By Beverly Coney Heirich, Aurora
This Speakout has not been edited By Beverly Coney Heirich, Aurora
For more than 25 years William Raspberry was considered the most respected African-American voice in the public arena. He was honored with a Lifetime Achievement Award from the National Association of Black Journalists and received the National Press Club’s highest honor, the Fourth Estate Award.
When such a man speaks strong words about the English language, I think we should probably listen. Here is what he told Dillard University honor students in April of 1994: “Good English, well-spoken and well-written, will open more doors for you than a college degree … bad English, poorly spoken and poorly written, will slam doors you don’t even know exist.”
In the same speech, he said, “Two of the greatest lessons every student should learn are the rules and the music of language. Grammar alone isn’t enough. No matter how much they teach you about the mechanics of music, you have to hear the music in order to make the music. In just the same way, you have to hear good English in order to produce good English.” As an adjunct college instructor for 20 years, I have lately seen a shocking surge of unprepared students slipping into required English composition classes. Some cannot be said to speak English well enough to be easily understood. Others born and raised in America cannot write or recognize a sentence. Many say they have never read a book.
All are usually likable and eager but unable to participate at a collegiate level. Their presence drains the entire class as time is spent teaching what amounts to essential third or fourth grade English skills. Each semester the problem worsens. No matter which career path they choose, inability to read and write basic English will be a lifelong obstacle.
But happily, this is a problem with a solution. Community colleges offer outstanding and inexpensive courses in basic English and in English as a Second Language (ESL). I urge students to examine whether they need one or both of these courses. And I encourage their college advisors to be vigilant in steering borderline students to consider them.
Renowned business guru Peter Drucker used to say, “Our most important tools are words and the best preparation for any career is a college course in creative writing.” I agree.
But first, as Bill Raspberry said, must come basic English, both the rules and the music.
Posted by denver-admin at 12:01 AM
| Comments (9)
| TrackBack
By Debie Foster, Trinidad
This Speakout has not been edited By Debie Foster, Trinidad
At the beginning when rumors found their way to the locals the proposed expansion site was met with fierce opposition in the southeastern corner of Colorado. Recently though: that opposition has spread further north and even citizens on the western slopes, and other states, have taken a stand against the expansion. It is wrong for Las Animas County, the State of Colorado and the United States of America. Taking that much agricultural land out of production will be detrimental to everyone.
In my mind the main reason for the fierce opposition to this expansion is that the areas farming and ranching, along with all of the related wholesale and retail businesses, would be adversely affected by the proposal. The last expansion never garnered us any benefits, why should we expect any this time?
Local agriculture and ranching would be the most adversely affected. These people who have lived and labored on their land, many for generations, would be told to pull up their roots and leave a lifestyle they love and have chosen to live for a good many years. In my mind MONEY isn’t a question. For me there isn’t enough money in the world that could compensate me for putting an end to a way of life that I love. People must realize that there are many hardships associated with living in the country and knowing that we still choose to do it. We love what we do, we are happy where we are and we DO NOT WANT TO SELL. Quite frankly one would have to be CRAZY to sell, at today’s prices you could NEVER begin to replace what you have built up for generations. Who may I ask, at an older age would want to get in debt, relocate, and start over again? Not I.
Area schools would also lose tremendously if this expansion should become a reality. Even if there were students left to attend the schools, after taking all the expansion land off the tax rolls, there would be no tax revenues going to the school districts, causing them to close their doors to students. I fear that not only Hoehne would be affected by this but possibly Aguilar, and Walsenburg schools and following them, Kim and Branson. WHERE will these children be taught, will the Trinidad school district, and the local Catholic school be able to handle the influx of students caused by the closure of so many schools? As it is these children are bussed many miles to their local schools. Is it fair to ask that they travel hours on a bus to be educated? I feel we need to look at the whole picture.
So many questions need answered and the answers aren’t forth coming.
Although HB 1069 as well as the Musgrave/Salazar Amendment passed overwhelmingly, I feel the need to ask *our State Senators *to follow the House’s lead and to heed the will of the people on this issue. Write to your State Senators and ask them to *withhold* their consent for funding the expansion or upgrade of the PCMS.
Contact Senator Allard: http://allard.senate.gov/public/ GO TO THIS PAGE AND CLICK ON CONTACT, THEN EMAIL AND SEND YOUR CONCERNS Contact Senator Salazar: http://www.salazar.senate.gov/contact/index.html
Posted by denver-admin at 12:01 AM
| Comments (56)
| TrackBack
By
R By
R As members of the Blue Ribbon Commission for Health Care Reform (the 208 Commission), we’re experiencing a similar sensation. As we begin analyzing health Created by the legislature in 2006, the commission was charged with providing ideas for expanding health We began by soliciting proposals for comprehensive health The response was tremendous, with 31 proposals submitted to us and hundreds of people showing up for public meetings. To develop that list, we looked for a range of the most well-thought-out proposals that we believe will give legislators the best information about the impact of various approaches to health At this stage, the Next month, we’ll see the evaluations on the four proposals. We’ll have an idea of how much they’ll cost to implement, how much money they’re likely to save, and how many people would be covered by them. By the end of the year, we’ll have thoroughly analyzed We realize that this is a lengthy process, but careful analysis is essential to address a complex problem. We believe this is the best way to help legislators make informed decisions about how to increase access to health care and reduce health Elisabeth Arenales directs the Colorado Center on Law and Policy’s Health Care Program. Steve ErkenBrack is vice president for legal affairs of Rocky Mountain Health Plans.
Posted by denver-admin at 12:01 AM
| Comments (2)
| TrackBack
By Jose Lopez, Centennial
This Speakout has not been edited By Jose Lopez, Centennial
But they did encourage the kids to experiment and made fun of the opposite.
They provided some warnings, but the overwhelming message was to experiment. It was not gross misrepresentation, as Ms Winters claims. Read the transcript! One of the first students thanks them “because I figure you guys would come and, like, lecture us about sex, and, like, we shouldn’t do drugs and whatever, so it’s a relief.” Read the student questions; they only heard one part of the message: experimentation is OK! I felt that the tone, attitude, and message of the conference were inappropriate, unprofessional and biased. There was only one side!
Although Joel Becker denied he was trying to discredit abstinence; he really should review his words. His statements say the opposite. If there was one statement that shocked me, it was Joel Becker answering a question about teenager’s abuse of prescription drugs answering to “change your parents”
because “You inherited this from a generation of parents who ran for pills for everything.” It took another student to bring him back to reality later on and he admitted the need for medicine for depression and other illnesses.
Sanho Tree promptly blamed the pharmaceutical companies. Well, Sanho, I thank those companies for making drugs to help my daughter’s severe migraine headaches, help to lower my cholesterol, help for medicating 84 year old mother for heart surgery and help for my 96 year old great-aunt to combat Alzheimer’s disease. Joel also forgets that when these kids get in trouble, he won’t be there to help. It will be the parents that will be paying for their children’s and their advisor’s mistakes.
If there was one bright spot in the transcript it was the courageous young lady at the end expressing her different view and exposing the panelists own biases. She deserves a school staff that really cares for her future.
Posted by denver-admin at 05:15 PM
| Comments (2)
| TrackBack
By Michael Norton, Greenwood Village
I want to preface my praise for President Bush’s action by setting forth a biblical understanding of humanity in light of God’s revelation. It is preeminently important to remember that humankind is created in the image of God.
This Speakout has not been edited By Michael Norton, Greenwood Village
I want to preface my praise for President Bush’s action by setting forth a biblical understanding of humanity in light of God’s revelation. It is preeminently important to remember that humankind is created in the image of God. God imbued his creation with order. God is the one who imposes order, meaning and purpose on the whole creation. In the biblical narrative, both the origin of humankind (Genesis 1-2) and the development of the individual fetus within the womb (I prefer the term “baby") (Psalm 139:13-16) are pictured in terms of meticulous and loving design. Human beings are unique in all the vast array of creation because they alone of all the creatures are made in God’s image. In many respects, human beings are godlike beings. God has chosen no other image-bearer, either animate or inanimate, on planet Earth. As a result, in biblical thought, each human life has a unique dignity because of the divine image. It is frankly not possible to compare the ultimate value of one human life with another. Each human being is a unique masterpiece of God’s creation. See Psalm 8:5.
We live, however, in a fallen world. Though the universe is fractured and broken following the Fall, a crucial part of biblical understanding is that the universe still displays the moral order of God. Through the incarnation and resurrection of Jesus Christ, God’s created order is vindicated and fulfilled. Some day, all of us who call on the name of Christ as our Lord and Savior, including all those aborted babies, will be restored to our relationship with God.
So, why is all this important in considering this complex bioethical issue of embryonic stem cell research. It is important because an embryo is a human life at the earliest stages of a life span. It is not a blob of fetal tissue; it is not a vegetable; it is not some inanimate object: no, it is a human being created in the image of God. This baby deserves to be protected as it cannot protect itself. President Bush has done so by vetoing, for the second time, an embryonic stem cell research bill. This is a tremendous victory for the sanctity of human life.
All men and women of good will should pray for our President, our Congress, and our Supreme Court, as well as our state officials and that, through them, God’s perfect will shall be done. After all, the heart of the king is in the hands of the Lord.
Posted by denver-admin at 05:00 PM
| Comments (6)
| TrackBack
By John Goetz
I too lament the day when Xanterra got the contract to manage the lodging and other services at Grand Canyon.
This Speakout has not been edited By John Goetz
I too lament the day when Xanterra got the contract to manage the lodging and other services at Grand Canyon.
One, I have been going to the Grand Canyon for hiking and backpacking every year for the past 26 years. My visits usually involve a night or two at Phantom Ranch, which is managed by Xanterra, in combination with 2-3 nights camping which require national park overnight camping permits. Two years ago, Xanterra arbitrarily changed from allowing people to make reservations up to 23 months in advance for Phantom Ranch to allowing reservations only 13 months in advance, which has made it almost impossible to both get through to their call center to make reservations and to get any reservations at all.
In order to make Phantom Ranch reservations and have any chance of actually getting them, one must call on the first of the month, 13 months before the month of your planned visit. It usually takes 1-2 hours of continuous dialing, and getting continuous dial tones, to get into their Denver call center cue, then another 45 minutes to an hour sitting in their cue until you get a live person to talk to.
After this sometimes 3 hour ordeal, there is a very real risk that you cannot get a reservation at all because Xanterra is all sold out for the month you want. IF there are still any openings, they are usually only for single nights and not the dates I had hoped for in order to coordinate with my national park service overnight camping permit dates.
I know there is a great demand for Phantom Ranch and limited accommodations, but with the previous contractor, I NEVER had the kind of problems I have had with Xanterra. What was really maddening was when I complained to the reservation call center manager, I was told in a very cold, unsympathetic and indifferent tone, that the change from 23 months to 13 months advance reservations was Xanterra's new "policy" and that Xanterra thought the "policy" change was in the "best interests" of their "customers". When I pointed out that the "policy" change would just amp up the demand for Phantom Ranch and pore more people trying to get reservations in to a smaller funnel, thereby making it more difficult for their customers to both get through to them and to get reservations, which would most certainly NOT be in the best interests of their customers, the manager became arrogant and autocratic and basically told me "Tough Luck".
Two, Xanterra manages a LOT of properties in a LOT of different national parks and other locations. The RESERVATION FOR ALL OF THESE LOCATIONS GO THROUGH THEIR SINGLE DENVER CALL CENTER. The demand for Phantom Ranch puts enough pressure on their understaffed and poorly equipped call center, but add the calls for all Xanterra managed properties and one can see why dealing with Xanterra leaves such a lousy taste in your mouth.
Three, I too have had back experiences checking in and checking out of Xanterra managed hotels at Grand Canyon. It's not so much that their employees are rude as just slow and seemingly poorly trained on the procedures, systems and customer service. The employees are not very efficient or friendly and just seem to be going through the motions. They don't acknowledge you when you step up to the counter and the words "please" and "thank you" are not in their vocabularies. I have even heard employees talking amongst themselves, behind the check in counter and within ear shot of customers, complaining about their supervisors.
I could go on, but I think you get the point - dealing with the Xanterra "monopoly" as Mr. Sowell so accurately labeled it, is not in the best interests of this consumer and the 4 million others who visit the Grand Canyon each year.
THANKS!
Posted by denver-admin at 12:01 AM
| Comments (2)
| TrackBack
By Mark M. Latimer, President/CEO Rocky Mountain Chapter, Assoc. Builders & Contractors
First the Democrats in Colorado, backed by organized labor, tried to dismantle the Labor Peace Act with HB 1072. Would you believe that the Democrats in Congress are now actually pushing a bill called H.R. 800 that would take away a worker's right to a private ballot election when deciding whether or not to join a union?
This Speakout has not been edited By Mark M. Latimer, President/CEO Rocky Mountain Chapter, Assoc. Builders & Contractors
First the Democrats in Colorado, backed by organized labor, tried to dismantle the Labor Peace Act with HB 1072. Would you believe that the Democrats in Congress are now actually pushing a bill called H.R. 800 that would take away a worker's right to a private ballot election when deciding whether or not to join a union? Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has decided to hold a vote this Wednesday on perhaps the most egregious element of the Democrat's agenda. Under this Orwellian named "Employee Free Choice Act", a company would no longer have the right to demand a secret-ballot election to certify a union, thus stripping 140 million American workers of the right to decide in private whether to organize.
A February survey of 1,000 likely voters by McLaughlin Associates found that 79% of respondents oppose the bill, with only 14% in favor. This isn't a partisan issue; even Democrats opposed the idea, 78% to 16%.
So you have to ask yourself why Sen. Reid is taking the risk of putting this unpopular bill on the floor, since President Bush has vowed to veto the legislation. Simply put, the card check bill is the top priority of union lobbyists. Union membership is down and they are desperately looking for a way to increase their membership. In the 1950s, 35% of private-sector workers belonged to unions; only about 7% do so today.
Union officials of course blame others for their decline. AFL-CIO President John Sweeney has been quoted as saying "In the past few decades, labor law has been so twisted by corporations and their union-busting hired guns that it is now virtually impossible to form a union against an employer's wishes." Despite his rhetoric, unions currently win over half of the elections called over union representation.
Card-check procedures for making a union the sole bargaining representative for employees are already part of labor law. If 30% of workers sign a card asking for a union, an employer is obligated to certify the union or call an election. What the card-check bill would do is force certification without a secret-ballot election as soon as a majority of workers at a company have signed pro-union cards. Can you imagine what tactics union organizers will use to get the cards signed if there is no required secret election? Furthermore, the bill contains an unprecedented requirement imposing contract terms on private, unionized employers through a process of compulsory, binding arbitration. This provision departs from seven decades of precedent and law under the National Labor Relations Act. Imposing contract terms through compulsory arbitration is an unconstitutional infringement on the right of private employers to freedom of contract.
Compulsory arbitration is also a threat to a free market and enterprise system, through the government determination of wages.
The secret ballot has served our nation well for hundreds of years. Now Democrats, and their big labor allies, want to replace it with a system where you have to vote in public and everyone, including your boss and the union organizers, would know how you voted. I don't think anyone's boss, or a union organizer, should be able to know how each person votes. That's a recipe for massive intimidation and reprisal.
Shame on the Democrats for caving in to big labor interest at the expense of a worker's right to privacy.
Posted by denver-admin at 12:01 AM
| Comments (6)
| TrackBack
By
By
The personal health and safety of others should never be neglected just so that a few may exercise their “right” to smoke in public places.
Much of the commentary heard on the smoking ordinance is from an economic standpoint. Many As an owner of As soon as I took managing possession of Jazz at Jack’s, I made the decision to transform the club into a smoke-free environment. Naturally When someone pictures a jazz Our club’s decision to go smoke-free was made not only with the health of our staff and clientele in mind, but also As the trend of going smoke-free continues to grow, it makes me feel good to see so many states taking the initiative to protect their most valuable asset Sandra Holman-Watts By
Americans are paying record high prices for gasoline and relying too much on foreign countries for the gasoline they use. This summer, as we fill up our cars for vacations, Congress should create an energy policy that helps us on both counts -- reduce prices at the pump and help Americans become more self-reliant for our energy needs.
This Speakout has not been edited By
Americans are paying record high prices for gasoline and relying too much on foreign countries for the gasoline they use. This summer, as we fill up our cars for vacations, Congress should create an energy policy that helps us on both counts -- reduce prices at the pump and help Americans become more self-reliant for our energy needs.
Few of us need convincing that we're paying a bundle at the pump. For proof that we are too reliant on foreign energy producers, consider the following.
Today, according to the federal government, the U.S. relies on foreign oil for 60 percent of its total consumption, a share that is projected to climb to 75 percent by 2030. And as world oil reserves dwindle, there is more competition from rapidly growing economies such as China's and India's. As recently as 1990, for example, China was a net oil exporter; in 2006 it was a voracious oil importer, consuming 40 percent of the entire increase in global oil production.
We Americans have talked about the need to declare our energy independence, but talk alone will not get us there. One partial solution is to conserve more energy by using less gas in our cars, less electricity in our homes and building more energy-efficient buildings and power plants. But conservation alone is not the answer for a country with a growing and increasingly mobile population.
To make a real impact on American energy independence we have to develop more of our coal reserves, the world's largest. The U. S. has 27 per cent of the world's coal reserves, more than any other nation. Colorado alone has proven reserves of 17 billion tons, eighth largest in the country. Colorado is also one of the leading producers of clean, high quality coal designated as "supercompliant" for use in helping utilities comply with air quality standards. Coal today provides half of the electricity Americans use and accounts for 72 per cent of the electricity generated in Colorado. And with proven technology already in use elsewhere in the world, coal can also be transformed into ultra-clean transportation fuels -- essentially an advanced diesel fuel that works in today's cars, trucks and jet engines.
Coal has gotten steadily cleaner over the last four decades and will be cleaner in the future. The advent of clean coal technologies has transformed coal as dramatically as the Internet has transformed the workplace. These technologies, installed in power plants, captures pollutants before they clear the stacks, and a recent federal study shows that coal-to-liquid fuels emit as little or less greenhouse gas than the diesel fuel made from imported petroleum they will replace. Although coal use for electricity generation has tripled since the 1970s, emissions from power plants have declined substantially, by up to 85% in some cases. The industry is also committed to reducing its carbon footprint, by developing carbon sequestration technologies.
The industry is also an active participant in FutureGen, a cooperative alliance between government and industry to build the world's first zero emissions coal power plant with carbon sequestration.
Energy experts often call the U.S. "the Saudi Arabia of coal." With our 240-year supply of coal, they have a point. It's time we use more of our most abundant fuel, and tell OPEC to keep more of theirs.
For more information about coal, please consult the CMA web site at www.coloradomining.org By Steven G. Federico, MD, FAAP Colorado Academy of Pediatrics, Denver
As fathers across Colorado were celebrated this month, an issue close to parents' hearts is heating up that affects child health. Too many Colorado families are unable to afford health care coverage for their children. In fact, more than 176,000 children are uninsured in our state. As a pediatrician and a father, I am deeply committed to efforts that will provide quality health care to all children.
This Speakout has not been edited By Steven G. Federico, MD, FAAP Colorado Academy of Pediatrics, Denver
As fathers across Colorado were celebrated this month, an issue close to parents' hearts is heating up that affects child health. Too many Colorado families are unable to afford health care coverage for their children. In fact, more than 176,000 children are uninsured in our state. As a pediatrician and a father, I am deeply committed to efforts that will provide quality health care to all children.
Access to affordable health insurance is the key to this goal.
Why is this so important? Children with health coverage are more likely to get the care they need when they need it. Insured children receive timely care for childhood illnesses, such as sore throats, earaches and asthma, make fewer visits to the emergency room or hospital, and have access to needed prescription medications and better preventive services. In fact, kids who are insured are more likely to have had a well-child visit and dental care in the last 6 to 12 months compared to uninsured children. Not surprisingly, these children tend to be healthier. And healthy children are better prepared to learn in school and succeed in life.
In my medical practice, I see the negative effects of children without health insurance on a daily basis such as; children who suffer from vaccine preventable disease, wait for care unnecessarily in crowded emergency rooms, and experience complications due to delays in receiving needed medications. It is a priority of our state chapter and the national American Academy of Pediatrics to ensure that all children have access to quality health care.
So what's being done? For the past 10 years, the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) has provided health care coverage to children whose parents work but cannot afford or are not offered health insurance. This joint state-federal program has effectively reduced the number of children living without health insurance by more than one third. Today, SCHIP covers 6 million children nationwide and nearly 70,000 children in Colorado.
SCHIP, called Child Health Plan Plus (CHP+) is offered as a separate program in which states can access Medicaid funding if they exceed their SCHIP allotment. Colorado is one of 26 states that extends eligibility for coverage to children who have family incomes up to 200% of the federal poverty level (FPL). This year the Colorado legislator passed laws that would extend coverage to 205% as well as enacted legislation to immediately enroll children upon application.
So what is at stake? The fate of SCHIP is up for congressional debate amid its renewal this year. In fact, the U.S. Senate is expected to debate the SCHIP program beginning in June. . At a time when 9 million children are uninsured*more than the total number of kids enrolled in the first and second grades in U.S. public schools*Congress must adequately fund SCHIP to enroll more of America's and Colorado's uninsured kids. Of the 9 million uninsured children, 6 million are already eligible for SCHIP or Medicaid, but are not enrolled. The vast majority of these kids come from families in which one or both parents work, but their jobs do not offer access to affordable coverage. While Colorado has made tremendous headway in expanding our children's access to quality health care, more needs to be done to cover the estimated 176,000 children without health insurance.
Thanks to SCHIP, millions of children can see their primary care doctor or a specialist when they are sick, get check ups and prescription medicines as needed. Amid such progress, it would be tragic to face funding shortfalls that would lead to fewer children being enrolled or putting their benefits at risk of elimination. For low-income families in Colorado, SCHIP provides parents with the peace of mind that they can take their child to the doctor when he or she is sick and not worry over the financial burden.
As fathers, mothers and citizens of Colorado, we urge Senators Allard and Salazar to properly fund and renew SCHIP as soon as possible. Let's get more children covered.
Posted by denver-admin at 12:01 AM
| Comments (5)
| TrackBack
By Roni Bell Sylvester, LaSalle
This Speakout has not been edited By Roni Bell Sylvester, LaSalle
Some examples include: In Wyoming, wolves are slaughtering livestock; water theft is common in every state; USDA attempts to force Premises I.S.
and NAIS on U.S. cow-calf producers; Federal government refuses to enforce Country of Origin Labeling -COOL; a pending ban on horse slaughter (If that goes into law, about 90,000 horses will be left to die of starvation or illness, or dumped along country roads.); and the Army wants sixth generation Coloradans to leave.
Speaking of Army's interest in using the entire Southern third of Colorado for training, did certain elected officials forget to communicate to them that that won't be necessary because of their plans to end the war(s)?
Whether knowingly or not, President Bush, through the USDA, is choking the life out of ag production.
And why the refusal to correctly refer to the farm bill as The CONSUMER Farm Bill? We were recently told, "Can't change the name right now. The war in Iraq is our focus." Through lunch room and food stamp programs, consumers receive 51% of the Consumer Farm Bill budget. Integrity should dictate either separating it into two bills...The Farm Bill - The Consumer Bill, or amend the name to The Consumer Farm Bill.
After all, who benefits from perpetuating the crude perception "farmers and ranchers are dumb red-neck welfare hicks?" Probably the same people who preach, "Cows make hummock...ruin land. Cows make gas..ruin air." Since hummocks are on the moon and Pluto's getting global warmed, errant cows must be jumping ON the moon then bouncing over to Pluto to relieve themselves.
As our 13 year old Granddaughter offered while listening to husband Chuck and I talk on these things, "That's messed up." If you think it's important that Agricultural Production continues on American Soil - and in a welcoming, unthreatened environment that will insure you safe, healthy, locally grown essential goods, please help.
How can you help? Call or fax President Bush and ALL of your elected officials...particularly your county commissioners...and tell them: "My local Agricultural Producers are under ugly, unnecessary, harmful assaults. The aggressors are violating human rights, and jeopardizing assurance of locally grown food products. Here are some ways you can stop these attacks against my ag friends."
a) Order the Army to withdraw its troupes from Southern Colorado.
b) Order the USDA to stop forcing mandatory Premises I.D. on our youngsters.
c) Activate Country of Origin Labeling- COOL. I demand the right to know where my food comes from.
d) You gave over a hundred million dollars to the Nature Conservancy last year. That's my money. So here are some ways I want them to spend it: Improve National Parks, Monuments and land surrounding every US Highway. Move Prairie Rat and Feral Horse villages off private property and onto federally owned land. Eradicate mosquitoes from all designated wetlands, and weeds from barrel pits everywhere.
e) Amend the Endangered Species Act so it can never be used to steal private water and land usage rights.
Tell them how much you treasure your American Producers of Agriculture, and that you want them and their habitats protected forever.
Help save our friends in Agriculture.
Posted by denver-admin at 12:01 AM
| Comments (4)
| TrackBack
By
This Speakout has not been edited By
Per Denver City Council Member, Judy Montero, Denverite’s and visitors to our Mile High City should be able to legally hail a cab from a street corner just like our Big Apple counterparts. Indeed, Denver’s Public Works Committee is working to grant Montero’s wish. This week the committee moved one step closer to allowing taxi’s to stop in a lane of traffic for up to 90 seconds to pick up a fare. Until now, doing so has been considered illegal potentially resulting in the offending cab driver being fined, sometimes to the tune of $200. Councilwoman Montero introduced the ordinance in part, she says, because visitors to next year’s Democratic National Convention will be coming from cities where it is legal for taxi’s to stop in traffic to pick up their fares, and so, Denver should follow suit. The Councilwoman asserts passing this ordinance is simply good customer service.
Along with the taxi cab hailers in the mental picture of New York City, most people will also envision street beggars flying signs asking for money. It is also a New Yorker’s state-given legal right to do so. Panhandlers in Denver have no such right. Flying a sign in Denver is considered an illegal act punishable by a fine and/or imprisonment.
City Councilwoman Montero was one of a majority of city council members who voted back in January 2006 to outlaw panhandling in Denver. Among other reasons offered in support of banning the behavior largely engaged in by poor people, council was adamant in its assertion that people begging for money on street corners sometimes step out into traffic thereby causing obvious threats to public safety. When community leaders and activists objected to targeting the poor in this manner, we were told repeatedly that public safety took precedence over any alleged attack on poor peoples civil rights.
If Denver City Council passes this latest ordinance they are in effect saying that the act of a person hailing a cab from a street corner, the cab stopping in a moving traffic lane to wait for the person to step onto the street and into the cab, is wholly and substantially different than the act of a person standing on a street corner hailing drivers asking for a donation, and stepping into the street to accept a contribution from the driver. Clearly, the only thing wholly and substantially different with the latter is the simple fact that the person doing the hailing is poor and begging and not a presumed contributing member of society with the means to pay for travel via a taxi cab. Another, perhaps not-so-minor difference is the fact that most people offering money to panhandlers are stopped at red traffic lights, whereas taxis will be able to stop in moving lanes of traffic. Isn’t it obvious which of the two causes the greater threat to public safety?
How can a city purporting to be attuned to the perils of its homeless population make illegal a behavior engaged in almost exclusively by the homeless, pass an ordinance that allows essentially the same physical behavior primarily engaged in by non-homeless people and not see the obvious hypocrisy in doing so? If Denver’s City Council can get rid of what Bill Mitchell, Director of Government and Community Affairs for the Denver Metro Convention and Visitor’s Bureau, calls an “arcane ordinance” in the name of good customer service, it must act to repeal the discriminatory ordinance passed just 18 short months ago outlawing panhandling and considered by many of us to be equally arcane.
Posted by denver-admin at 12:01 AM
| Comments (1)
| TrackBack
By Louise Benson, MD, Broomfield
A 17 year old boy is facing six years in adult prison for lobbing a plastic pop bottle "bomb" near his school during the week of the Columbine anniversary.
This Speakout has not been edited By Louise Benson, MD, Broomfield
A 17 year old boy is facing six years in adult prison for lobbing a plastic pop bottle "bomb" near his school during the week of the Columbine anniversary.
A 30 year old knock-dead blond teacher has been given 45 days in jail for plying a 17 year old boy with alcohol and groping him on a field trip. Both of these stories are in the same Rocky Mountain News edition (June 9, 2007). What's wrong with this picture?
This is Zero Tolerance School Discipline, defined by the American Bar Association as automatic and severe punishment of children for a variety of infractions, resulting in suspension, expulsion and often, criminal charges. The ABA and other organizations such as the American Psychological Association have official positions against Zero Tolerance policies. Many states and school districts have modified their harsh sanctions, after seeing more and more illogical and ridiculous results, and in some cases, tragedies such as the suicide of a senior who was expelled for the friend's knife in his car. At the same time that juveniles who meant no harm are being charged with felonies as adults, adults such as the teacher mentioned above, receive leniency. This is grossly unfair.
Many Districts Attorney, and their approving constituents, say: "In this post-Columbine world, we've got to send a message that we're serious about violence and school disruptions." Fair enough. But children don't read the newspaper or listen to the news to find out what happens to the unwitting kids who say something angry or naive, or do something stupid, such as the boy above who picked the worst week of all to pull a prank. Teenagers' brains are not fully developed until the early twenties. This is why even the most well-behaved and mature-appearing teenager will unexpectedly do something really dumb.
Zero Tolerance Discipline has not worked to make our schools safer, but it continues to ruin the lives of children who had no intention of harming anyone.
In fact, Zero Tolerance makes schools less safe when other students hesitate to report rumors for fear that a classmate will get expelled and arrested even if it wasn't serious! Colorado and other states have enacted specific laws regarding threats to schools, and I call it the "No nail clippers, no bomb jokes" method of discipline, making hapless students the equivalent of airline passengers in the age of terrorism. Some states even call such charges against students "Making a terroristic threat." No evidence of plans, intent or ability to carry out a threat is needed to convict. All a kid needs to do is open his or her big mouth. This used to be called "trash talk," and was considered in most cases to be acting out, a normal way that children signal that something's not right in their world, such as bullying or family trouble s.
Of course, all hints of threats or trouble should be investigated immediately. But when a threat is found to be non-serious, don't go overboard with Zero Tolerance. Use common sense to decide what the most productive approach should be: search for root causes (including bullying and poor school climate), counseling, restorative justice, restitution for costs of disruption, temporary suspension, etc.
Students should be educated on proper ways to express feelings, how to see a counselor, and what has been happening to unfortunate classmates elsewhere who "trash talk" or pull pranks. Any discipline must be fair, individualized, and fit the behavior.
Experts have been studying the harm and counterproductivity of Zero Tolerance for almost a decade now. Zero Tolerance is an ineffective political, not an educational, solution. There are effective and humane school discipline methods that return to common sense. Recently, the Office of the Attorney General came out with revised school safety guidelines that are beginning to address the problem of bullying, and more reasonable application of suspension and expulsion policies. It's time to end the zero tolerance=zero thinking madness.
Louise Benson, of
Broomfield, louisebenson@comcast.net, is the author of Scapegoating for Columbine: Collateral Damage in the War on School Violence, which shares her family's experience with Zero Tolerance and details research supporting a return to common sense school discipline.
Posted by denver-admin at 12:01 AM
| Comments (6)
| TrackBack
By Petro Alexandrovich, Denver
Upon review of Denver Mayor Juan Hickenlooper's plan to fight global warming I would make a suggestion that the scooter riding restaurant owner set the standard with his own carbon footprint. I'm sure if Mayor Juan sets such an example, it would have everyone following in his footsteps to match his resolve in reducing carbon emissions thereby becoming an authentic documented carbon negative Denver dude. This Speakout has not been edited By Petro Alexandrovich, Denver
Upon review of Denver Mayor Juan Hickenlooper's plan to fight global warming I would make a suggestion that the scooter riding restaurant owner set the standard with his own carbon footprint. I'm sure if Mayor Juan sets such an example, it would have everyone following in his footsteps to match his resolve in reducing carbon emissions thereby becoming an authentic documented carbon negative Denver dude. Let's start with closing all of the Mayor's gasronomic establishments. Let's look a little more carefully. The Mayor's kitchen operations spew forth plumes of grilled flesh polluting exhaust into our mile-high air, as do all of the delivery trucks coming to and fro while delivering produce and products to replenish the larders. Every customer driving to the various mayoral watering holes adds an unnecessary contaminant load into the air with all of their vehicles firing up and heading for happy hour. Traffic congestion would drop around the eateries as would the by-products of excessive alcohol consumption, which often involve high discharges of testosterone into the surrounding environment and drug contaminated urine into the waste water treatment facilities. By encouraging eating closer to home (within walking distance) His Honor would certainly be supporting local neighborhood economies. All food served at all establishments should by logical extension, therefore, come from a local source determined by the previous metric as well. The latter would encourage local backyard gardens to blossom, and provide summer jobs for all the feral juveniles released from the public school day care systems during the summer months. The concomitant drop in graffiti as all of these artsy expressive types are pre-occupied with the business of agriculture, doing the work Americans have been loathe to do, would be a boon as well. After a long hard day tilling the soil, weeding, watering, and de-bugging the garden (organic of course) these youthful workers would be too tired to pursue any of the hooliganism typical of destructive juvenile excesses. Their bodies would also benefit from the physical exercise, and the endemic of juvenile obesity would undoubtedly decline. The only glitch would be that we would need Governor Ritter to insure that the stringent requirements for violation of the agricultural trespass laws be relaxed to allow for such activities. Possibly the allegedly honorable Judge Larry Manzanares could monitor the specifics of the program as part of his community service obligations, and as Denver's preeminent agricultural trespasser and parking lot laptop entrepreneur. Our honorable and glorious Mayor should issue a decree mandating that nobody be allowed to drive an internal combustion vehicle anywhere (including work) unless a carbon-footprint audit is filed in advance, and that all necessary carbon offsets are in place to make the drive a net neutral carbon event. These documents must be verified by a reputable neutral organization such as CH2M Hill with no conflicts of interest, obviously. They would also be handsomely compensated for making sure the carbon offsetting scheme did not appear too fraudulent. We wouldn't want those pesky tax payers to get suspicious and start calling those rabid-right-radio talk shows. And of course, after closing his various eateries, the glorious Mayor would use these same establishments to house the homeless: Hickenlooper's Homeless Harmony Housing. A simple reconfiguration would provide for hundreds of bunk beds to be stacked into his establishments thereby solving the downtown homeless problem in one single decisive blow. They would have their own kitchen facilities and built in brewery in some lucky cases, and would never have to venture out onto those cruel city streets. This could all be accomplished before the Democratic convention shows up in town and would set a national example for homeless solutions coupled with carbon reductions. In fact, delegates to the DNC convention could buy tickets to visit the Mayor's 4-H program, thereby capitalizing this wonderful project. Let's vote for this brilliant plan today- call Mayor Juan's office to encourage him in taking this daring step. Then I would suggest it is Mayor Juan for Commandante of the Glorious red state of Colorado, our first hybrid Hispanic politician. By Jamie Schofield, Westminster
Jean Torkelson's recent article about the National and Colorado Right to Life organizations left me both saddened and aggravated. Apparently, she feels there is no need to actually investigate the issues involved in this news story, from the partial-birth abortion ban legislation, the Supreme Court ruling, CRTL's open letter to Dr. Dobson, or any other aspect of the situation.
This Speakout has not been edited By Jamie Schofield, Westminster
Jean Torkelson's recent article about the National and Colorado Right to Life organizations left me both saddened and aggravated. Apparently, she feels there is no need to actually investigate the issues involved in this news story, from the partial-birth abortion ban legislation, the Supreme Court ruling, CRTL's open letter to Dr. Dobson, or any other aspect of the situation. Although she got a quote or two from CRTL, she also apparently decided to just take NRTL at every word they said, assuming they were right without checking the facts. The result is that she makes CRTL look like some ignorant extremists, and NRTL the victim.Ironically, the truth is that at the same time NRTL was "booting" CRTL, Dr. Dobson himself was finally admitting, in an official capacity through Focus on the Family, that CRTL's open letter is right! That the recent partial-birth abortion ruling cannot, in fact, save one single unborn child, no, not one.The truth is that numerous pro-life organizations, including Focus and NRTL, have been blatantly misrepresenting this legislation for the last decade and a half, raising a quarter of a billion dollars to fund this useless "ban," while never informing their constituents of what they've always known - not one single abortion will be cancelled or prevented by this so-called "ban," which isn't even a ban at all, since it still allows even traditional, text-book PBA procedure, but simply instructs doctors to use a four-inch variation by bringing the baby out only as far as the navel, instead of the neck, and then tearing the "fetus" limb from limb until it's dead. (Yes, the ruling actually says that.)These organizations have asked people for money, claiming it would save lives, and now that we have this "ban," even Dr. Dobson and Focus finally admit it won't save one life. This could potentially amount to charges of fraudulent fundraising, and is a very serious issue. Shouldn't we have been told this, from the start? Didn't pro-lifers across America deserve to know this? How many of us would have sent our money to a different cause, if we'd known the truth?CRTL is dedicated to exposing the truth about this increasingly widespread pattern of hypocrisy and compromise among many of the pro-life leadership in America.
Why not mention that CRTL is hardly alone in this open letter, that a number of major pro-life organizations are co-signers? Not only is the oldest pro-life organization (CRTL) on there, but so is the world's largest pro-life organization, Human Life International, as well as the American Life League, and others.
Worst of all, Torkelson made serious factual errors. She claimed that CRTL "believes abortion must be stopped all at once." Where on earth did she get this idea? From National Right to Life, according to the article. Did she ask CRTL to confirm this? Of course not. CRTL is very much in favor of incrementalism, even if it means saving one life at a time. What they oppose is creating laws that effectively end with the phrase "and then you can kill the baby." If we save one baby, we rejoice, even though there are still another million in America dying. If we shut down one clinic, we celebrate, even though there are still hundreds of others. If we abolish abortion in America, we will dance and sing, even though another 49 million are murdered in the rest of the world every year. That is not moral compromise. That's just simple, incremental progress. NRTL, however, believes (just like Bush) that abortion should remain legal, and have said so. This is why they both opposed the abortion ban in South Dakota last year. How they can call themselves "pro-life" is beyond me.Additionally, Torkelson calls the open letter an "attack" on Dobson. On the contrary, if she would read it, she'd know it shows respect, love and appreciation toward him, and literally asks him to "lead us." How is that an attack? It begs him to return to his early-90's pledge to not compromise on supporting politicians that kill the unborn. Two years ago, he said in writing he thinks God is calling him to "compromise" on that pledge. Yes, he used the word "compromise" to describe himself. CRTL doesn't believe abortion must be ended all at once. And this letter is a respectful encouragement, not an attack. Torkelson should get her facts straight before taking the word of some politically-motivated, morally-compromised pro-choice organization that pawns itself off as "pro-life" for the sake of millions of dollars from unsuspecting donors.
Posted by denver-admin at 12:01 AM
| Comments (2)
| TrackBack
By David Hughes, Colorado Springs
By David Hughes, Colorado Springs
“You oppose it in your yard, but it’s OK somewhere else,” Musgrave said. She totally missed the facts and spun the most important points. I ought to know, But guess who opposed it? The Pueblo County Commissioners, not El Paso County. Those Pueblo politicians wanted the new federal Pueblo Reservoir as their private lake for developers and they And now Musgrave wants the Army and Colorado National Guard soldiers and units to pay the price by not being trained adequately for future wars on the cramped and crowded space they have. David Hughes is a West Point graduate and retired U.S. Army colonel who served in both Korea and Vietnam. He is a third-generation Colorado native and is a resident of Colorado Springs. By J. Keith Killian, Grand Junction
In a recent advertising campaign, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce attacked the civil justice system, vilifying trial lawyers and alleging that "lawsuit abuse" is costing American families upwards of $3500 annually. Nothing could be further from the truth, as the facts do not support the Chamber's grossly negligent claim.
This Speakout has not been edited By J. Keith Killian, Grand Junction
In a recent advertising campaign, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce attacked the civil justice system, vilifying trial lawyers and alleging that "lawsuit abuse" is costing American families upwards of $3500 annually. Nothing could be further from the truth, as the facts do not support the Chamber's grossly negligent claim.
First, the concept of the so-called "tort tax" on families is wrong-headed. Families do not pay the judgments. Primarily, at fault companies and insurance companies of those who are at fault pay these judgments. It would be more appropriate to say families received these payments because, indeed, it is families that receive the compensation when family members are damaged by the acts of others.
Second, according to a study conducted by TowersPerrin Tillinghast, the total cost of all torts in the U.S. in 2005 was $261 billion, or $880 per person. In its attack on the civil justice system, the U.S. Chamber uses this data to falsely claim that an average family paid a "litigation tax" of $3500.
This claim is incorrect as the average family consists of only 2.6 persons, per U.S. Census data, not four persons as claimed by the U.S. Chamber. The study improperly and brazenly defines tort costs as the total of all civil lawsuits, including corporate and contractual cases, not just personal injury or product liability cases as the U.S. Chamber would have the viewer believe. Additionally, the study showed that U.S. torts grew only 0.5 percent in 2005, the smallest increase since 1997.
However, the most telling fact is that the study's author has publicly called the U.S. Chamber's claims "misleading." Why go to all this trouble to disparage trial lawyers? Unfortunately, opponents of the civil justice system are trying to sensationalize this issue to achieve their real goal - to weaken the basic legal protections and further stack the deck against Americans. These critics -- often shilling for corporate interests hoping to avoid accountability for defective products that injure or kill innocent consumers -- would have us believe we have a system careening out of control. They do not like the jury system and would like to see it under further constraints or eliminated.
Throughout the history of our republic, the civil justice system has played a crucial role, protecting the public from powerful interests and insisting that wrongdoers be held accountable for their actions. It's hard to believe what this great nation, based on laws, would look like if the courts and a strong jury system were not there to offer the American people a level playing field providing an aspiration we embrace above all others - justice.
Although trial lawyers -- as representatives of the civil justice system -- are under constant attack, we are committed to the protection and advancement of individual rights and will continue to fight for those who cannot fight for themselves.
J. Keith Killian Grand Junction, Colorado President 2006-07 Colorado Trial Lawyers Association
Posted by denver-admin at 12:01 AM
| Comments (5)
| TrackBack
By
Just a brief note regarding your 6/13/07 RMN article (page 5) titled "Gang presence mars City Park concerts".
I feel your article was an inaccurate depiction of the City Park concert series and the body copy did not support the sensational headline:
This Speakout has not been edited By
Just a brief note regarding your 6/13/07 RMN article (page 5) titled "Gang presence mars City Park concerts".
I feel your article was an inaccurate depiction of the City Park concert series and the body copy did not support the sensational headline: The article says that at the first concert "a large number of gang members wearing distinctive gang colors walked in front of the stage, organizers said" and at the 2nd concert a "fist fight broke out during the concert...(it) occurred on the west side of the park away from the concert". The article quotes Terrance Roberts as saying "I'm wondering if they need to section off and search people...if they get to shooting in the park, there is gong to be a bunch of different people who could get shot".
Q. A fistfight in City Park, away from the concert that went unnoticed by concertgoers? Why even mention this or that the individual may be involved in a shooting between rival gangs in other parts of the city? Is this the marring your referring to? I don't see a fist fight, that may or may not be related to the concert, as unusual in City, Washington or Civic Park for that matter. My family had an enjoyable time at the concert this past week as well and noticed no suspicious or dangerous situations. They felt totally comfortable.
Lastly, how in the world, other to provoke fear and self promote his program while protecting his livelihood, would Mr. Roberts conclude based on the above (and you publish) that "shootings" at the concert series are likely and need to be addressed before they happen? And who are these "different people" who may get shot (white concert goers perhaps). Short of Mr. Roberts and Mr. Kelly having important inside intelligence, that they are not sharing, the implications of this "conclusion" are irrational, dangerous, prejudicial and continues to promote stereotypes that need to be laid to rest in the year 2007.
As a long time Park Hill resident, the only thing I see that has changed at the City Park concert series from 10 years ago is that an event enjoyed almost solely by whites, now has a large amount of minorities enjoying it as well. With this change come some fear, misunderstandings and distrust. I would hope you could pen an equally prominent article on helping dismiss myths and stereotypes between ethnic groups in the near future Thank you.
Posted by denver-admin at 12:01 AM
| Comments (0)
| TrackBack
By Steve Schweitzberger, Littleton
At a time when America is considering allowing thousands of Iraqis to cut into line ahead of illegal immigrants entering America, seeking amnesty through Mexico...oh wait, let me rephrase that.
This Speakout has not been edited By Steve Schweitzberger, Littleton
RE: Diana West, published in today's Rocky Mountain News.
At a time when America is considering allowing thousands of Iraqis to cut into line ahead of illegal immigrants entering America, seeking amnesty through Mexico...oh wait, let me rephrase that.
If 7,000 Iraqis who assisted the coalition led by Tony Blair of Britain and George Bush of the United States will soon come to America, through political asylum, how will these lucky few who wanted a different culture be screened to make sure they are not Islamic extremists?
In the aftermath of Columbine, religion and suicide in Littleton made local news, but experts gave most of the public only truths they thought we could handle. Actually, Columbine is in Jefferson County, Littleton has a different school district, and political conspiracy concealed gross malfeasance. Not that many people were allowed to study evidence collected.
Columbine truths were concealed through political conspiracy to protect sleazy careers. As a result of the concealment, critics outside the political mainstream never studied the evil ranting of our homegrown terrorists, which included concepts such as "hijacking an airliner...filling it with bombs...crashing into New York City".
Terrorists evolved the evil fantasy from the 1998 Columbine website, obviously before our prevention experts did, by simply adding trained suicidal pilots.
Full loads of fuel provided the required heat to melt steel in the World Trade Centers. Any high school physics student could have concluded the result if they had studied the question. We never asked the question.
Amazingly, Condoleezza Rice said, in the aftermath of 9-11 that, "we never considered the idea of a hijacked airliner as a guided missile". Where do "experts" on terrorism study? We can't handle truths if only politicians are allowed access.
Politicians talk only to one another if we let them.
Diana West said a Pew research survey shows that 26% of Muslims "already in America" believe suicidal bombings are acceptable in defense of Islam.
The Columbine killers said in their "basement confession tapes" (which a federal judge sealed for 25 years just weeks prior to the Virginia Tech copycat-murders) that they had, "evolved beyond humanity" and that their "revenge for the January Incident would be Godlike". Is this not a similar attitude, based on religious extremism?
The first person shot, when their Improvised Explosive Devices did not detonate in the Columbine lunchroom, was Rachel Joy Scott, whom the Killers had called a "Christianity whore" in the basement tapes, now locked away in secrecy by Colorado politicians. The Virginia Tech killer knew his Columbine history and thus left his confession-manifesto for the media instead of the sheriff. See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil, prevent no evil? The fourth-monkey syndrome? As for Muslims coming to America, their immigration applications should ask this question; Do you believe God of creation would want the "greatest-of-creation" (presumably humanity) to commit suicidal-terrorism to promote a religion-based culture? No true believer would lie on their immigration application. Sarcasm is no substitute for policy. I apologize.
Thanks to the Washington Post for exposing some truth we must handle if we don't want to one day bow toward loudspeakers promoting a mandatory religion in America. And thanks to the Rocky Mountain News for sharing the perspective of Diana West regarding how some American media has spun reporting to downplay the subject matter.
Posted by denver-admin at 12:01 AM
| Comments (0)
| TrackBack
By James van Hemert
Fiona and Ferdinand want to buy a house and raise their young family in the city. If they rent out a basement suite, they could make the mortgage payments. Much to their dismay, they discover that such a practice is illegal. Their best option becomes a choice on the urban fringe with affordability determined by “driving till they qualify.”
By James van Hemert
Fiona and Ferdinand want to buy a house and raise their young family in the city. If they rent out a basement suite, they could make the mortgage payments. Much to their dismay, they discover that such a practice is illegal. Their best option becomes a choice on the urban fringe with affordability determined by “driving till they qualify.”
Emily, recently widowed, wishes to stay in her home on a large lot in a historic district. Financially astute, she calculates that she can earn some much needed additional income by tapping her home equity and building a carriage house above the garage and renting it out to a young couple or a student. Another person on the property would also make her feel much safer. The zoning department tells her what she wants to do is illegal.
Sam and Sally wish to have their aging parents move in with them in a separate private apartment, but they find that such an arrangement is not permitted by city code.
These common-sense solutions to generating income and providing housing are referred to as accessory dwelling units, and they are severely restricted by most zoning codes and private covenants. These units are smaller than the main dwelling — typically 300-600 square feet — and may be separated or contained within the primary structure. The most common forms are the carriage house above the garage, the basement- or garden-level suite, and the granny flat, a separate detached unit.
Historically, accessory dwelling units were associated with urban blight and, from the 1950s forward, were banned from almost all new single-family residential development.
The historic rationale for restricting accessory dwellings is no longer valid in today’s increasingly diverse metropolitan areas. Though 87 percent of all households in 1955 were families — the majority with children — today only two-thirds of all households are families, and slightly less than half of those have children. The average household size has also decreased from 3.4 in 1950 to 2.6 today, while our houses have become larger.
There are clear financial and social benefits for both owner and rental households at all socioeconomic levels. Accessory dwelling units also provide benefits to neighborhoods by enhancing safety through more eyes on the street, revitalizing aging structures and preserving character by serving as a “green” alternative to excessive scrape-off activity. At the city level, they provide a way to comfortably add more people, promote a greater diversity of housing opportunities, and add affordable housing stock at virtually no cost to local government or the nonprofit sector.
Common concerns expressed about their reintroduction in existing neighborhoods center on parking, traffic, appropriate design, and fears about blight caused by absentee landowners. All of these matters can be adequately addressed through appropriate zoning standards and a process that ensures that at least one of the units always be owner-occupied. Santa Cruz, Calif., has done just that with award winning standards and design guidelines. Closer to home, Longmont has standards that apply to both new developments and established neighborhoods.
Accessory dwelling units are making a slow comeback as an important element in new neighborhoods such as Stapleton. In established neighborhoods in Denver, however, unless you have a grandfathered unit from prior to 1956 or you live in one of a select few new planned developments, you are out of luck.
City planning and housing staff have been attentive in listening to presentations by groups such as “Friends of Granny Flats” who are promoting the return of accessory dwelling units as a permissible land use in the R-0, R-1 and R-2 residential districts.
Should accessory units be legalized in Denver, results in other communities suggest the creation of 500 to 1,000 units per year, depending on the level of promotion and the ease of permitting. Metrowide, there is the potential for several times that figure.
It is time to take a fresh look and modernize our aging single-family housing stock in a way that recognizes our changing social and economic needs. The current updating of Denver’s zoning code offers a well-timed opportunity to give granny the rightful place she deserves.
James van Hemert is the executive director of The Rocky Mountain Land Use Institute at the University of Denver.
Posted by denver-admin at 12:01 AM
| Comments (6)
| TrackBack
By Don Severe, Green Valley, Ariz.
In consideration of the potential for “global warming” and the remedies, ala Al Gore, John Edwards and others, we have developed the Carbon Relief Aid Policy (CRAP) foundation.
This Speakout has not been edited By Don Severe, Green Valley, Ariz.
In consideration of the potential for “global warming” and the remedies, ala Al Gore, John Edwards and others, we have developed the Carbon Relief Aid Policy (CRAP) foundation.
The purpose of CRAP is to provide a tax free foundation through which people around the world can purchase “Carbon Offset Credits” which allows them to disregard the need for respecting the causes of global warming as outlined in Mr. Gore’s book and movie entitled an “Inconvenient Truth”.
The Mission Statement of CRAP is: the Carbon Relief Aid Policy foundation purpose is to provide an organized system whereby people of all nations, races, religions, genders, sexual preferences and, whatever, can disregard their fellow man through the purchase of Carbon Offset Credits. Our “Motto” is hypocrisy at all costs.
Those that become donors to and, effectively, members of the foundation are required to take a pledge of “Elitism”, whereby they affirm that they don’t give a “CRAP” about people that do not have the wherewithal to become members of CRAP.
In a practical sense, CRAP members are allowed to use excessive amounts of energy, in all forms, and pollute the environment to whatever extent they wish and can afford.
For example, credits will be purchased at the rate of one dollar per kilowatt of electricity use exceeding the national average and one dollar per pound of excess pollutants “spewed” into the environment.
For example, Al Gore (the inventor of the internet, etc.), well known environmental scientist, would pay approximately ten thousand dollars a month to the foundation to purchase Carbon Offset credits in exchange for the use of excessive amounts of electrical and natural gas energy to maintain his three homes and petroleum products to run gas guzzler limos as well as his private jets. We call this the Big Shot (BS).
Ironically, Mr. Gore has not yet taken any steps to reduce the use of energy in his 10,000 sq. ft. Tennessee home, or his 4,000 sq. ft. home in Washington D. C. The other Tennessee property has not been considered as well. Possibly, his time is taken overseeing his Occidental Petroleum Stocks and his Zinc Mine that pays him $20,000 per year. Of course, telling an inconvenient truth takes ones time as well.
Many so-called celebrities and luminaries will benefit immensely. For example, when John Travolta flies his 727 jet, one of the highest polluting and fuel inefficient airplanes put into service, he will be able to purchase Carbon Offset Credits in exchange for this largesse. Of course, the same will be true for other airplanes in his fleet. After all, what’s a family without a 727 to get the kiddies to the Riviera for beach time?
There is the “Do as I say, not as I do policy” referred to as “DUPE”. This policy is directed to 200 millions plus of “commoners” in the U.S. It is similar to the policies of Congress whereby decisions are made to direct U.S. citizens as to various rights, actions and benefits such as Social Security, pensions, etc. for them, but not abide by such benefits themselves. Thereby, they have “duped” the general public as to their membership in CRAP. Members, laughingly, like to think that they CRAP on the majority of Americans.
It is the feeling of the executives of CRAP that all members should take the “Hypocrite Oath”, much the same as medical doctors take the Hippocratic Oath. In the view of CRAP members, both groups are helping mankind, just in different ways.
It is anticipated that the initial membership will be in the thousands. However, the organization is hopeful millions will dedicate themselves to CRAP. In that way all CRAP members can “buy” there way out of personal responsibility to their fellow man and conduct their lives in the true sense of Hypocrites, living up to their oath.
It is expected that Charter Members will include Al Gore (if he has time), John Edwards, Sean Penn, Barbra Streisand, Leonardo DeCapria, Nancy Pelosi, just mention a few “rock solid” hypocrites.
Twenty-five percent of each dollar donated to the CRAP foundation will be used to plant trees and increase the “wind” in Tennessee, Beverly Hills, Malibu and San Francisco, thus preventing global warming in those places. They will get their electrical energy from “wind” which is a by product of CRAP.
As we all know, trees will save the planet and wind is a natural phenomenon. Or, at least Al Gore, John Edwards and others that have encouraged the use of Carbon Credits to excuse their (inexcusable) actions believe that this is the way to prevent global warming. It’s in the book (and the movie)!
It must be true! Ex-Vice President, Al Gore has so stated verbally and in text.
The other seventy-five percent will be used for “administrative expenses” (wink, wink).
There is a concern by CRAP organizers that a rebellious group is being formed.
It is the National Opposition to Carbon Relief Offset Credits known as “NOCRAP”.
Given this latest development, it will be necessary for U.S. citizens and others around the world to decide, “Do they want CRAP or NO CRAP”?
There is a pile of data to support both positions!
Don Severe is a past resident of Denver and Highlands Ranch, now residing in Green Valley, AZ. He is a retired Pres/CEO of an insurance marketing firm and past USAF pilot. Don is an amateur historian, archaeologist and free lance writer.
Posted by denver-admin at 12:01 AM
| Comments (2)
| TrackBack
By Diana Meraz, Denver
We cannot put every single drunk driver in jail and off the street but we can catch them one by one when we see one. This Speakout has not been edited By Diana Meraz, Denver
We cannot put every single drunk driver in jail and off the street but we can catch them one by one when we see one. With both issues there isn’t a race to target. We can’t assume that all Hispanics are illegal and we can’t assume that all drivers are drunk either. We need to have check points to catch most drunk drivers and the same should happen with illegal immigrants. Maybe not go as far as putting check points here and there but checking when people go to vote, for medical care, for a loan and other things like that. I keep hearing that we are dividing families and people use that against any Immigration law enforcement. Well, I know that there are many women in jail or in prison for breaking our laws and almost all of them are citizens of this country. Most of them have infants and children and guess what, they don’ t have a day care in jail or in prison. Many families are separated from their families here in this country everyday. Worse children are being separated from their siblings and put in different foster homes. Sad, yes. It doesn’t mean that we should let criminals clean their records and start over again without hiding from the police just because they have families. If someone breaks the law any law no matter how serious the crime they have to pay. There are American citizens with warrants out for their arrest for not paying parking and speeding tickets. They hide, they’re living in the shadows too. Should we say that it’s okay for them not to pay their tickets and spend their time in jail so that they can finally feel free? No. You do the crime you do the time! Why should we favor those who shouldn’t be in this country to those legal and natural born citizens of this country? Why? So what, if they came here and had their children here. That’s their problem. They can’t claim insanity by saying they didn’t know they were actually breaking any laws when they had to hide and sneak in here. Fact is they knew that they wrong then and knew that they could get caught and sent back. They should know that living here that being deported will always be a risk. Fear? Separating families? They are the only ones to blame. I get sent to jail tomorrow and my kids get put in foster care they don’t allow me to stay because I have a baby in day care. They put me in jail. Why do we let illegal immigrants who get caught go back home and let them care for their babies. Why can’t the Government take care of that like a social worker or something. Something that would be done if I or any other legal immigrant gets in trouble. Money? No. We pay to raise most of those children with medicaid and food stamps. It sounds bad but we do. Send them back. They should be allowed a choice to leave their children with someone with legal status or take them with them. Simple. Geraldo was so upset when a little girl was kidnaped, raped and killed and yet he is all for legalizing illegal immigrants who are criminals? Would that mean legalizing child sex predators? Everyone is always thinking about the poor illegal immigrants who just wants to work here. Well I am a natural born citizen and I only want to live here. I don’t have a choice. Things get bad here and they are with all of the illegal immigrants I have to deal with it. They can always go back home. Im the one living in fear. Fear of my future and the future of my children. I am Hispanic and have a Mexican legal immigrant as a mother and I am married to a Mexican Legal resident who just became a citizen of this country. There is a way. They have no excuses. My family is here legally so should everyone By Bill & Carol Wyckoff, Arvada
This Speakout has not been edited By Bill & Carol Wyckoff, Arvada
#1.) Close the borders, NOW! Stop any further illegal immigration. Build the FENCE (already approved and funded). Electrify it if necessary. Post troops every 10 yards 24 - 7 if necessary. Whatever it takes to seal the borders will be worth the price and will cost America less than S. 1348.
#2.) Use/enforce existing immigration laws. Impose sever penalties on anyone who hires illegals, intentionally or unknowingly. If the opportunity for work is denied, many illegals will go back to their home country. Homeland Security Chief Chertoff said yesterday (June 8th) that over 1,000,000 illegals were deported in 2006. At that rate in 10 to 20 years America can be rid of all illegals. It has taken the past 20 years to create this problem and maybe it will take 20 years to fix it and it will be worth it………..
#3.) Pass legislation to reduce legal immigration back to pre-1965 levels.
Immigration, legal and illegal is destroying America just as former Governor Dick Lamm predicted in his October 2003 speech. If you would like to refresh your memory of that speech you can view it at: #4.) If a guest worker program is needed, we had one back in the 1940’s and 1950’s that worked and provided cheap labor for agriculture. We just can’t give workers citizen status. I would rather pay more for goods and services provided by American workers at higher wages than destroy our American way of life with immigration……………!
I hope you were serious when you said give me your solution to Immigration……………….!
Posted by denver-admin at 12:01 AM
| Comments (5)
| TrackBack
By Ari Armstrong, Westminster
T By Ari Armstrong, Westminster
T For example, a June 11 story in the Rocky Mountain News ( Recently I’ve purchased a gallon of organic milk for $1, potatoes for 20 cents per pound, bananas for 25 cents per pound, and red-leaf lettuce for under $1 per pound. A My wife and I decided that we could each easily eat on less than $3 per day. We’re so confident about this that we’ve decided to do it for a full six months, not the mere week of the original challenge. Both my wife’s family and my own had some financial difficulties when we were children. That didn’t stop my mom from providing her kids with good, nutritious meals. She told me that for a time she spent on groceries what in today’s dollars amounts to around $1 per person per day. My mom also pointed out that she’s observed food-stamp recipients load up on poor-quality foods like cookies and potato chips, and then spend their own cash on tobacco.
There is, of course, a broader issue here. What is the appropriate role of government-run welfare, if any? One side holds that income should be more evenly distributed by political force. I believe that individuals have a moral right to control their own income and associate voluntarily with others. Thus, I would like to see welfare phased out.
What is the appropriate way to help the poor, then? A free economy is a prosperous economy. Unfortunately, various economic controls, such as labor restrictions and protective tariffs, put some low-skilled workers out of a job and artificially increase the cost of some goods. The poor pay a greater portion of their income to the Social Security tax than the rich do. True, most poor people soon gain the experience and knowledge to earn more money. Yet remaining legal barriers to their advancement should be removed.
Beyond that, voluntary charity is the best way to help those truly in need On the narrow debate over food stamps, the Food Stamp Challenge hardly shows that food-stamp welfare should be increased. My wife and I are prepared to prove it.
Ari Armstrong, a resident of Westminster, edits the Colorado Freedom Report (freecolorado.com).
Posted by denver-admin at 12:01 AM
| Comments (14)
| TrackBack
By Mike Gilsdorf, President, Colorado Employers for Immigration Reform
Just one month ago, the Colorado Employers for Immigration Reform, a multi-industry business coalition formed to advocate a sensible, comprehensive solution to the immigration crisis in our country. Our group represents businesses employing more than 500,000 people and contributes $26 billion to the state economy annually. Since our launch and to our relief, Congress has made remarkable progress toward fixing the broken immigration system that has plagued many of our state's businesses.
This Speakout has not been edited By Mike Gilsdorf, President, Colorado Employers for Immigration Reform
Just one month ago, the Colorado Employers for Immigration Reform, a multi-industry business coalition formed to advocate a sensible, comprehensive solution to the immigration crisis in our country. Our group represents businesses employing more than 500,000 people and contributes $26 billion to the state economy annually. Since our launch and to our relief, Congress has made remarkable progress toward fixing the broken immigration system that has plagued many of our state's businesses.
The bipartisan compromise agreement envisioned in the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007 (S. 1348) announced last week addresses the four principle areas that Colorado Employers for Immigration Reform believes are crucial to effective reform: enhanced border security; a new employment verification system; provisions for future temporary, year round guest worker programs to fill jobs that U.S. workers are unable to fill; and, settling the legal status of the 12 million undocumented people already in the country.
As the bill is being debated over the next few weeks, many Colorado businesses will be eager to see provisions retained that allows us to continue a legal avenue for hiring a seasonal work force included in the bill, similar to the current H2-B visa program.
Several important industries to our state including hotels and lodging, landscape, nurseries and restaurants all depend on an ongoing seasonal workforce to fill jobs due to the state's low unemployment rate and the lack of interest they receive from Americans in seasonal work and the type of jobs to be filled.
While the Y2-B component of the new bill addresses seasonal guest workers, Colorado businesses need ongoing assurances that we can bring in a seasonal workforce every year during peak seasons. We need the ability to bring back the same workers annually to avoid unnecessary and expensive training and recruitment. We also need to make sure the number of seasonal workers is dictated by the market's need and not a set cap that may actually be lower than what we now have in place. Most importantly, we need to make sure we can continue to use a seasonal workforce until comprehensive reform takes effect and while border security issues are being resolved.
We recognize not everyone will agree with all provisions of the 326-page bill. However, Colorado Employers for Immigration Reform believes "perfect" should not be the enemy of the good. In the good faith spirit of the negotiations to date, we support the bill. We applaud the senators and representatives of the Administration that negotiated in good faith to find workable and fair solutions to the myriad of problems requiring attention in our failed immigration system.
Senator Ken Salazar deserves special thanks for the constructive role he has played in seeking solutions to comprehensive immigration reform. His leadership on the negotiation committee and willingness to represent diverse interests in Colorado is notable and appreciated. As we move forward, we encourage Colorado employers to communicate with our congressional leaders that immigration reform is needed and 2007 is the year to accomplish it.
By Todd Pepin, Highlands Ranch
This Speakout has not been edited By Todd Pepin, Highlands Ranch
Of the on-average 850,000 green cards doled out annually over the past decade, approximately 16% (140,000 / yr), are allocated to so-called "skilled workers" - scientists, engineers, medical professionals, and a variety of other occupations. They have at least a bachelor's degree, typically in a technical discipline, and many have master's degrees or doctorates and significant experience in their fields. These workers pay taxes and health insurance, are educated and law-abiding, and they contribute to their communities. Most importantly, they help drive economic growth by supplying critical skills to US industry in an increasingly competitive global market.
The green card process for most skilled workers has traditionally taken 18-24 months. However, in recent years a significant backlog has developed and many current applicants are facing waits of 5 years or more due to bureaucratic bottlenecks at the US Department of Labor (USDOL), US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USICS), and even the FBI. Employers of highly skilled legal immigrants, and the would-be immigrants themselves, were hopeful that this new immigration bill would fix this broken system. Unfortunately, the bill, as written today, actually makes things much worse for tens of thousands of skilled green card applicants.
One particularly troublesome section of the bill, Section 502(d)(2), proposes to invalidate any green card applications not made to USCIS prior to May 15th, 2007. This seemingly fails to recognize that there is a lengthy "labor certification" process that most applicants must satisfy with the USDOL prior to filing a green card applications with the USCIS. As of August 2005 it was estimated that the labor certification backlog was 100,000 cases, and even today many thousands of applicants have been waiting several years to have their labor certification cases adjudicated.
This provision potentially cancels the green card applications of thousands of skilled green card applicants stuck in the labor certification process backlog, and requires them to start all over again with a proposed new green card process. Furthermore, the bill does not call for the new green card process to start for a period of up to 18 months, requiring individuals who have already been stuck in the process for years, to wait still more for their green cards. Finally, and perhaps most egregiously, new restrictive measures on work visas proposed in this same bill, mean that many applicants will not be able to renew their work visas prior to them being able to restart the new green card process, forcing them to abandon their green card applications and leave the U.S. altogether.
Regardless of one's position on illegal immigration, it is makes no sense at all to pass a bill that would both grant a path to citizenship for millions of illegal aliens, whilst simultaneously forcing tens of thousands of highly skilled workers who have been patiently following the legal process, to abandon their applications leave the country. This bill should be fixed so that:
1. 2. 3. Todd Pepin is a resident of Highlands Ranch who has been living and working legally in the U.S. for 10 years. He holds a Bachelor's Degree in Computer Engineering and works as a software development team lead at a major Colorado employer. Todd started working on his green card application in December 2004 and hopes to receive his green card in early 2008 if all goes well.
Posted by denver-admin at 12:01 AM
| Comments (2)
| TrackBack
By Larry Karl, Erie
This Speakout has not been edited By Larry Karl, Erie
In 1987 Ronald Reagan offered amnesty to millions. Our government and their sense of memory loss and greed are inhibited and do not learn from history. Mass amnesty and appeasement do not work, but that does not deter politicians for doing what is best for them and their party.
So here we are today with upwards to 50 million illegal aliens still flooding into our country unabated and without fear of being deported. Instead of our government taken a stance and shutdown the southern border they compound the problem by further allowing illegals to not assimilate into our culture. We have states that print their ballots in various languages including Spanish. And now they want to add to a struggling welfare systems as many of the illegals currently live in poverty and would be “entitled” to government social programs.
Children whom cross the borders receive their taxpayer funded breakfast and lunch while attending school and learning in their native tongue. Instead of gratitude we see a growing pattern of large protest throughout the country by illegal immigrants and their supporters, holding their native country’s flag up high with pride. (Sidebar. My observations of those who continue to subside on government programs seem to be angriest than those who strive for a better, more independent life) Bad government is getting worse.
While thousands line up to lawfully abide by our laws on their path to citizenship, The recent anmensty bill floated by the U.S. Congress makes it easier for citizenship to an alarming unskilled workforce. I guess that was the reason for increasing the minimum wage prior to the yet to pass bill. This bill has a presumption that lawbreakers will now follow ours laws. If you believe that I will sell you some ocean front property in Arizona.
As our U.S. Congress and Executive branch continue to do nothing but debate the immigration issue they still allow for open borders and the streaming across into this country for a better life; they know about the problem but they do nothing to shutdown the borders now. One could call this the Paris Hilton affect of a lot about nothing.
Upwards to 80% of American citizens are against amnesty according to recent polls.
I believe money is the root of all evil.
I suspect if the media were to conduct an unbiased investigation into the cause of illegal immigration it would not be surprising if they unearthed a money laundrying scheme were both special interests and big business spend billions of dollars “legally” bribing elected officials to turn a blind eye. So much coming out of Washington nowadays follows this modus operandi that a growing citizenry consider it normal. Meanwhile, the biggest fault of illegal immigration is the 70%-75% of eligible voters who allow for a small minority to decide the fate of this country by not voting.
If you peel back the layers and look at this problem from a political perspective one has to ask who the benefactors are. I would start with various unions and their organizations who gain memberships, and businesses who hire illegals aliens. Take these entities and do a thorough analysis and I’m sure it will be determined they provide substantial financial assistance to our two party monopoly.
As the apex of discussion on illegal immigration continues, no efforts have been made that deter this criminal act. For fear of political correctness (this is not racisim) efforts are seldom made for mass deportation, nor the arrest of business executives who hire illegals.
So what am I going to do about it? Join me in 2008 and not vote for incumbents or U.S. Senators using their current term to run for higher office. The majority of voters need to step up and vote in order to send a clear messag that this is a Republican/Democratic government and our officials are charged by proxy to make tough decisions on our behalf. It does not mean for them to act on some flimsy popularity poll, which they do more and more, deferring their responsibilities.
Posted by denver-admin at 12:01 AM
| Comments (6)
| TrackBack
By Dianna L. Kunz
Every other Friday, I arrive at Josephine’s front door with a hot meal — maybe meatloaf, maybe lemon pepper fish, maybe barbecued chicken. After opening the various locks securing her door, she invites me in, takes the meal and immediately sets it aside. She really just wants to talk.
By Dianna L. Kunz
Every other Friday, I arrive at Josephine’s front door with a hot meal — maybe meatloaf, maybe lemon pepper fish, maybe barbecued chicken. After opening the various locks securing her door, she invites me in, takes the meal and immediately sets it aside. She really just wants to talk. Josephine talks about her family — some she is at odds with, others fill her with pride. I am never quite sure whether the stories are from the here and now or from the distant past. Regardless of their origins, it is important for Josephine to share them with someone.
This scenario takes place Over the past several weeks, we have received calls from the media wanting to know if any of our volunteers have quit as gas prices continue to rise over $3.25 a gallon. I have said, “No, they haven’t and this is, indeed, a wonderful story.” The media, however, feel the story will be when the volunteers start to quit. I believe the inspiring tale here is that despite the rising cost of gasoline, our volunteers are undaunted and truly grasp the importance of what they do each day.
These marvelous people realize that the daily human contact that this program affords these seniors (the average age is 86) and the nutritious food they deliver are more important than the rising cost of gas. They have decided that they will sacrifice the additional expense to ensure that these people are seen, heard and nurtured on a daily basis.
Josephine might not know about the rising cost of a barrel of oil, but she does know that every other Friday, at 11:30 a.m., I will be there to discuss the weather, her family, the Rockies or anything else she might have on her mind.
Dianna L. Kunz is the president and CEO of Volunteers of America.
Posted by denver-admin at 12:01 AM
| Comments (1)
| TrackBack
By Marina Mayer, Fort Collins
Just four weeks ago, my husband and I moved to Fort Collins, CO. We bought a beautiful house with ten acres where we were planning on keeping life
stock and growing vegetables.
Everything changed on April 24th when we first heard about Powertech Uranium, a Canadian company that is planning on mining uranium in Nunn, CO.
This Speakout has not been edited By Marina Mayer, Fort Collins
Just four weeks ago, my husband and I moved to Fort Collins, CO. We bought a beautiful house with ten acres where we were planning on keeping life
stock and growing vegetables. This house was the result of a two year long search for paradise. We visited
Fort Collins just once last February and knew immediately that we found it, our paradise. There is beautiful scenery with views of the Rocky Mountains,
very friendly people who are looking after themselves and their environment. All in all, a great
community where we hope to grow old.
Everything changed on April 24th when we first heard about Powertech Uranium, a Canadian company that is planning on mining uranium in Nunn, CO.
A lot of people will now say: “Nunn, that’s far from Fort Collins. This will not affect us.” I say different.
This will affect all of Northern Colorado. And I will explain to you why:
Water is the most precious commodity of Colorado. So how is it possible that a company, which is in the business of uranium mining only since 2006,
can buy 5,760 acres of uranium mineral rights and start to mine for uranium with the result of
contaminating the groundwater and aquifer with radioactive metals?
Powertech states on their web site that they estimate to recover 9,581,000 pounds of uranium U308 in Nunn which has a resell value of roughly $125 per
pound as of June 5, 2007. That would mean that Powertech could make $1.2 billion by selling the uranium to China or India which are the countries with the highest demand in uranium today. So, I guess this sounds great – for the investors! This company
makes billions of dollars by exploiting natural resources of Colorado. They might even be able to get around paying taxes in the United States since it is a Canadian company and they’ll make enough money on paying good tax consultants.
In addition to the money they’ll make they will make a big mess!
The technology they say they want to use is called “in-situ” leach mining. That means they will drill holes in the ground and inject a caustic solution
(chemicals) into the groundwater to get to the uranium. With this solution they can extract the
uranium from the original rock and pump the water back to the surface. During this process other heavy metals like arsenic, selenium, molybdenum and
other radioactive elements will be released into the groundwater and aquifer. The United States Nuclear
Regulatory Commission stated 2007: “Although these “in-situ” leach mining techniques are considered more environmentally benign then traditional
mining and milling practices they still tend to contaminate the groundwater.” So, what does that leave us
with? Radioactivity in the groundwater that spreads into the drinking water and eventually finds its way into crops, life stock, and finally people. As most
of you already know: The result is cancer!
If Powertech starts to mine uranium a lot of people will move away from these dangers. As a result real estate prices will drop, businesses will go
bankrupt and unemployment will increase. Fort Collins will no longer be “the best place to live”. It will
be the worst.
But, is moving away really the solution to this problem? I don’t think so.
Nunn is not the only victim of the new “gold rush”. Since prices for uranium increased from $10 per pound in 2003 to now $125 per pound no place with
uranium resources is safe. There were more than 3,000 new uranium mining claims filed in Colorado in
2005.
Few will benefit from this “gold rush”, many will suffer.
Maybe, we should think about another way to save our environment and our health.
Indigenous peoples from around the world, victims of uranium mining, nuclear testing, and nuclear dumping, issued a global ban on uranium mining on
native lands during the Indigenous World Uranium Summit, held November 30 through December 2, 2006.
Australian aboriginals, villagers from India and Africa and Pacific islanders joined with indigenous peoples from the Americas to take action and halt the
cancer, birth defects, and death from uranium and nuclear industries on native lands.
Let’s ban uranium mining in Colorado!
If you would like to get more information, please go to www.nunnglow.com and ask your elected representative about what you can do to stop uranium
mining in Colorado.
Sources:
1 2 3 4 By Robert F. Broom, Aurora City Council member, Ward VI, Aurora
In view of increased construction costs for the Regional Transportation District's FasTracks East Corridor to Denver International Airport, I recommend the airport fund 20 percent of the project to correspond with their share of projected ridership on this line.
This Speakout has not been edited By Robert F. Broom, Aurora City Council member, Ward VI, Aurora
In view of increased construction costs for the Regional Transportation District's FasTracks East Corridor to Denver International Airport, I recommend the airport fund 20 percent of the project to correspond with their share of projected ridership on this line. With proper mass transit, DIA will benefit by increased air traffic generated over time as more conventions book in Denver to take advantage of the reasonably priced rail system that provides easy access to downtown Denver. Also, more businesses will locate in the Aurora-Denver metropolitan area to take advantage of our world-class airport and the ease of accessing the airport that FasTracks will bring.
Employees who work at the airport will have good, inexpensive transportation to their jobs and the need to pave more parking lots near the airport will ease. Instead, this prime real estate can he used for hotels, restaurants, offices and light industrial uses, resulting in an increased tax base for the city and the creation of more jobs. Further, major developers who have requested additional train stations along the east corridor that were not included in the original FasTracks package presented to the voters should be asked to participate in the funding to cover the cost of these new features.
While this approach will not solve shortfalls on other lines, it will allow RTD to move this line forward. It will take a number of ideas, including more federal transit funds, privatization, etc., to complete the system. I would also hope that the RTD Board of Directors does not opt for short-term savings by using diesel engines rather than electric units. The cost and availability of diesel fuel is a real gamble and electric units will create less air pollution. RTD already purchases substantial amounts of diesel fuel for its large bus fleet. It just makes sense to hedge their bets by using electricity that can be first provided by coal plants from the huge deposits in Wyoming and later from nuclear facilities or other technologies. FasTracks has the potential to be a major factor in preventing gridlock on our already overtaxed highway network. We simply must find ways to get it constructed in a timely manner.
Posted by denver-admin at 12:01 AM
| Comments (2)
| TrackBack
By Marc W. Smith, Executive Director Independent Petroleum Association of Mountain States
As Americans struggle to cope with rising transportation and energy costs, some members of Congress seem determined to make matters even worse.
Representative Nick Rahall (D-WV), Chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, recently introduced the “Energy Policy Reform and Revitalization Act of 2007” (H.R. 2337), which would repeal key provisions of the bipartisan Energy Policy Act of 2005 that have helped to increase domestic energy supplies in recent years.
This Speakout has not been edited By Marc W. Smith, Executive Director Independent Petroleum Association of Mountain States
As Americans struggle to cope with rising transportation and energy costs, some members of Congress seem determined to make matters even worse.
Representative Nick Rahall (D-WV), Chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, recently introduced the “Energy Policy Reform and Revitalization Act of 2007” (H.R. 2337), which would repeal key provisions of the bipartisan Energy Policy Act of 2005 that have helped to increase domestic energy supplies in recent years. The legislation is a wish list of the environmental lobby and if passed would reduce domestic energy supplies, making America more dependent on foreign sources of oil and natural gas, and further increasing what we pay to drive our cars, power our factories, and heat and cool our homes.
Energy is no different from every other commodity—its price is dictated by the law of supply and demand. Much of Mr. Rahall’s bill is focused on reducing oil and natural gas supplies by limiting energy development on public lands in the Intermountain West, which is now the largest supply region for domestic natural gas and a significant source of the nation’s crude oil. The Intermountain West is vital to our nation’s energy supply, and continued access to non-park, non-wilderness public lands is essential to a sustainable energy future. Marketed production in the Intermountain West has increased by nearly 70% since 1996, and proved gas reserves in the region grew from 46 trillion cubic feet (tcf) to 61 tcf between 2000 and 2006 – an increase of over 32%. As of last year, the Intermountain West’s proved crude oil accounted for nearly 12% of total U.S. lower-48 reserves.
High natural gas prices not only increase what families pay to heat their homes, they also increase the prices of electricity and biofuels. According to the Energy Information Administration, electrical generation from natural gas grew 6.9 percent from 2004 to 2005, reaching 758 billion kilowatthours, the highest rate of growth of the three major generation sources (coal, natural gas, and nuclear). Of the 200,000 megawatts of new powerplant capacity to be placed in operation over the next few years, well over 90% will be fueled by natural gas. Natural gas also tops out the three major generation sources in net summer capacity, accounting for 39.2% of the nation’s electricity generation capacity at the time of peak summer demand. Additionally, natural gas is also a significant cost factor in the price of biofuels such as ethanol since it is used both to produce fertilizer and provide the energy to convert plants into biofuels.
If Congress further restricts domestic oil and natural gas production, we will not only see record prices at the pump and on our utility bills, we’ll also make the United States of America more dependent on unfriendly foreign sources of energy. The more reliant we become on foreign sources for our energy, the more likely it is that a U.S. military presence will be needed to protect supply, and the more we’ll be forced to deal with dictators like Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
While oil and natural gas development occur on less than one percent of public land, we share Congress’s interest in ensuring that energy development on public lands is done in an environmentally sound manner. Energy producers understand the awesome responsibility with which they are trusted when producing oil and natural gas on public lands, and are committed to good stewardship. Oil and natural gas development creates only a small and temporary impact to the land, and while development is occurring, impacted public land is still open for multiple uses such as hunting, fishing, camping, and hiking. There are countless examples of industry’s environmental stewardship, including an historic partnership with conservation groups to ensure that while development occurs, corresponding efforts are made to improve and protect wildlife habitat.
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 was a huge victory for American consumers and for our national security. It passed Congress with support from both Democrats and Republicans, including Congressman Rahall. We’re not sure why Congress would attempt to roll back the progress we’ve made, but we are sure that H.R. 2337 would reduce domestic energy supplies, make America more dependent on foreign sources of oil and natural gas, and increase energy costs for consumers.
Marc W. Smith is the Executive Director of the Independent Petroleum Association of Mountain States (IPAMS). Marc earned his Masters of Environmental Policy and Management/Natural Resource Management from the University of Denver and a B.S. from Northern Arizona University. Marc has worked in the public, private and non-profit sectors in research, strategic planning, public relations and government affairs positions.IPAMS, founded in 1974, is a non-profit trade association representing more than 400 independent oil and gas producers, service and supply companies, banking and financial institutions and industry consultants committed to environmentally responsible oil and gas development in the Intermountain West. More information on IPAMS and its members is available at www.ipams.org.
Posted by denver-admin at 12:01 AM
| Comments (5)
| TrackBack
By Mark Easter, Fort Collins
An Open Letter to the Taxpayers of Weld, Larimer, Morgan, and Boulder Counties: I’m writing to you about your local government’s participation in what is likely the worst proposed public works project in fifty years, a project that local governments appear to want to slip under the radar screen, which would likely cost you a great deal of money, and degrade your quality of life.
This Speakout has not been edited By Mark Easter, Fort Collins
An Open Letter to the Taxpayers of Weld, Larimer, Morgan, and Boulder Counties: I’m writing to you about your local government’s participation in what is likely the worst proposed public works project in fifty years, a project that local governments appear to want to slip under the radar screen, which would likely cost you a great deal of money, and degrade your quality of life.
I’m talking about the proposed $400+ million ($800+ million with interest) Northern Integrated Supply Project (NISP), which includes the proposed Glade Reservoir. The project would take the last free-flowing water from the Cache la Poudre River, near where I live.
Your local governments propose to borrow hundreds of millions of dollars to build the project, from which you will receive little or no benefit. They propose to do it through revenue bonds, using a loophole allowing them to increase municipal debt while going around TABOR restrictions. Revenue bonds allow them to borrow hundreds of millions of dollars without voter approval.
The town of Erie, for example, proposes to borrow up to $65 million (up to $135 million with interest) for their stake in the water from this project.
For Windsor, Eaton, and the Central Weld County Water District, the numbers are $52 million, $26 million, and $167 million, respectively, including interest. Other towns and water districts involved are Berthoud, Evans, Fort Lupton, Fort Morgan, Lafayette, Left Hand Water District, Morgan County Quality Water District, and Severance.
The debt loads range up to $20,000 per 4-person family in the communities involved ($42,000 with interest). Towns will have to grow at rates up to 3 times the regional growth rate, selling tap fees for new growth to pay off the loans. Many are already considering raising water rates to support the project, and if there is an economic slowdown, just a blip in your town’s growth rate over the next 20 to 30 years, your water rates will increase again to service the debt.
I think it is fair to ask who benefits from your town’s participation in NISP. It certainly isn’t the people of Larimer and Northern Weld County, who will bear all the impacts. Nor will it be you, either. Buying into NISP will make your town highly vulnerable to an economic slowdown, will literally require unsustainable, hyper-fast growth rates to pay off the debt, while leading to increased water rates for existing residents.
There are much less risky and less costly alternatives to NISP that must be utilized.
Please visit www.SaveThePoudre.org By Mark A. Golden, Aurora
As the World Spins in Aurora. (A daytime drama, nightmare) The show begins with an Assistant City Manager, Chief of Police and an Assistant City Attorney getting caught trying to place the non-Cooperation Card at the feet of the Aurora Civil Service Commission, in an attempt to influence the forthcoming decision concerning a Police Sergeant’s pending discipline.
This Speakout has not been edited By Mark A. Golden, Aurora
As the World Spins in Aurora. (A daytime drama, nightmare) The show begins with an Assistant City Manager, Chief of Police and an Assistant City Attorney getting caught trying to place the non-Cooperation Card at the feet of the Aurora Civil Service Commission, in an attempt to influence the forthcoming decision concerning a Police Sergeant’s pending discipline.
The Mayor and City Council circle the wagons in defense and play the Plausible Deniability Card. “We did not know what was going on!” They cry in unison from within the circled wagons, then silence.
A few transfers are issued and the silence continues as the dust settles.
Then, from the darkness, the Assistant City Attorney’s blog accuses his wife and the “married” Fire Chief of having an affair. The wagons remain circled and an Attorney is fired and one is quickly transferred. Situation quickly handled from within the circled wagons. Oh, No! The blog shows the Fire Chief played golf on city time. Silence remains, ignorance is displayed, and quiet surrounds the set.
The pounding of horse’s hoofs is heard in the background and the news is released that the Fire Chief golfed at least 20 times. “A sacrifice must be made”, the Mayor yells. The Fire Chief screams “Not me!” A low murmur can be heard from the Mayor and City Council, within the circled wagons.
The Fire Chief is thrown from the protection of the circled wagons, but some protection still remains in the form of a full retirement and a Consultant’s job.
Everyone smiles and nods in agreement; the air begins to have an unnerving silence.
A fireman is discovered to have stolen drugs from the fire house and is believed to have used them. The City Council all scream, “Quickly, we must put out this fire before all the wagons are set ablaze.” Criminal charges are quickly brought and another fired employee leaves the set.
A cry from off stage is heard “What about criminal charges against the Fire Chief?” Nothing but silence comes from within the circled wagons.
As the actors begin to feel comfortable and return to their daily activities, the wagons begin to move from their circled defensive position. The Police Chief can be seen in the background talking with a Black Sergeant, something is mentioned about an all white promotions board and a Black Sergeant finishing last on the promotions test.
The Police Chief is seen reaching into his coat pocket and pulling out the Racist Card. With a few members of the Police Administration staff standing behind him, the Police Chief carefully places the Racist Card at the feet of the Aurora Civil Service Commission. The covered wagons begin to circle. A whimper is heard from the minorities, just off stage. One or two of the circling wagons can be seen with small fires developing on their canopies. Wait, isn’t this how the episode began? Stay tuned next week for AS THE WORLD SPINS IN AURORA!
Posted by denver-admin at 12:01 AM
| Comments (1)
| TrackBack
By Celia VanDerLoop, Denver
By Celia VanDerLoop, Denver
Currently, it is illegal to drive any vehicle with an altered muffler in Denver or operate any vehicle weighing less than 10,000 pounds that is louder than 80 decibels. Typically, motorcyclists are cited for noise violations under disturbing the peace, which usually carries a $25 traffic fine and no penalties for repeat offenders. With proposed changes, the level is 82 decibels The amended ordinance can carry a fine of up to $999 for violators. But there are always cases where there will be disagreements While the vast majority of motorcyclists are respectful and responsible, inevitably We all accept a little more commotion in our life when we move into an urban environment. But reasonable people also agree there are reasonable limits to that noise, which is why we set parameters on construction activities, loud music, trash collection and other activities. Celia VanDerLoop By Rick Muller, Windsor
This Speakout has not been edited By Rick Muller, Windsor
The political “wild west” show of “bait and switch” and demeaning innuendo advertising practiced by politicians must end. It is any wonder children lie, don’t listen, stretch the truth? While these same politicians rush headlong decrying the influence of television and radio (i.e. Howard Stern) they seem to believe they are exempt from the laws they use to hold others accountable. Is it possible the voting malaise begins in childhood because of the fantastic claims and blatant misrepresentations, the sheer brutality of verbal and emotional abuse present in political advertising? Perhaps adults don’t vote and their children grow up are less likely to participate in our democracy because of the tenor and destructive messages sent by political advertising. Where is the academic research investigating this impact? While some consider political rhetoric colorful, good honest fun, if an individual or corporation engages in such “scorched earth” communications there are legal consequences. In fact, corporations used to make outlandish claims, but the government squelched that practice and corporations now adhere to truth in advertising guidelines. For example, there are no more wild claims of curing cancer unless there is proof.
Political advertising is sending the wrong message to our children and there is no “V” chip for politicians. Therefore, I offer a simple strategy for the exiting this carnival show—require all politicians to abide by the “truth in advertising” guidelines of the Federal Trade Commission and Colorado’s consumer protection laws.
The logic is clear, each politician, political organization, entity, and 527 are legally incorporated and as legal bodies, they are corporations. These corporations package, manage, and sell ideas and people just like soup, soap, or cell phones.
The public is protected from unscrupulous, manipulative business executives, why not sly, sinister, and slimy political advertising? Children especially deserve protection from the outrageous claims, fear mongering, and deliberate manipulation of the truth. Grand exaggerations and abusive dialogue is destructive to the sensibilities of impressionable children.
Officially, politicians should voluntarily adhere to existing “truth in advertising” guidelines. However, that is unlikely.
Some suggest placing the burden on media outlets to provide greater scrutiny and evaluation. While some local television stations have made efforts to assist voters in determining the truth in some political advertising, this is tantamount to having the fox guard the hen house. Expecting a media outlet to stray outside of the “community service” umbrella is naïve and unrealistic. These media outlets are part of mega-conglomerates who need advertising revenue to make shareholders happy. They have no incentive to challenge the monetary “whale,” one who consistently spends substantial money for advertising at their stations or newspapers, campaign after campaign.
My suggestion is having politicians follow the FTC guidelines currently in place, they would be required to show: advertising is truthful and non-deceptive; have evidence to back up claims; and advertisements cannot be unfair.
Ads are deceptive to the FTC if they contain a statement – or omit information that: is likely to mislead consumers acting reasonably under the circumstances; and is “material” –important to a consumer’s decision to buy or use the product; or in our case, vote for someone.
Bottom line, families are mad. Voters are fed up. It is time the media, politicians, campaigns, and special interests take notice and take action. If not, laws or constitutional amendments are not far behind.
Posted by denver-admin at 12:01 AM
| Comments (1)
| TrackBack
By Ida Audeh, Boulder
Although it is a regional superpower and an unmonitored nuclear power, Israel is in a real sense a failed state. It relies on brute force to achieve and maintain a Jewish majority and counts on US support in its continued defiance of international law.
This Speakout has not been edited By Ida Audeh, Boulder
Although it is a regional superpower and an unmonitored nuclear power, Israel is in a real sense a failed state. It relies on brute force to achieve and maintain a Jewish majority and counts on US support in its continued defiance of international law.
Fifty-nine years after its establishment on 78% of Mandate Palestine, and 40 years after it seized control of the remaining 22% (the West Bank, including East Jerusalem; and the Gaza Strip), Israel engages in practices whose sole purpose is to dominate the indigenous Palestinian population.
It was established through systematic acts of ethnic cleansing: Zionist militias erased from the map more than 400 Palestinian towns and villages and used massacres and other measures to turn some 700,000 Palestinians into refugees.
Now, 40 years after the 1967 war, Israel has tightened its grip on the occupied territories (and annexed East Jerusalem and the Syrian Golan Heights outright). The list of abuses and criminal policies targeting Palestinians is numbing and includes land confiscations; illegal settlements for Jews only; house demolitions; mass arrests and detentions without charges; assassinations; shooting to kill unarmed protesters; and policies that prevent families from staying intact.
Some 547 checkpoints controlled by armed Israeli soldiers dot the West Bank. Israel’s wall in the West Bank slices off 8.5% of the West Bank and joins it to Israel; it locks up entire Palestinian communities, preventing natural growth, depriving farmers of their land, and making towns unlivable.
About 400,000 Israeli colonizers now live in Jewish only settlements built on land confiscated from Palestinians. The settlements, together with the checkpoints and the wall, destroy the territorial integrity of the West Bank and render it economically unviable.
Jimmy Carter was vilified for describing Israel’s policies in the occupied territories as apartheid. But Ronnie Kasrils, minister of intelligence in South Africa, echoed Carter’s assessment in a Commentary published by Mail & Guardian on 28 May 2007: “Like the Gaza Strip, the West Bank is effectively a hermetically sealed prison. It is shocking to discover that certain roads are barred to Palestinians and reserved for Jewish settlers. I try in vain to recall anything quite as obscene in apartheid South Africa.”
Within Israel, more than 20 laws explicitly privilege Jewish citizens over non-Jewish ones. Imagine the US Constitution explicitly privileging white citizens over blacks or Protestants over Catholic or, even more outrageous, privileging Caucasians from other countries over native-born black US citizens. Would the world community support a country that discriminated against its own citizens so blatantly?
Israeli policy makers speak openly about making sure that Jerusalem has a substantial Jewish majority.
Would a Colorado elected official have a political future after asserting that Americans of Mexican origin must never constitute more than 20 or 30% of the city’s population? Why should a Jew from Denver have more right to live in Mandate Palestine than the Palestinian who has in his pocket the key to the home from which he was expelled 59 years ago?
Palestinians married to non-Jewish Israeli citizens are denied residency rights in Israel. How many democracies prevent their citizens from living with spouses of their choosing? Israel’s contorted legal maneuvers cannot prevent the inevitable. If present demographic trends continue, the Palestinian population within Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip will outnumber the Jewish population by 2020. It is foolish to expect that any group will indefinitely tolerate efforts to exploit and control it. The minority apartheid regime in South Africa could not stomp on the majority indefinitely.
Nor could white Americans get the blacks in this country to accept Jim Crow laws.
In its current form, Israel does its Jewish citizens a disservice by offering them a future of perpetual domination and strife, one that puts them at odds with international legal norms and frameworks. What it offers Palestinians is much worse: it denies them any kind of future at all.
Ida Audeh, a technical editor who lives in Boulder, grew up in the West Bank.
Posted by denver-admin at 12:01 AM
| Comments (11)
| TrackBack
By Edward A. Corcoran, Lakewood
This Speakout has not been edited By Edward A. Corcoran, Lakewood
Beuprez’s core argument is that Campos rejects the threat of Islamic jihad, though the only mention in Campos’s article is a jibe at Islamoterrofascism used as a justification for the Iraqi War.
Beauprez’s charge of ignoring the treat of Islamic jihad simply isn’t there, it is only a straw man which he proceeds to pummel. I have yet to see a single commentator deny that such an enemy exists, though many of them view the Iraqi War as a profoundly counterproductive way to engage this enemy.
Beauprez chides the extreme left for name calling, though his lead paragraph calls Campos irresponsible. He goes on to refer to his impaired objectivity and characterize him as infuriated at Congress, throwing a temper tantrum, and spewing hatred for the president. So even while he’s denouncing name calling he’s managing to engage in a good bit of it himself.
Campos central argument is that the war is being fought by other people’s kids. Beauprez says it is “completely false” that the elites have no personal investment in the war and claims that “many” members of Congress have sons or daughters who served in Iraq or Afghanistan. A quick Google search comes up with a number of nine, which hardly seems to be “many.” I don’t know of a single high Administration official who has had a son or daughter in the war. Other People’s kids remains a serious problem.
The President’s decision to commit troops is characterized as the most difficult decision he could possibly face. Would that that were so. The more we know, the more cavalier the war decision seems.
Even as the war started, it was becoming evident that the President had cherry picked intelligence to suit his prior decision; the Pentagon had expanded its own intelligence activities because it was unhappy with the skeptical assessments from the intelligence community. More recently it has become public that the intelligence community also provided warnings of likely serious complications.
Congress did overwhelmingly vote for the war, recognizing that the President had access to much more detailed intelligence and accepting his strong insistence that Iraq was a pressing threat and his assurances that victory would be rapid and complete. None of the caveats or warnings was provided to Congress. It seems fair to conclude that Congress gave the President the benefit of the doubt and he abused that, hiding the doubts that had been provided to the Administration. This was compounded by the incompetence with which the war was managed. It is no wonder that Congress and the public have turned against it.
The warning of radical Islam imposing a caliphate over much of the world falls right in with Johnson’s warning about Communists chasing us right into our own kitchens. The same scare mongering that has been the ultimate basis of this wretched war.
It sure would be nice if the level of public discussion were more professional. By Ken Arthurs, Read Feather Lakes
This Speakout has not been edited By Ken Arthurs, Read Feather Lakes
Maybe we should turn to our history books and point out to people like that why today’s American is not willing to accept this new kind of immigrant any longer. Back in 1900 when there was a rush from all areas of Europe to come to the United States, people had to get off a ship and stand in a long line in New York and be documented. Some would even get down on their hands & knees and kiss the ground. They made a pledge to uphold the laws and support their new country in good and bad times. They made learning English a primary rule in their new American households and some even changed their names to blend in with their new home. They had waved good bye to their birth place to give their children a new life and did everything in their power to help their children assimilate into one culture.
Nothing was handed to them. No free lunches, no welfare, no labor laws to protect them. All they had were the skills and the craftsmanship they had brought with them to trade for a future of prosperity. Most of their children came of age when World War II broke out. My father fought alongside men whose parents had come straight over from Germany, Italy, France, and Japan. None of these first-generation Americans ever gave any thought about what country their parents had come from. They were Americans fighting Hitler, Mussolini, and the Emperor of Japan. They were defending the United States of America as one people. When we liberated France, no one in those villages was looking for the French-American or the German American or the Irish American. The people of France saw only Americans. And we carried one flag that represented one country. Not one of those immigrant sons would ever have even thought about picking up another country’s flag and waving it to represent who they were. It would have been a disgrace to their parents who had sacrificed so much to be here. These immigrants truly knew what it meant to be an American. They stirred the melting pot into one red, white, and blue bowl.
And so here we are in A.D.2007 with a new kind of immigrant who wants the same rights and privileges. Only they want to achieve it by playing with a different set of rules, one that includes the entitlement card and a guarantee of being faithful to their mother country. I’m sorry, that is not what being an American is all about. I believe that the immigrants who landed on Ellis Island in the early 1900’s deserve better than that for all their toil, hard work, and sacrifice in raising future generations to create a land that has become a beacon for those legally searching for a better life. I think they would be appalled that they are being used as an example by those waving foreign-country flags.
And for that suggestion about taking down the Statue of Liberty, it happens to mean one whole lot to the citizens who are voting on the immigration bill. I would not start talking about dismantling the United States just yet.
Posted by denver-admin at 12:01 AM
| Comments (11)
| TrackBack
By Sara Parke, Littleton
Colorado’s Such shortages represent a call to action for wilderness enthusiasts and couch potatoes alike.
By Sara Parke, Littleton
Colorado’s Such shortages represent a call to action for wilderness enthusiasts and couch potatoes alike.
As the 100th birthday of the National Park System approaches, many national park supporters in Congress have increased their efforts to address the ongoing problems in our parks. The If this legislation passes, The national parks’ ability to thrive is essential to Colorado’s economic, social and cultural identity. Colorado remains in the National parks tourism is also a vital component of Colorado state revenue. Volunteer services have helped to serve some of the underfunded operations of national park maintenance, but most park areas are still severely underserved. The National Park Service reports that although volunteer help is invaluable, it is still inadequate because volunteers are often ephemeral or lack the training to do delicate resource Nevertheless, National Park Foundation President and CEO Vin Cipolla insists that: “Personal philanthropy and volunteerism are vital to securing the future of our national parks. Hands-on help would certainly benefit many of Colorado’s parks. In particular, Rocky Mountain National Park is in desperate need of increased law enforcement and staffing due to a significant increase in visitation in the past The mission statement of the National Park Service states that the purpose of national parks is to “conserve the scenery, as well as natural and historic objects By Michael J. McCarthy
I found two hundred million dollars while in prison. Moreover, I'm donating every penny of it to our state legislators to fund Colorado's future.
Gov. Ritter's vision for Colorado is first-rate. However, renewable energy, basic healthcare, higher education funding, and 21st century transportation needs, etc. all cost money.
In a limited state budget, every dollar squandered is one less dollar invested into Colorado's progress.
This Speakout has not been edited By Michael J. McCarthy
I found two hundred million dollars while in prison. Moreover, I'm donating every penny of it to our state legislators to fund Colorado's future.
Gov. Ritter's vision for Colorado is first-rate. However, renewable energy, basic healthcare, higher education funding, and 21st century transportation needs, etc. all cost money.
In a limited state budget, every dollar squandered is one less dollar invested into Colorado's progress.
I have a strategy for corrections management that will increase public safety, reduce recidivism, reduce overall corrections spending, and address the root causes of crime.
This plan will save the state more than $200 million annually and dramatically improve the status quo.
I am a product of the system. A prisoner, serving the tail end of a three-year sentence for theft. I have an unselfish attitude toward this accord. I know what will work. I know what doesn't.
Admittedly, the greatest transformation in the system is going to come by offenders like myself having a change of heart.
But what I'm addressing here are the things the state could do to help bring that change about.
By June 2008, Colorado could be looking at a more fiscally responsible Dept. of Corrections that is not only rehabilitating its prisoners, but also successfully reintegrating then back into society.
Here is an overview of my plan.
1. Pass a parole reform bill. Mandate the release of non-violent institutionally compliant prisoners at their "parole eligibility dates," versus the end of their sentences.
This would give prisoners a strong incentive to be on their best behavior while in prison. Also, it would provide a measure of safety for the overall facility, staff and surrounding community.
Such a bill would save the state $100 million (3,500 eligible prisoners X $28,640 cost per inmate annually).
2. Deport illegal immigrant prisoners at their parole eligibility dates. Presently, most foreign prisoners are not turned over to the INS/ICE until they have completed their entire sentence.
In part, this costly failure in the system comes about by poor communication management between immigration officials and the Department of Corrections.
Prisoners are often red-flagged with "possible holds" by the INS. Red-flagged inmates are not considered for intensive supervised parole or community corrections until an official determination is made on their status.
Each year more than 600 prisoners are held pass their parole eligibility dates that could have been deported. This nearly equals the amount of prisoners farmed out to Oklahoma. By deporting illegal immigrant prisoners as soon as legally possible the state would save $18 million annually (600 foreign prisoners X $30,000).
3. End mandatory parole. Place parole "within" the sentence structure, constituting an early release. Colorado's parole is in addition to, and on "top of" the maximum statutory sentence limits. This would reduce overcrowding, reduce jail backlog, reduce the state's dependency on private prison contracts, and save the state $50 to $150 million annually.
4. Unsupervised parole for non-violent offenders. A non-violent parolee would have to actually have to break the law in order to return to prison. Unsupervised parole would eliminate thousands of parolees from being re-incarcerated for minor technical parole violations.
In 2002, the state of Oregon adopted this approach toward parole management. Oregon's recidivism fell from 57% to less than 5% from this change alone.
Unmanaged parole would cut parole officers monstrous caseloads by two thirds. With more time on their hands, P.O.s could focus on those that pose the greatest threat to public safety; i.e., sex offenders and child predators. Colorado would save another $50 to $100 million annually.
These are the big four, but there is plenty that can be done on the reintegration side of the equation as well.
Increase community corrections bed space. Provide drug treatment options for parole violators versus costly return to prison. Create more ex-offender transitional living environments (particularly for homeless parolees). Give tax incentives and reduce red tape for church groups and civic organizations to create ex-offender aftercare facilities. Couple newly released prisoners with jobs.
The average citizen reading this might ask: Why all of this for someone who has committed a crime?
Nonetheless, like it or not, parolees live in abundance in every city and county in the state. Isn't it best they have options?
Funding Colorado's future constitutes helping one prisoner at a time create a brighter tomorrow.
Michael J. McCarthy is serving a three-year sentence at Delta Correctional Center for theft.
Posted by denver-admin at 12:01 AM
| Comments (4)
| TrackBack
By James W. Mulholland, Denver
This Speakout has not been edited By James W. Mulholland, Denver
Then someone began to wonder what would happen if such an organization had ìweapons of mass destructionî (WMD) instead of just an airliner filled with jet fuel. Instead of some office buildings and 3000 dead, there would be an entire city and 3,000,000 dead. It was deemed important to stop such a likelihood before it had a chance to get started. The likely place for such to develop was in Iraq, where the cruel and brutal dictator Saddam Hussein had already used chemical weapons, had missiles, and did not deny having a stockpile of chemical and biological weapons. He was also believed to be seeking nuclear weapons. When Hussein refused to accede to UN oversight, a hawkish presidential administration under President George W. Bush decided the USA could not allow him to continue in power. War was proposed and approved by Congress.
The war planning was tightly controlled by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld with strong oversight by Vice President Dick Cheney. President Bush, who placed total trust in his administration, agreed to all they proposed. Rumsfeld proceeded to commit the same errors that made the Vietnam war a disaster. He attempted to transform the militaryís method of war fighting while micromanaging the whole process. The cowed military planners could only go along, or else voice a mild objection and retire.
Few objected. As a result, the Iraqi war was launched with an undersized force, with inadequate planning based on false assumptions, and with little idea of how to manage the country after the military victory was assured. Now the USA again looks incompetent and we can only hope to escape a situation of our own making without too much damage to our reputation.
While the administration is likely not dishonest, it is incompetent and needs to be replaced. The time-tested methods of winning a war (strike with overwhelming force and totally destroy the enemyís ability to fight) have to be relearned by a general staff who have forgotten the lessons of history. A system needs to be devised to prevent a domineering civilian from imposing his ideas on military thinking. When a war is contemplated, the entire nation needs to be involved. Therefore, military conscription is essential so all strata of society are involved and so the military forces are not exhausted and depleted. A volunteer army is only useful in peacetime.
Now that we have destroyed Iraq, we need to rebuild the country with something like the post-Civil War Reconstruction or the post-World War II Marshall Plan. Failure to do so after World War I led to WWII. We need a massive infusion of money, goods, and people into the country to make it safe and habitable again. It must begin with the restoration of Iraqís petroleum output so the country can be self-supporting. This problem can be partially solved by combining it with another problem: illegal immigrants. If our immigrants want to become American citizens, let them earn it by enlisting in our military or volunteering for two years work in Iraq.
Finally, we must be very careful in voting for our next President and members of Congress. Time has shown that either party can be corrupt or incompetent. We must elect experienced candidates who are honest, incorruptible statesmen whose only agenda is the success of the United States. If they meet these criteria, their party affiliation probably is not important.
Posted by denver-admin at 12:01 AM
| Comments (2)
| TrackBack
By George Swan, MPH, Denver
This Speakout has not been edited By George Swan, MPH, Denver
The Rocky Mountain News has published yet another harangue (June 2, 2007) from Paul Hsieh, MD, who is a minority voice in the medical community, albeit a shrill one, against universal health care.
Dr Hsieh complains that the four proposals selected by the Colorado Blue Ribbon Commission on Health Care Reform are fundamentally the same: “they all entail a massive increase in government interference in medicine in the name of ‘universal coverage.’”
He complains of additional government “force” coming into our lives. Would that be in the same way that we’re all “forced” to follow the laws, pay our taxes, send our children to school, and generally abide by rules of a civilized society? In spite of the many miracles of modern medicine, we are currently “forced” to put up with an existing system that is failing most Americans — especially the uninsured and under-insured majority of those outside the government programs when illness actually strikes.
Dr. Hsieh complains that any reforms covering more Coloradans are really “just disguised forms of socialized medicine.” Nonsense. In the case of the Colorado Health Services proposal, for instance, a single-payer entity would function as a public trust, as independent from governmental politics as possible — like the Federal Reserve or a public utility. Most doctors and hospitals would remain in the private sector and people would choose their own provider. That’s not socialism.
Similar programs already exist in other Western democracies. None are perfect, but they cover every one of their citizens with overall treatment outcomes equal to or better than ours at nearly half the cost. If their universal health care systems are so bad why do broad majorities in other Western democracies see the U.S. healthcare system as a barbarism, something that they would never trade for? Pointing to the imperfections of other health care systems is a diversion from the hard work of reforming our own. In fact, Dr Hsieh cannot point to a single example of a successful “free market” health care system anywhere in the world.
According to the Institute of Medicine, 100,000 Americans die every year from medical errors. Studies have found that 30 percent of care in America is redundant, unnecessary and/or harmful. Additionally, over 40 percent of care recommended by best practice guidelines is not being provided. Accountability brought by single payer oversight would greatly improve upon this travesty.
Our existing system is projected to consume more than 20 percent of GDP by 2018. Over a third of those costs go to administration and corporate profits, not health care. The picture will continue to get worse unless we change course.
Dr. Hsieh suggests that Tennessee’s attempt at universal coverage offers an important lesson for Colorado. Agreed. Reform programs cannot succeed within our private, multi-payer insurance system. Even with Tennessee’s flawed program people’s health improved and citizens saw a reduction in many overall costs.
Eliminating employment-linked insurance will remove another heavy and unnecessary burden from our weary shoulders.
In his speech to the American Enterprise Institute, Newt Gingrich affirmed that “93 percent [of all Americans] believe we should know the price and quality of healthcare before making a decision about it.” A comprehensive data repository, with privacy safeguards, can support the transparency needed for value-conscious decision-making.
Colorado has an opportunity to become a real innovator in health care reform. We should set an example for the rest of the country by adopting the single-payer model. Single payer gives everyone the same foundation of comprehensive healthcare coverage.
You don’t need to be an expert to understand that universal health care, in a nation as wealthy as ours, is the only moral choice as well. And economists say that it’s the most cost-effective way to go. Single-payer will permit us, finally, to organize a system of healthcare that all Coloradoans have a right to expect.
George Swan is a public health expert who has administered and consulted for hospital systems around the world.
Posted by denver-admin at 12:01 AM
| Comments (3)
| TrackBack
By Sally Wisely, state director, Bureau of Land Management, Colorado
After nearly seven years of working closely with the public and state and local governments to develop a management plan for the Roan Plateau, the Bureau of Land Management has issued the first of two Records of Decision.
This Speakout has not been edited By Sally Wisely, state director, Bureau of Land Management, Colorado
After nearly seven years of working closely with the public and state and local governments to develop a management plan for the Roan Plateau, the Bureau of Land Management has issued the first of two Records of Decision.
I want to thank everyone who has participated in the long Roan Plateau Planning process: the public, local governments, and especially our formal Cooperating Agencies on this plan — Garfield and Rio Blanco counties, the town of Parachute, cities of Glenwood Springs and Rifle, and the Colorado Department of Natural Resources.
This first Record of Decision, or ROD, covers about 70 percent of the 73,602-acre Roan Planning area in northwestern Colorado. It upholds the key components of the innovative Proposed Roan Plateau Resource Management Plan, which we released last fall.
The ROD is the result of a highly collaborative public planning process that began in 2000. It evolved directly from public involvement and close coordination with our Cooperating Agencies. The framework on which this management plan is built comes from a progressive proposal devised by the Department of Natural Resources.
This significant time and effort produced a truly innovative plan — a plan that provides strong protection for fish and wildlife habitat, scenic views, and ecologically sensitive areas, yet still allows most of the Federal natural gas resource to be recovered beneath the Roan Plateau Planning Area.
And that gas resource is significant. The federal natural gas resources under the Roan Planning Area hold enough energy to heat 4 million homes for 20 years.
In fact, the Roan was originally set aside as Naval Oil Shale Reserves 1 and 3 because of its rich energy resources. These mineral reserves were transferred from the Department of Energy to BLM in 1997 through an Act of Congress. That Act specifically directed BLM to lease the lands in both reserves for the exploration, development and production of petroleum resources as soon as practicable. That direction clearly includes the top of the Roan Plateau.
The Roan also holds other important resources — genetically pure Colorado River cutthroat trout, wildlife habitat, scenic views and water resources. From the very start of this effort, BLM has planned to protect these resources while meeting the specific Congressional direction to lease the area for oil and gas — and to manage for multiple uses.
BLM will tightly control the oil and gas development on the top of the Roan through such requirements as limiting the ground disturbance to approximately one percent of the land at any one time, requiring drill pads to be more than one-half mile apart, and allowing development activities on only one ridge at a time.
The first ROD does not cover the 21,034 acres proposed as "Areas of Critical Environmental Concern," (ACECs) in the Proposed Plan. One of the 42 protests we received on the Proposed Plan last fall identified a valid technicality that required our availability notice to include very specific information on the ACECs. While we did seek and received many comments on the ACECs, to fix this technical error, BLM is holding a 60-day public comment period specific to the proposed ACECs. A second ROD will be issued following analysis of the comments received.
Virtually all of the land in the proposed ACECs would be managed under no surface occupancy stipulations, which means no surface disturbance is allowed. When added to the additional 17,336 acres with the same restriction in the first ROD, more than 50 percent of the planning area would be stipulated no surface occupancy.
We are proud of this plan developed through a highly collaborative and public process, and is based mainly on an innovative approach to resource protection and development proposed by the State of Colorado.
It follows Congressional direction and allows critical energy resources to be accessed.
For more information about the ACEC comment period or the plan decisions, log on to http://www.blm.gov/rmp/co/roanplateau.
Posted by denver-admin at 12:01 AM
| Comments (0)
| TrackBack
By Jody Brookshier
I am so sick of archbishop Charles Chaput thumbing his nose at America’s laws and taking a stance FOR illegals against American citizens. Somehow he has gotten his alligance all screwed up.
This Speakout has not been edited By Jody Brookshier
I am so sick of archbishop Charles Chaput thumbing his nose at America’s laws and taking a stance FOR illegals against American citizens. Somehow he has gotten his alligance all screwed up. I have written to him personally and recieved several responses from him. He said he’d pray for me and my anger. Damn right Americans are angry. Why wouldn’t we be having these illegals crammed down our throats, watching as they steal our jobs, ruin our communities and cost us taxpayers severely!!!!
He says “our elected officials, representing the intrests of their constituents” THE INTRESTS OF THEIR CONSTITUENTS!!!! That’s us — the American citizen — not illegal aliens. Americans are screaming that we want attrition through enforcement — not another AMNESTY — and they are not listening to us.
They are not representing us. He claims, as they all do, that this is not amnesty. I beg to differ.
If you reward these people with the object of their desires that they broke our laws to obtain, that IS AMNESTY! I wonder if the archbishop recommends that we allow people who break into our homes to keep them so long as they pay a fine for it! Or car theifs to keep the car so long as they pay a fine.
PLEASE! Get real! These people don’t want to assimilate and many couldn’t care less if we ever give them citizenship — they just want to be able to stay here legally. Our citizenship should never be for sale. You shame the many forefathers who fought and died to protect our country. You want to hand it over to people who did NOTHING to earn the right to be here, who broke our laws and snuck in to be here. The archbishop tries to play the sympathy card like we owe these invaders something. They need to put all this energy into their own country and make it a good place to live instead of coming here and ruining our country. We do NOT want them here.
The archbishop claims some indian heritage that must be many generations removed to act as though he can relate to these people. He says Americans are right to worry about public security, jobs, respect for the law and solvency of our public institutions — yet thru it all aside and welcome these invaders! I doubt that he has read the numbers that this amnesty will cause- trillions of dollars — and probably bankrupt our country. But that’s ok with him. I am also sick of everyone crying about the families of these illegals who have been waiting for as long as 20 years to rejoin their family memebers. It was their choice to leave their families behind, many starting another family here. It is their choice to pop out anchor babies here and then cry when they get deported about breaking up families. They knew the consequences they would face if they were caught so they must deal with them. It shouldn’t be up to us, at the cost of our beautiful country, to make the lives of illegal aliens better. They need to solve their own problems in their own countries! We don NOT need new laws to deal with this issue. We need to ENFORCE our laws and we wouldn’t have all these problems now. If we start ENFORCING our laws these people would go home on their own as they would find our country inhospitable to them. But Chaput wants to roll out the red carpet for them.
He really makes my blood boil! I say as churches have a tax exempt status he needs to keep his nose out of politics or start paying taxes to support these people he is crying about. Theses holier than thou leaders of the church think they have bought their way into paradise so they aren’t too concerned with ruining our paradise in this country. I say if he wants to minister to these people he should move to Mexico where he might be appreciated. Americans don’t appreciate his constant crying about the illegals and him elevating their plieght over the best intrest of Americans.
I would like to see the news media forget running all the bias one sided stories about this horrible Amnesty bill and do some investigating the numbers and how this will devistate our country. Look to Numbers USA and listen to Roy Beck’s video on the numbers. Go to Congress.org and read the letters to our leaders section. 90% of those writing in are against this bill. Sane humans can see the distruction this bill will cause. But go ahead. Hide your head in the sand. Hide and watch when Americans get sick and tired of a government who no longer represents us. They are leading us into another war — only this one will be fought for our homeland as Americans rise up to take back our land that our government handed over to an invading nation!
Posted by denver-admin at 12:01 AM
| Comments (16)
| TrackBack
By Jim Shmerling, The Children's Hospital
Recent newspaper coverage has focused on an anticipated lack of emergency services for downtown Denver communities because of The Children's Hospital and University of Colorado hospital's impending move to the medical campuses at Interstate 225 and Colfax Avenue and St. Anthony Central Hospital's planned move to Lakewood.
By Jim Shmerling, The Children's Hospital
Recent newspaper coverage has focused on an anticipated lack of emergency services for downtown Denver communities because of The Children's Hospital and University of Colorado hospital's impending move to the medical campuses at Interstate 225 and Colfax Avenue and St. Anthony Central Hospital's planned move to Lakewood.
While much of that coverage raised legitimate concerns, it did not include important facts that would serve to address these concerns.
Next year, The Children's Hospital will celebrate its 100th year of serving the children of Denver Accordingly, we have decided to open a 16-bed Emergency Department and inpatient unit at St. Joseph Hospital in downtown Denver, just three blocks from our current campus. This pediatric hospital will be completely staffed and supported by physicians and nurses credentialed by The Children's Hospital. That means the professionals our downtown patients and families see today and the care they rely on will remain in place.
The Children's Hospital at St. Joseph is building excess capacity to accommodate a minimum of 12,000 annual visits. This number is approximately equivalent to the number of children who live in downtown Denver who seek care in our existing Emergency Department annually. The facility is designed for expansion to meet future needs.
Our years of careful planning and our collaborative discussions with primary and emergency-care physicians have led us to an important conclusion on which the people of Denver can rely: The new Children's Hospital at I-225 and Colfax Avenue and The Children's Hospital at St. Joseph will continue to meet the full range of pediatric health-care needs of the Denver metro area, including the emergency needs of our downtown communities, for the next century and for generations to come.
Jim Shmerling is the president and CEO of The Children's Hospital.
Posted by denver-admin at 12:01 AM
| Comments (1)
| TrackBack
By Dr. Rhonda Hackett, Lakewood
As h By Dr. Rhonda Hackett, Lakewood
As h But wait a minute. Roxane White, Denver’s manager of human services, has indicated that security concerns are the main reason behind making shelter services available to the homeless during the convention, not the disruption to the part of the public domain they frequent. Debra Ortega, director of Denver’s commission to end homelessness There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that a homeless person is any more likely to commit a crime in these types of situations than anyone else, so why the special treatment?
It would appear St. Paul, Minn But wait yet another minute. Erin Dady, St. Paul’s point person on convention details, says there is a possibility that the shelter will end up inside the Secret Service security perimeter for the event and As Denver plans more cover, St. Paul stands ready to reduce what already exists for its homeless people. How can such diametrically opposed solutions be in the running for the same alleged problem? Surely the national politicians who will descend on Denver and St. Paul would be horrified to hear that such a quagmire is being created by officials hired to help one of the most desperate groups of people nearly every politician clamoring for national office p It would seem city officials in both Denver and St. Paul would do well, then, to focus on more pressing issues with respect to these big events. Relocating homeless men, women and children out of the paths of influential politicians runs a huge risk of sending the wrong message. Once out of sight, the issues surrounding those without homes and their plight m When the Democratic By Shana Dale
Forty-five years ago, on May 24, 1962, the nation stood still as Colorado’s first astronaut, Boulder native Scott Carpenter, lifted off from Cape Canaveral, Fl By Shana Dale
Forty-five years ago, on May 24, 1962, the nation stood still as Colorado’s first astronaut, Boulder native Scott Carpenter, lifted off from Cape Canaveral, Fl Carpenter was the first of several heroic astronauts with Colorado ties who have blazed trails of exploration and discovery in space. Denver’s Jack Swigert, one of the three Apollo 13 astronauts, made a safe and triumphant return to Earth after a near-catastrophic explosion enroute to the moon. Air Force Academy graduate and former NASA Deputy Administrator Fred Gregory was the first African-American to command a shuttle mission. Del Norte’s Kent Rominger recently led the astronaut office. And two brave individuals made the supreme sacrifice while advancing the cause of exploration: Challenger astronaut Ellison Onizuka and Columbia astronaut Kalpana Chawla, both University of Colorado graduates.
Colorado’s next space explorer will be Steve Swanson, a mission specialist on the upcoming Space Shuttle Atlantis (STS-117) flight to help assemble the International Space Station. Swanson, who grew up in Steamboat Springs, credits his upbringing filled with skiing, camping, hiking and fishing with helping to shape his love of adventure. Swanson says, “If I could have lived 200 years ago I would have loved to have been with Lewis and Clark and just living in the woods and exploring all sorts of new areas. Every remaining space shuttle flight to complete the space station and extend the service life of the Hubble Space Telescope is part of a larger context in which NASA is planning to build a long-term outpost on the moon and eventually send pioneering explorers to Mars. This endeavor will help bring the inner solar system into our economic sphere. Colorado also boasts Ball Aerospace, the company that provides the precision mirrors for the James Webb Space Telescope, America’s next great observatory in space, and a burgeoning value-added industry built around NASA’s Earth Two centuries ago, explorers such as Capt By Fred Pulver, Carbondale
This Speakout has not been edited By Fred Pulver, Carbondale
1) Growing corn for ethanol production takes away corn for food use, driving up the cost of food for everyone.
2) The corn most favored for its drought-resistance and yield is genetically-modified.
3) Large amounts of water are needed to irrigate this corn, drawing from aquifers already seriously depleted. This will exacerbate an already looming problem of dwindling pure water supplies for human consumption.
4) Reduction of acreage used to grow food for human consumption, also causing the cost of corn as food to rise.
The most important of these concerns, however, is #2. By planting large areas of land with genetically-modified strains, the non-genetically-modified original strains exposed to pollen blown by the wind and carried by insects and birds from distant areas. There is no way to protect non-genetically-modified corn and other grains or food plants from becoming cross-pollinated, and therefore, producing genetically-modified strains as well.
Studies by a group of Colorado-based researchers and others indicate the human body does not know what to do with genetically-modified food molecules. The immune systems of humans and animals protect from invasion of proteins which the immune system recognizes are foreign and therefore potentially hazardous. The immune system then rejects such proteins as enemies and triggers an immune reaction. When genetically -modified foods are consumed, the body’s immune system may trigger an auto-immune reaction.
Many illnesses of unknown origin may be triggered by invasion of foreign proteins acquired through vaccinations, consumption of genetically-modified foods or inhalation of pollens or other plant particles carried by the wind or insects from afar.
In other words, our bodies through millennia of development have grown to recognize which proteins are food sources and which ones are not. Any proteins or genetic materials that the body does not recognize as being food, it attempts to destroy. This system worked well enough up to the advent of industrial chemicals and genetically-modified materials, and the human immune system worked fairly well to protect from invasions from viruses that the body recognized correctly to be health hazards.
However, with the advent of industrially-produced and sophisticated chemicals, many of which are incorporated in cleaning compounds, food preservatives, coloring agents and flavor enhancers, etc. many inevitably make their way into the body through ingestion, inhalation and skin exposure. It is estimated there are now typically several thousand of these chemicals in the average person’s body. Many of these compounds mimic hormonal activity, thereby causing imbalance of hormone production, and/or physiological and structural changes to the human organism. The rise in obesity, infertility, impotency, the many types of cancer, auto-immune disorders like lupus, multiple sclerosis, arthritis and a host of other conditions wherein the body’s immune system loses its ability to protect the body properly may be traced to a high levels of toxicity that causes the body to react and break down its ability to function normally.
The emergence of genetically-modified foods may have set in motion a biological disaster from which there is no escape. Today it is estimated that over 80% of the soybeans grown in the USA contain genetically-modified genetic materials. This is the case even though efforts were made to shield fields growing genetically-modified foods from those that were not. This is due to the fact that the only way to protect fields from pollination from genetically-modified plants is by somehow encasing the fields in an envelope or air-tight enclosure. This of course would be impractical and impossibly expensive. The biologists knew this to be the case, but they ignored the fact and instead focused on the huge amounts of money that stood to be made from the fruits of their research and manipulations of biological materials.
The genetic engineering industry suffered a setback when successful efforts were made by concerned groups to inform people of the hazards of genetic engineering. Now however the same genetic engineering companies have seen a new opportunity to ply their wares upon a public concerned about switching to energy alternatives. They are in a sense wrapping their dangerous research in a new package that appears more palatable, but actually possesses the same enormous biological and environmental hazards.
Another disastrous ripple effect of bioengineering is the way genetically-modified strains affect other organisms. Perhaps the most famous example is the way genetically-modified corn has adversely affected the Monarch butterfly population. It may be that the huge die-off of honey bees that has been in the news lately could be caused by the effect of genetically-modified pollen on honeybee populations. Since honeybees use pollen as food, their reproductive capacities could be affected, just as human research has suggested. If this is the case, a even bigger disaster looms: the fruit and vegetable farms that rely on the pollination activities of honeybees. If this does not make people everywhere wake up and demand that genetic-modification be abolished, I do not know what will. When the cost of food goes sky-high, when a tomato costs $10 then people will demand to know why. Without bees the productivity of food plants and trees plummets. Talk about disasters of Biblical proportions - this could be the mother of all.
Posted by denver-admin at 01:58 PM
| Comments (6)
| TrackBack
By Dale Johnson, Denver
This Speakout has not been edited By Dale Johnson, Denver
The manner in which this totality of control and repression was achieved is frighteningly reminiscent of George Bush’s assertion of the unlimited power of the president to take whatever action he deems necessary to “protect” Americans in a “war on terrorism” in which he is commander-in-chief, free and fully empowered to act in his own discretion and as an expression of the people’s will—in short, without oversight by or accountability to the legislative or judicial branches of our self-governing democracy, thus without any accountability to Congress, to law, or to the people themselves, who, by definition of the Constitution, are in the final analysis sovereign. In effect, his argument is identical to Hitler’s, namely: As supreme leader, I can break the law and do it legally, there’s not a thing you can do about it, and I will keep on doing it whenever it seems to me to be the thing to do, for that is really what you want me to do. Or, as President Nixon said of himself as the noose was closing on him in the earlier constitutional crisis provoked by the Watergate scandal, “I’m not a criminal. . . . When the president does it \[commits a crime\] it’s not illegal.”
That Bush is an ignorant, arrogant, and incompetent bully fronting for perhaps the most absurd, hapless, demented presidency in memory and who will be brought down, possibly even impeached for his criminal malfeasance, should not obscure the fact that he is smart enough to know that previous American presidents—notably Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, and Ronald Reagan—provided ample precedent for conducting the real government “off the books,” as “prerogative power” that completely flouts the law, the Constitution, Congress, the sovereignty of the people, and the institutions of society through which we exercise and protect our freedoms.
These are only the most obvious reasons why even thoughtful Republican members of Congress as well as 10 states have begun to think that George Bush must be impeached in order to stop this madness, and are also undoubtedly the reasons that retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor has expressed deep concerns about this country’s drift to dictatorship. If the will of the people as expressed through our elected representatives fails to stop Bush now not only he, but any of his successors, will feel free to take this usurpation of the Constitution even farther, and then again farther, until we won’t be able to stop it because we shall all of us by then be implicated in and consenting of it, and we’ll all go down in ignominy as the German people did with Hitler. And how tragically ironic it will be that in the pretense of pursuing the expansion of democracy and freedom throughout the world Bush and his sinister, secretive cronies, with our willing consent, shall have destroyed democracy and freedom at home and plunged the world into a level of violence not seen since the height of World War 2. Thus do those who fail to learn the lessons of history doom themselves to repeat them.
Posted by denver-admin at 01:54 PM
| Comments (18)
| TrackBack
By John Fleck, Denver
Unfortunately, the immigration reform legislation that is currently pending before the US Senate does not fix our problems.
This Speakout has not been edited By John Fleck, Denver
Unfortunately, the immigration reform legislation that is currently pending before the US Senate does not fix our problems. In fact, passage of this legislation will further exacerbate the unconscionable exploitation of immigrant workers in the US building and construction industry, while simultaneously accelerating a further erosion of US workers’ living standards.
What is especially troubling is that this legislation establishes a new temporary guest worker program without any credible wage floor protections for these workers. For those of us who toil in the building and construction industry, we see how these workers are exploited and abused by unscrupulous contractors on a daily basis...and how this situation is driving down wages and living standards for American construction workers.
The exploitation of temporary and illegal workers in the construction industry is systematically destroying what is a viable path to a middle class lifestyle for millions of Americans. The current Senate bill simply allows for the continuation of the status quo. For America’s building and construction trades unions, that is simply unacceptable.
We believe that it is in the best interests of our nation and its workers that undocumented and illegal immigrants are accounted for in the economy through a process of “earned legal status.” It is not sufficient, nor is it fair, for comprehensive immigration reform to simply propose that undocumented and illegal immigrants should be granted legal status without defining a path that requires legal status to be earned.
We also believe that a primary Constitutional responsibility of the federal government is to provide for the security of the American people, its territory and its sovereignty in order to make the United States’ homeland safe. Achievement of these goals is critical as a means of reducing our vulnerability to terrorism, and also as a means of preserving the economic conditions of its citizens and legal residents. Implementation of strong and effective border security measures with appropriate funding will help combat the threat of terrorism as well as the threat to the living standards of U.S. workers.
Enforcement of our border security must also be accompanied by fair and effective enforcement of our existing immigration laws, as well as fair and equal enforcement of federal and state labor and employment laws. Further, a mandatory electronic work-eligibility verification system is needed, and it should be accompanied by strong and effective procedures designed to protect personal and civil rights, along with substantial increases in fines, penalties and sanctions levied against employers who violate our immigration laws.
We would hope that the United States Senate would slow down its race to “get something passed” on this issue, and take a breath and truly examine the effects that this misguided legislation will have on those of us who are trying to maintain a decent life for our families. At the very least, they should defeat this bill and start anew.
John Fleck, Financial Secretary Treasurer, Sheet Metal Workers #9
Posted by denver-admin at 01:49 PM
| Comments (11)
| TrackBack
By Philip Cafaro, Fort Collins
Three years ago, while campaigning for a seat in the U.S. Senate, Ken Salazar said he would promote environmental protection, address the widening income gap between rich and poor, and support affordable health care for all Americans. I remember, because I was one of the volunteers who dropped off his campaign flyers promising these things on your doorsteps.
This Speakout has not been edited By Philip Cafaro, Fort Collins
Three years ago, while campaigning for a seat in the U.S. Senate, Ken Salazar said he would promote environmental protection, address the widening income gap between rich and poor, and support affordable health care for all Americans. I remember, because I was one of the volunteers who dropped off his campaign flyers promising these things on your doorsteps.
These were popular positions and Salazar was elected. In the 2 and ½ years he has served in the Senate, however, no substantial legislation to address these issues has been passed. More to the point, the Senator himself has shown little interest in these issues. He has failed to develop or sponsor major legislation in these areas.
Now comes the "Secure Borders, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Reform Act of 2007" and we see where Ken Salazar's real passion lies.
According to news accounts, he has spent much of the past few months negotiating the details of the first major change to immigration law in twenty years. He is an original co-sponsor of the resulting bill and is vigorously defending it on the floor of the Senate. This bids fair to become the signature issue of Ken Salazar's first term in the U.S. Senate.
Unfortunately, the proposed bill is a disaster. Its most important impact would be to greatly increase the numbers of immigrants, legal and illegal, flowing into our country.
In addition to the 850,000 legal immigration slots annually allowed under current law, the Salazar bill would provide hundreds of thousands of new family reunification visas and hundreds of thousands more high tech worker visas each year. It would also provide hundreds of thousands of new "guest worker" visas annually to fill low-skilled jobs; these are supposed to be temporary, but such "temporary" visas always result in many new permanent residents.
Most important, this bill would reward over 10 million illegal immigrants currently living in the United States with permanent legal residency, with the promise of citizenship in the future. And all these new immigrants would be allowed to bring in spouses, children, parents and siblings, who in turn would be allowed to bring in more relatives.
The demographic upshot will be tens of millions of new residents in the next few years, helping to ensure that the U.S. population grows by hundreds of millions over the next century.
Senator Salazar owes his constituents an account of how these changes will be good for our country. He is a United States Senator from Colorado, not Mexico. Yet no such explanation has been forthcoming. He has even called opponents of his bill "bomb throwers" on the floor of the Senate, where we sent him to represent us.
Ken Salazar ran on a platform of reducing the gap between rich and poor in America. How will flooding our labor markets help working Americans negotiate better wages, or increase their "Economic Opportunity"?
Ken Salazar ran on a platform of environmental protection. How will doubling the U.S. population over the next 35 years, as this bill promises to do, help us protect our wild lands and create a sustainable society?
Ken Salazar did not run on a platform to increase immigration into the United States. Why is he not just supporting this effort, but making it the centerpiece of his work in the United States Senate? And why is a Senator from Colorado, a state filled with people who moved here to escape from more crowded parts of the country, working to increase our population?
This "reform" bill is being sold to the public as a means to limit illegal immigration ("Secure Borders"). But it seems likely to do the opposite, since amnesties give foreigners a strong incentive to disregard our immigration laws.
During the 1986 amnesty, 3 million illegal residents were legalized (amid steps, we were told, to "secure the border"). Seeing the rewards for breaking the law, millions more illegal immigrants followed. Today we have 12 million illegal immigrants in the United States-and growing.
Posted by denver-admin at 12:01 AM
| Comments (23)
| TrackBack
By Paul Lamb
My friend Eugene and I came up with a new foster child sponsorship campaign .we are proposing that that you get a free laptop computer if you agree to take a foster child into your home.
This Speakout has not been edited By Paul Lamb
My friend Eugene and I came up with a new foster child sponsorship campaign .we are proposing that that you get a free laptop computer if you agree to take a foster child into your home.
Although our 'One Child Per Laptop' proposal is a bit off base, I think we may be on to something.BIG.
Cause based marketing is hot these days. Everything from fair trade coffee to environmentally friendly building materials. Even the ego-centric American Idol has jumped on the bandwagon by having iTunes offer music downloads from the show to raise money for African charities.
Companies are clearly looking to capitalize on the fact that more than half of all consumers say they would be willing to buy from companies that sponsor good causes. It is no wonder that businesses are spending $25 billion worldwide to buy into the cause.and effect of even bigger profits by associating with do gooders.
Yet cause marketing has some problems. Take last year's highly publicized Product Red Campaign where companies signed up to offer products tagged as 'red' - meaning that each purchase results in a small donation toward fighting AIDS in Africa. After spending $100 million marketing dollars The Red Campaign has apparently only generated $18 million in contributions as of March 2007. That despite the combined star power of supporters like Bono, Steven Spielberg, Chris Rock and Oprah Winfrey, and corporate partners likeThe Gap, Motorola, Apple, etc.
So rather than just donate a small portion of profits to good causes, I think companies need to be a bit more bold in their cause marketing.
Why not offer their products absolutely free if you do something REALLY good. Why doesn't Dell or Apple offer you a free laptop if you agree to make donations of near equal value to a particular charity? That way charities can earn more than chump change, and these companies can get you hooked on their products for future sales. It's a real win-win! The customer wins by feeling good about their major donation and getting a product they want, and the company wins by getting a new and now long term loyal customer.
Seriously folks, if you are able to donate $500 to $1000 for a charity in exchange for a product you want, you are obviously a high end consumer and will have more money to spend for future purchases.at none other than your favorite socially responsible mega-corporation who cares more than all the rest.
How about Home Depot giving you a coupon for lumber in exchange for an equivalent donation amount to a reforestation or rainforest support campaign? How about Wal-Mart giving you store purchasing power equivalent to the amount of money you contribute, on an ongoing basis, to provide health insurance for their workers?
There are lots of ways companies could leverage their marketing muscle and consumer reach to do good things in big and innovative ways. It just requires seriously big picture thinking and some risk taking.but such 'trading for good' campaigns could have significant impact on both the social and corporate bottom lines.
While I don't recommend that new laptop purchases come with a child, I might seriously think twice about trading in one of my kids for one of those new iPhones. And I would surely pay top dollar to support California Governor's Arnold Schwarzenegger's 'Save the Planet' environmental crusade for a ride in his Hummer.
Paul Lamb is the principal of Man on a Mission consulting and the author of the Be A Better Partner Handbook for couples.
Posted by denver-admin at 12:01 AM
| Comments (0)
| TrackBack
By Joel Grotzinger, Monument
Click It or Ticket! Although it seems on the surface like a battle not worth fighting, this program smacks me in the face as a violation of our liberties and proof we are a country that needs to rethink our priorities.
This Speakout has not been edited By Joel Grotzinger, Monument
Click It or Ticket! Although it seems on the surface like a battle not worth fighting, this program smacks me in the face as a violation of our liberties and proof we are a country that needs to rethink our priorities.
To start, I always wear my seat belt, because I believe it could save my life. However, I don't think those who choose not to take the safety precaution should be treated as a criminal for making that choice. They are in no way risking anyone's well-being but their own. Police should focus on things like aggressive drivers who not only risk their own life, but ours as well!
The justification of the Click It or Ticket program is for our health and safety. Statistically, if everyone wore their seatbelt, it could prevent 15,000 deaths annually. There are many ways the government could make decisions for us in the name of our own well-being. Should we require helmet usage for adults on bicycles? How are motorcycles even legal, they have no seat belts at all!
Each year, obesity claims the lives of 300,000 Americans and adds over $100 billion in health-care costs. Does this mean the government should have regulations that dictate what or how much we eat? Perhaps a ticket for high cholesterol or high blood pressure is in order. Maybe government mandated exercise programs.
Whether seatbelt usage is a good idea is beside the point, for nutritious diet and daily exercise might also be good ideas. The point is whether government has a right to coerce us into taking care of ourselves. I think in a free society, each person has the right to make their own health and safety decisions. Each person owns himself.
On a different note, let's look at the government fiscal irresponsibility. Again this issue seems unworthy of discussion compared to other government waste running in the hundreds of billions, but to me it is still tax money used unwisely and worthy of a closer look.
Statistically, there were 42,028 traffic fatalities in the U.S. in 2006, of which 15,434 were not wearing seat belts. In Colorado, seat belt use has increased from 77.7% to 80.3% over the 3 year period of 2003-2006. That's an improvement of 2.6% or the potential of saving approximately 400 lives per year nationwide. The overall fatality rate has not changed in the past 10 years, so its impact is questionable. The U.S. Dept of Transportation has allocated $124.5 million for FY2008 to States that have Seat Belt Laws, of which $50 million must be spent on behavioral safety activities. This translates to a cost of $125,000 to $311,250 per live saved, depending on how you look at it. These days this is deemed a government success story. But let's compare this success story to how this $500 million could be spent to save lives.
More than 30% of children in developing countries - about 600 million - live on less than $1 a day. Every 3.6 seconds a person dies of starvation, usually a child under the age of 5. These are real lives, our brothers and sisters, who can be saved as well, by eradicating extreme poverty. It costs $25 to feed a child in Africa for 100 days.
The $124.5 million per year allocated to Click It or Ticket program to save 400 lives could feed 1,422,857 starving children for the same year.
I don't know about you, but I'm asking my government representatives to 1)stop infringing on our liberties that cause no harm to others,
2)stop spending my hard earned tax contributions trying to protect people from themselves and
3)allocate more of our resources to eradicate extreme poverty in the world and value all life equally.
Posted by denver-admin at 12:01 AM
| Comments (13)
| TrackBack
By Edward L. Lederman, Denver
There is no more telling exemplar of the triumph of the more-is-better mentality in my profession than the six By Edward L. Lederman, Denver
There is no more telling exemplar of the triumph of the more-is-better mentality in my profession than the six In Section (5), “Assets Speaking of the verification the Don’t get me wrong Aside from getting in the way, does the form say anything else about us, the profession? About us, the surrounding culture? Edward L. Lederman By John Cardie, Westminster
When the bagger asked me the same question (because baggers can’t be choosers) I said, “I want to be environmentally friendly, so I choose plastic!”
Who’s right?
By John Cardie, Westminster
When the bagger asked me the same question (because baggers can’t be choosers) I said, “I want to be environmentally friendly, so I choose plastic!”
Who’s right?
First of all, it’s true that plastic doesn’t biodegrade as easily in a landfill as does paper. But this is only looking at one aspect of pollution and not the whole picture. A product’s “pollution profile” must be considered from “cradle to grave,” not just its end.
Plastic bags take 40 percent less energy to make than paper ones and produce 70 percent fewer atmospheric emissions.
Paper bag production kills trees, contributes to harmful acid rain, releases deadly dioxin and pollutes large volumes of water. Plastic bag production pollutes our waterways a whopping 94 percent less than the production of paper ones.
On a pound-for-pound basis, it takes more than 50 times more energy to “recycle” paper than it does plastic. Note that that’s not double or triple the wasted energy, but 5,000 percent more.
While it’s true, as I’ve noted above, that plastic doesn’t biodegrade as quickly as paper, 35-year-old newspapers From a “consumer convenience” standpoint, it’s a lot easier to carry five plastic bags full of groceries to the car than five paper ones. Try also keeping your things dry in a canoe with paper bags vs. plastic, or picking up your dog’s droppings in the park using an absorbent paper bag — yuck!
Finally consider the fact that it takes seven trucks carrying paper bags to equal just one truck carrying the same number of plastic ones. Therefore, their transport to the grocery store or city dump wastes seven times the fuel (making prices rise) and creates seven times the “toxic exhaust” these extra trucks belch out. These additional trucks increase traffic jams, accidents and speed the destruction of our roadways.
So, looking at the total “pollution profile” and not just the “landfill life,” the next time a bagger asks, “Paper or plastic?” we should all answer, “I want to be environmentally friendly, so I choose plastic!”
John P. Cardie is a retired environmental consultant with more than 30 years’ experience in the field. He is a resident of Westminster.
Posted by denver-admin at 12:01 AM
| Comments (7)
| TrackBack
By Bob Beauprez
Paul Campos is a leftist, an unabashed liberal, who writes a regular column from the left perspective in the Rocky Mountain News. He’s also a law professor at the University of Colorado. It would be nice if he were also responsible.
By Bob Beauprez
Paul Campos is a leftist, an unabashed liberal, who writes a regular column from the left perspective in the Rocky Mountain News. He’s also a law professor at the University of Colorado. It would be nice if he were also responsible.
His May 29 column, “The elites’ war,” begins with a story about a young lady whose Marine boyfriend was preparing for deployment to Iraq. Campos recalls her “rage, frustration and anxiety in her voice as she described the logistics of what’s involved in getting shipped off to fight George W. Bush’s war against Islamoterrofascism, or whatever it’s being called this week.”
I get the anti-war sentiment and I understand some of the legitimate questioning and concern that has been raised about the prosecution of this war, and, with the benefit of hindsight, whether we even needed to invade Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein. But, to pretend that the threat of Islamic jihad isn’t real is unconscionable.
Did Campos miss the Fort Dix Six incident? Did he miss the terrorist ring that was broken up in Buffalo? Does he really believe that the stated objective to destroy America by Osama bin Laden and the leadership and members of countless radical Islamic terrorist organizations is fantasy? That it would never have happened had we not invaded Iraq, or that it would disappear should we immediately pull out?
Campos and his ilk — many of whom are Democrats in Congress — have allowed their dislike of this president to impair whatever objectivity they might have otherwise enjoyed. And this is why it is so difficult to have a legitimate debate about moving the fight against the enemy forward in any direction. They refuse to even acknowledge the facts.
They don’t even believe there is an enemy. They disavow any acceptance or respect of George W. Bush as the duly elected president, so anything he does, suggests or says is immediately attacked as failed, wrong or lies.
Like too many on the extreme left of the political spectrum, Campos resorts to name-calling and character assassination and he confirms not only his lack of objectivity, but his true motivation for yet another of his columns. Campos is infuriated with the majority in Congress who voted recently to authorize the supplemental “It can’t be repeated often enough that the only reason we’re still in Iraq is because the American elites have almost no personal investment in this war. A president who displays the emotional sensitivity of a serial killer as he sends other people’s children off to die is being enabled by a cowardly Congress, many of whose members are willing to sacrifice the lives of American soldiers in return for slightly increasing their already astronomical odds of re-election.”
It is fair to disagree with the policy and the prosecution of this war, but it is completely false to suggest that the president and members of Congress are somehow so removed from reality that they have “no personal investment in this war.” Iraq will always be called George Bush’s war, I suppose, but, for the record, Congress did overwhelmingly vote to give him the authority to prosecute it, and the record is packed full of senators and representatives who agreed with Bush and most of the free world that Saddam was a threat who had to go. And, along the way, Congress has repeatedly and overwhelmingly supported the funding needs of the fight. Now that public support for the endeavor has evaporated, there’s a whole bunch who have had a change of heart.
Finally, to liken the president — or any president — to a “serial killer” and suggest that he is sending our finest off to die in a war to satisfy some twisted thirst for blood defies any real sense of reality from Campos. The most difficult decision any president could possibly face must surely be the deployment of troops knowing full well that some will pay the ultimate sacrifice.
Whether he agrees or not, our deployed troops are defending Campos’ constitutional freedom to spew his hatred for this president and those who voted to fund our troops. Was there a “free press” in Iraq under Saddam? There is now. How about in Afghanistan under the Taliban? That has changed, too. Should radical Islam prevail and impose a caliphate over much of the world, as is their stated objective, how free might Campos be to express his dissenting opinions?
America and her presidents don’t always get it right. But the enemy of the freedom that Campos and hundreds of millions of others around the planet enjoy is not the United States of America. I’m real tired of the blame-America- first crowd that is forever tearing at the fabric of the Stars and Stripes instead of really providing some portion of positive contribution, whether from the left or the right side of the political spectrum.
Bob Beauprez is a former member of the U.S. House of Representatives from Colorado’s 7th Congressional District.
Posted by denver-admin at 12:01 AM
| Comments (22)
| TrackBack
By John Parvensky
Thousands of Colorado’s most vulnerable citizens remain caught in “identity hell By John Parvensky
Thousands of Colorado’s most vulnerable citizens remain caught in “identity hell Most Coloradans take their ability to document their identity and prove their citizenship for granted. Most have a driver’s license. Many have a certified copy of their birth certificate stored in a safe place. Some are fortunate enough to have a passport.
However, it doesn’t take much to push one into “identity hell Many Coloradans, like the elderly, or residents of nursing homes or other institutions, no longer maintain current driver’s licenses or their original identification records. Others, like youth Many homeless persons also find themselves in this situation, having neither a driver’s license nor a certified copy of their birth certificate.
Without a photo ID HB 1313 clearly requires proof of identity, lawful presence in the United States and age Only four documents are sufficient by themselves for the issuance of a state ID If applicants lack a stand-alone document, they must provide at least one “primary” document and one “secondary” document. The only acceptable primary documents are birth certificates, a tribal identification document issued by the Bureau of Indian Affairs or a federally recognized tribe, or, in certain instances, a driver’s license from a state that require Most of allowable secondary documents (e.g. However, since secondary documents are never sufficient by themselves to obtain IDs, the “primary document” requirement ensures that at least one document provided by every applicant will be secure and verifiable, while the secondary document corroborates the first.
H There is nothing in HB 1313 that allows a person While we agree that the state must be vigilant in protecting against ID theft and fraud, it must be equally vigilant in helping its citizens get the ID they need to survive.
We urge the governor to sign HB 1313.
John Parvensky is president of the Colorado Coalition for the Homeless.
Army expansion for maneuvers
Bush's stem cell veto praised
Bad service at national parks
Secret-ballot union electioms
Health insurance for children
Help save our friends in Agriculture
Hailing a cab, flying a sign
Carbon Footprint Reduction for Denver: Mayor Juan's 4 H Plan.
When one starts to calculate how much carbon soot just one of these operations adds to the thin and already polluted high altitude atmosphere Denver is bathed in, it clouds the mind, dulls the senses, and intoxicates the imagination.
Torkelson misrepresents Colorado Right to Life
Trial lawyers protect the public
City Park jazz concerts
Columbine and Iraqi asylum seekers
Carbon Relief Aid Policy
No rewards for illegal entrants
Bill is amnesty, pure and simple
‘I couldn’t afford an onion’/Food stamp test leaves city exec hungry and tired”
Seasonal guest worker program
New Bill Hurts Skilled Legal Immigrants
The U.S. Senate resumes debate this week on the Secure Borders, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Reform Act of 2007 (S. 1348). Drowned out by all the noise over illegal immigration is an issue of critical importance to American industry and tens of thousands of hopeful would-be citizens: the legal immigration system for skilled workers is badly broken and in need of an overhaul.
The U.S. Senate resumes debate this week on the Secure Borders, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Reform Act of 2007 (S. 1348). This bill attempts to address illegal immigration and reform the current legal immigration system. The controversy over what to do about the millions of illegal immigrants in this country has occupied much of the public mind share in recent years, including press coverage, demonstrations, and debate and legislation at all levels of government Drowned out by all the noise over illegal immigration is an issue of critical importance to American industry and tens of thousands of hopeful would-be citizens: the legal immigration system for skilled workers is badly broken and in need of an overhaul.
Illegal aliens stream across our borders
Congress heading in wrong direction on energy issues
Save the Poudre River
As the World Spins in Aurora.
Overhauling Political Advertising
Campos vs Beauprez on Iraqi war
Immigrants now are different
Strategy for corrections
Sorting out the war on terrorism
Our health care future:
Energy development on the Roan Plateau
. .
U.S. faces fate of Hitler's Germany
Immigration bill no solution
Cause-based marketing
Click It or Ticket!
Ignoring the facts about Islamic jihad