwest Denver is becoming less family friendly with new postage stamp size yards and river rock filled backyards. Where do the Toddlers play outside?
Juggling the various colored balls of red tape, black and blue bruised little guy, single small homeowners facing white snow and blue iced streets shaded by investor/developer new giant buildings, well, I choose a transparent colored ball on an even playing field.
My first home was across the street from Park Hill golf course. I received a telephone call from a major east coast bank concerning my credit card. I was not late nor over the limit. The caller told me I had to pay for insurance on my never late credit card balance. This was redlining based upon where I lived. I saw red; the issuer bank saw it as green income. I told the caller I was canceling my card and joined a credit union.
I am an old man with white hair and have worked on a farm and gardened longer than most of you city government zoners. Blueprint Denver is all hardscape and leaves me cold. The mushrooming overnight new tall buildings shading our winter streets prevent the sun melting our public streets. Blue print Denver means ice covered streets. Mr. Mayor your first campaign was about parking meters and this was specific. The current campaign by incumbents has no specific issues only generic statements.
The parking meter issue is now just a wooden nickel Issue. The sky loft ideas need to develop down as my coal miner Great-grandfather would be proud of me as being down to earth too.
As a small homeowner volunteer trying to help other local neighbors obtain petition signatures to counter another liquor license on 32nd and Lowell, we amateurs learned at the liquor license hearing that developers hire paid professional Petitioners defeating our mostly single resident homeowner’s request.
Healthy thick caliber mature trees are cut down overnight, to be replaced by one inch diameter saplings of which many of these tender young trees die for lack of care. Healthy mature trees need less care than the proposed saplings. Young trees would not provide thousands of oxygen providing shady leaves u Many of us chose to live in Denver because of the many green canopied trees in yards and parks. It is apparent there are less mature trees today. Redevelopment cuts the roots to close to the green giants disturbing the drip line, disrupting water and nutrients thus causing distressed dying trees.
I heard Mr. Peter Park and NW Denver councilman speak of Blueprint Denver zoning. 32nd and Lowell was likened to east Colfax. Gentlemen, Colfax is a four lane street with parking on both sides of the street, while 32nd and Lowell is a two lane street with limited parking on both sides of the street. This NW area is primarily single family houses.
In this neighborhood of mostly single family houses zoned R2, why are developers purchasing, scraping and replacing these structures with multiplexes instead of duplexes and/or single homes?
Mr. Mayor you stated recently that you had lived in a loft in lodo and now in Park Hill. You left your loft in the sky to live in Park Hill cross a parkway of green mature viable trees. NW Denver is not lodo. Please let us homeowners retain the neighborhood character that we moved into. Mr. Mayor, Council members and should be elected office of Mr. Peter Park plus zoning officers and liquor hearing officers do all of you have 35 foot plus, multiplexes next door to your single family house? Or is your neighborhood protected from rampant development and a dirth of greenscape?
People living in high density multiplexes seem to become aggressive similar to rats fighting for parking space and no mature tree to find any respite.
Mr. Mayor and Council members I will use my black pen to vote for your opponent, if none then a write in a candidate. You leaf me no option. NW neighbors let us vote.
Posted by denver-admin at 12:01 AM
| Comments (0)
| TrackBack
By Mike Walsh, Denver
This Speakout has not been edited By Mike Walsh, Denver
As the fifth year of occupation begins, we now know this was not the case.
Those who are not prepared to admit this reality must now rationalize their continued support for the war. Messrs. Carney and Case chose liberals as their target for such rationalization. Mr. Carney says if liberals get their way and we pull out of Iraq the death tolls will get much worse. He’s absolutely right. The responsibility for this situation is not the liberals. It is the president’s. His leadership has brought us to this untenable situation.
Mr. Carney talks about a “make-believe liberal world.” I think he means as compared to the president telling Americans the Iraqis would welcome us as liberators. While the Kurds did welcome us, believing such nonsense for the rest of Iraq resulted in sending our troops into war without proper armor for themselves and their vehicles. The administration had several months to stage for the invasion and did not give this equipment a high requisition priority. This is a dereliction of duty. Another dereliction is the poor care and treatment being provided for our returning injured troops.
Mr. Case calls Paul Campos ignorant for not knowing (which of course he does know) the Sunnis and Shiites have a history of warring against each other.
Therefore, how could we be to blame for the current carnage? Because the administration was either unaware of the cultural realities in Iraq or chose to ignore them, and deployed too small a force to pacify and secure Iraq under such circumstances.
Short of occupying Iraq for ten or more years, there are no good options available to us for salvaging some sort of victory. Even this length of occupation would not guarantee a good outcome. Perhaps, if we sent in a half million or more troops, it might work. The American people would not buy onto this level of troop deployment; and the world would condemn as unacceptable the blood shed this would mean for innocent Iraqis. The time for such troop levels has come and gone.
Do supporters of the war recognize the entire burden for fighting the war has fallen on the less than 1% of our population that our military and their families represent? Is this “real world” fairness?
It is time to accept reality. As the president has so eloquently told us, he is the decider, and as such his track record is exceptionally bad. The mismanagement of the war has irreparably damaged the respect our enemies had for America’s military prowess, and has made us more vulnerable to terrorism.
Realistic Americans feel remorse for all this depressing reality.
Posted by denver-admin at 12:01 AM
| Comments (1)
| TrackBack
By Junius W. Peake, Greeley
This Speakout has not been edited By Junius W. Peake, Greeley
Educational institutions are caught on the horns of a well-known litigation dilemma. If they expel or otherwise remove a student because of a concern the student will become (or is) a danger to him/herself or others, the student will most probably sue the institution for a violation of civil rights, and the monetary damage penalty could be enormous.
On the other hand, if the student is permitted to remain, and then commits injury or death to other students, faculty and/or other persons at the institution, the institution may be successfully held financially liable for immense monetary damages for failing to remove the student in a timely manner.
Both the Columbine and Virginia Tech massacres provide stark evidence of what can happen when an institution chooses the latter path, not to mention the human lives that are ended or damaged, plus the adverse publicity that the institution will receive.
In either case, most educational institutions—public and private alike—are seldom willing to spend the large sums required to defend such a lawsuit, not to mention any awards that may be made against them.
Here’s an idea I would like to suggest: Enact laws that will immunize educational administrators from legal liability if they suspend or conditionally expel a student or employee, and arrange to place that person in a secure location under special conditions, if that person is determined by a small committee of administrators in writing to be a potential serious threat to the institution or any of its personnel or students.
The terms and conditions under which such immunization would be available must of course be carefully drafted, and provide for oversight by the judiciary. The initial period of restraint would be for a short period, subject to renewal or permanence if approved by a court of proper jurisdiction. Each state would be free to draft its own version of the law, just as every state has its own version of the “Good Samaritan” law. However, these immunizations would not be required to comply with conflicting laws of the state or the federal government.
However state statutes may be ruled invalid because of federal laws, or because they are judged to be unconstitutional under state or federal constitutions. As a result, every effort must be made to draft legislation that will not be invalidated for these reasons.
One approach would be to have a federal law drafted to provide this legal tort protection nationwide, thus limiting opposition solely to interpretation of the federal constitution.
Good Samaritan laws immunize rescuers who have helped victims from tort liability when providing emergency medical care at the scene of a severe accident or medical crisis. The citations for each state’s laws are shown at the URL of footnote.
More than half the states also have “Abandoned Baby” laws that provide for a newborn baby to be delivered to designated places—fire stations and hospitals, for example—without creating criminal or financial liability for the person who does so. General information about these laws is shown at the URL of footnote. These laws also may be subject to litigation.
Obviously, to implement this idea, which I have tentatively dubbed for discussion as “The Common Sense Educational Protection Act,” a great deal of care must be taken in its drafting. I have not gone into any of the myriad of details that must be addressed. However, if this idea is deemed worth being considered further, I would be glad to try my hand at listing some of the issues needing to be addressed and resolved, and work with any private or governmental group willing to examine them further.
I have learned over the years that the hoary saying that: “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure,” would be magnified by the millions when a massacre at an educational institution occurs.
Junius W. Peake is Monfort Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Finance, University of Northern Colorado
Posted by denver-admin at 12:01 AM
| Comments (1)
| TrackBack
By Dave Petteys, Roxborough Park
This Speakout has not been edited By Dave Petteys, Roxborough Park
A Father, on the other hand, will encourage his son to defend himself. He will get him boxing or karate lessons, which gives the boy confidence and some options. Then, at the next confrontation, the bully gets knocked on his butt, ending the problem. Bullies concentrate on those who don’t defend themselves. But mom will still object, saying such a response is “stooping to the bully’s level!”
Our traditions were founded by tough frontier families who carved lives out of the primeval forests of North America. The musket over the mantle, powder horns and tomahawks were a necessity of life. The call to muster to defend homes and families against raiding parties was all too frequent for the men of those times. The women understood, appreciated and supported them. This doesn’t seem to be true today.
Modern America hasn’t seen major bloodshed on its soil since the Civil War.
Even the attack of 9-11 seems to have sunk from memory, becoming nothing more than a forgotten TV event of sorts. To the modern woman, the idea of the frontiersman husband that defends his family is laughable. Masculine strength and courage are no longer necessary. And if there is a man in a woman’s life at all, it could only be a partnership with a “sensitive new-age guy” that will give her space. And if strength and courage are no longer necessary, neither are firearms.
Gun control is the national equivalent of “don’t hit". It assumes everyone abides in a feminine rational relational point of view. The problem is, not everyone does, and that seems to be hard for the feminine viewpoint to accept. Theo Van Gough’s last words to his Radical Islamist murderer was “can’t we talk about this?” Evidently not. And it’s painfully clear how Radical Islam treats their women! The VA Tech shooter Cho Seung-Hui didn’t want to discuss things either. Had any teacher presented herself to reason with him, she would have received a 9mm beauty spot between her running lights.
As the threat of radical Islam grows, and as the VA Tech media attention encourages “copy cat massacres” elsewhere, it may be time to realize America still may need masculine qualities of courage and strength, as well as the modern equivalent of the musket over the fireplace, to survive.
Posted by denver-admin at 12:01 AM
| Comments (8)
| TrackBack
Gov. Ritter broke his word
Housing for farm workers
Stossel can send the check
Taking Time to Honor the Brave
Energy Development Good for Colorado
A pro-nuclear puff piece
Abstinence programs useless
Two dead children
Tony Blair on Dateline
In-situ uranium mining
Leaving to Learn Series and DPS Response
Context matters
Lack of money does not cause schools' problems
Praise for public servants
Leonard Trujillo's injuries
Focus on public health
Importance of core values
Where is the dignity?
It’s All About the Love
Why Private Insurers Fear Single-Payer Health Care
The Iranian solution: Strike or subvert?
Our country is in a titanic battle
Breaking The Silence
Dangers of psychiatric drugs
Firing U.S. attorneys
Proposed shooting range in Park County
Mayor Hikenlooper and other Civic Leaders what happened to summer jobs for youth in our city agencies?
The Burden on Dreams
A lesson of Columbine
lives before they commit suicide. It is not logical, but not every reaction to violence is logical. These are defensive reactions, and sometimes irrational.
not stick up for him. They did not even know he was there. They did not love him. They are therefore, in his mind, part of the problem. This student kills other students and a teacher. He then kills himself.
else can see them. We must learn this lesson. We must learn to see the bullying and humiliation for what it is: a cause for these school shootings.
made him hate. The bullies created all of this pain and sorrow for so many innocent people. These bullies were the source of all of these killings. This pattern of abuse was the cause for all of this pain and suffering. These bullies sent forth this
tiny ripple of hate and abuse that has caused so much pain, with our innocent children caught between the bullying and the revenge.
Celebrate National Nurses Week, May 6-12
Notify friends if a young person acts out of character
After Virginia Tech, what can we do to help?
Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce and DPS
Protecting wheat's future
. . . .
Zoning colors equate to election votes
Americans feeling remorse over Iraq war
Addressing the Virginia Tech Massacre
Masculine virtues needed