Comments (4)
By David H. Getches
What a strange sight: demonstrators in dark suits and ties being clubbed by police. Hundreds of lawyers have been rounded up and held in jails to put down a revolt against Pakistan’s president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf. The general is supposedly a friend of the United States and President Bush just this week reiterated his commitment to keep sending billions of dollars in aid to Pakistan. So, are these lawyers troublemakers who deserve beatings and incarceration?
The Pakistani lawyers took to the streets after the president suspended the constitution, dissolved the supreme court and four provincial high courts, and shut down privately owned television news channels. This followed the firing of the nation’s chief justice. To lawyers here in the United States it is not surprising that their counterparts in Pakistan would stand up for the rule of law. That’s what lawyers do.
The Colorado attorney’s oath swears support for the U.S. Constitution and the state constitution. It also requires that one not reject “the cause of the defenseless or oppressed” for personal reasons.
Keeping the oath can result in snide lawyer jokes that associate the attorney’s work with the deeds of sometimes unsavory clients. How can lawyers who are themselves virtuous and law-abiding stand in court in their nice suits next to Nazi skinheads and tattooed drug peddlers?
Well, they are holding the government accountable to the Constitution. And, in the end, the same rules they enforce against the government in cases involving “the least among us” will apply when the rights being asserted are free speech by a newspaper reporter or freedom against unreasonable search of a good neighbor’s home — or our own home.
Of course, some lawyers go too far. And they are disciplined severely. When Mike Nifong, in prosecuting the Duke lacrosse players for rape, withheld exculpatory DNA evidence he departed from the rule of law and he was disciplined — fired, disbarred, prosecuted. Lawyers are held to a high standard for anything they do within the judicial system.
The popular misconceptions of lawyers come not from the occasional ethical lapses of lawyers, which are pursued zealously by the profession itself. Rather they come from a failure to understand the lawyer’s commitment to the rule of law. When several lawyers at fancy law firms volunteered their time to represent suspected terrorists held at Guantanamo they were severely criticized. A deputy assistant secretary of Defense even called on corporate clients to boycott the law firms, and questioned the motives of the lawyers doing the apparent pro bono work who, he said, must be “receiving monies from who knows where.”
Understanding that those lawyers are really on the right side of the war on terrorism requires understanding that they are fighting for the constitutional principles that terrorists would destroy. If we are intimidated into suspending our constitutional protections of due process, right to counsel, and habeas corpus we concede defeat in the war on terrorism.
Shakespeare understood. In Henry VI, Part 2, one of his comedic characters was plotting a rather silly overthrow. But he knew what stood in the way, and said: “The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.”
Then as now, the lawyers were the first line of defense of law and order.
What is at stake in Pakistan is of grave proportions. And the outcome matters to the security of the United States and the world. The January elections in Pakistan have been delayed to keep the general in power. The rule of law is being suspended in a country that is a nuclear power, that harbors the Taliban who are resurgent in Afghanistan, that likely is the hiding place of Osama bin Laden, and that is presumed to be our ally in the war on terrorism.
The lawyers resisting Musharraf’s edict, like other lawyers, know that freedom and democracy can survive only under a rule of law, not of men. And they know that without constitutional framework, government in Pakistan could spiral into dangerous instability and chaos. And with it could go the safety of much of the world.
David H. Getches is the dean of the University of Colorado Law School.
Oh plueeeze!!
Lawyers are at least the cause of half of the problems in this Nation right now!!
And to automatically equate ALL lawyers worldwide is a farce, to say the least.
I hear lawyers all the time whine about how the "rule of law" has been usurped by the current Administration.
So when is the attorney march planned?
And does anyone really believe that IF there was a march, it wouldn't honestly be to protect there incomes?
Sheesh, but then the author is not only a lawyer, but runs a lawyer factory, so what does one expect????
to Yaakov Watkins
For Liberty & Justice for all.
I like a good lawyer joke as much as the next guy. What I don't like is people who think that the rule of law should favor people like them. I also don't like people that equate accused rapists, murderers, etc... with convicted rapists, murderers, etc... as if the state has never falsely accused, indicted and brought to trial innocent people. The Constitution provides a framework for justice in this country which requires the vigorous participation of defense lawyers to ensure that the innocent remain innocent until proven guilty. You can't say that we have the greatest form of government based on the Constitution and the rule of law and then rail against the very people that make it great.
Posted by Todd on November 14, 2007 12:47 PMYou point out that lawyers are the first defense of law and order. Unfortunately, lawyers are also the first defense of rapists, murders, muggers, terrorists, thieves, and dishonest politicians.
While you may believe that the second is the price of the first, some of us believe that lawyers could be a bit more selective in their efforts.
If we lose the war on terrorism, many of us will die. Being killed is a denial of civil rights, albeit one that the legal profession appears to be curiously unconcerned with, unless it is done by the courts.
Lawyers frequently argue for a suspension of constitutional rights. When a professor has more freedom of speech than a student, when a landowner is required to follow bizarre rules in the use of his property, when certain minority cultures are granted more rights than other minority cultures, or when government refuses to guarantee personal safety but denies citizens the right of personal defense, we frequently find lawyers at the root of these losses of freedom.
The Fourth Amendment right "of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects" is used to restrain the police. Lawyers seem curiously uninterested in using it to protect people from thieves, murderers and rapists. Nor does it seem to apply to building and zoning inspectors.
When a fear of litigation effectively eliminates entire industries, something is wrong. Horseback riding used to be recognized as a moderately dangerous activity, indeed the invention of cars was seen as an improvement in safety. When the fear of lawsuits made renting horses overly expensive, something was lost.
In some places, the fear of litigation eliminated obstetrical physicians. Yet the legal profession takes no responsibility for their part in the effective denial of medical care to rural and indigent women.
The root of public distrust of lawyers is the profession's seeming disregard of justice in favor of intricate laws and selective interpretation. When people are unable to predict what the their rights and responsibilities are in the public arena, they rightly distrust the system that creates and maintains the laws.
Posted by Yaakov Watkins on November 12, 2007 08:31 AMThe scary part is that this guy and his lawyer buddies actually believe this! They won't admit that their "ethics" is nothing more than worship of the almighty dollar, "justice" be damned!! Nifong has not yet been punished as he has yet to be prosecuted and convicted by the federal government for his blatant violation of three men's civil rights. The law profession offers up the deposed Nifong as an example of lawyer discipline in hopes that we will ignore the rest of the criminal activity. A prosecutor in Centennial who is having sexual relations with a judge, and yet goes on "processing" victims of their own little revenue generation operation. A family "court" system where justice is never a consideration as much as generating revenue by blatant violations of human rights while producing income for dozens of people no thinking person would ever hire with their hard earned dollars. Asked any "father" in America if the systems produces justice or protects their rights after they have been "processed". The lawyers are NOT the first line of defense for peoples rights - it's the soldier. Lawyers are absent from the battlefield because their is no money in standing up for truth and justice!!
Posted by RS on November 12, 2007 08:13 AM
Comments (16)
By Sandy Lahmann, Silverthorne
I’m a 45-year-old woman disabled from multiple sclerosis. It has been my experience that there are a lot of able-bodied people who could use a few lessons in interacting with the disabled population. I continually encounter unknowing persons who keep putting their feet in their mouths and annoy the heck out of me. Or worse.
Rather than always complaining to my disabled friends, I thought I might use this forum to offer a few lessons to the able-bodied.
The first lesson of our course (we’ll call it Disability 101) is directed to the woman I met in the grocery store parking lot last Monday who wanted to push me. I was in my wheelchair. I’m not always in my wheelchair. It depends on if I’m having a good day or a bad day and how far I need to go. But Monday, I was in my wheelchair.
I had taken my wheelchair out of the back of my Subaru, plopped my butt down in it, and started organizing my keys, my purse, and the batting gloves I use when I’m interested in speed.
Along comes some woman I’d never seen before who asks if she can push me.
Asking me if you can push me implies that I am helpless and I am stupid. I’d have to be stupid to put myself in a situation where I was by myself in a parking lot and was incapable of moving.
Perhaps I shouldn’t complain. At least she asked first and accepted my response of “No, thank you. I’m fine.”
I’ve had other times when people start pushing me without asking. It is the ultimate in rudeness to start pushing me without allowing me the opportunity to choose. Just because I’m disabled doesn’t mean I don’t have the right to choose.
At other times I’ve had people ask me if they can push me, but when I say, “No, thank you. I’m fine,” they get angry at me for not allowing them to push me. Apparently they want to do their good deed for the day and I’m not cooperating. Guess what? I’m not your good deed for the day.
Find a different one.
There are times I might be struggling with my wheelchair a little. Maybe in the snow. Maybe going up a hill. I’ve only had this wheelchair for the last year and a half and I’m not in it every day. But I want to struggle and I want to conquer. The more I do it, the better I get, the stronger I become, the more confident I become, the more independent I become. Would you deny me that?
And frankly, your offer to push me sounds a little silly considering I’ve handcycled up Vail Pass multiple times and I mono-ski (sit-ski) on the blacks on Peak 10 at Breckenridge.
So next time you see me in the grocery store parking lot, instead of approaching me and asking if you can push me, why not instead comment on what a gorgeous day it is? Groan and moan with me about the remodeling work going on in the store, “I don’t know where anything is anymore!” In other words, treat me like a regular person, because I am a regular person.
Then, while we’re chatting and shooting the breeze, if I need anything, I’ll ask you. If I don’t ask you for anything, I’m fine. However, you may have some difficulty keeping up with me while I spin around the aisles in the store. Is there a speed limit?
Sandy Lahmann is a resident of Silverthorne.
I've been in and out of a chair for over two years now... mostly in, unfortunately. Like Sandy, I like to struggle and overcome. UNLIKE her, though, I greatly appreciate it when someone offers to help me. There have been times when I couldn't get up the ramp and into my van, and many times in the supermarket when I can't reach items on a high shelf. It's at time like those that I relay on others to help me avoid a very inconvenient situation. I'm grateful for that help.
Sure, it's common courtesy to ask before helping, especially before pushing, someone in a wheelchair. I don't see it as 'part of my body,' but it is part of my personal space.
So, folks, if you see someone who is disabled and appears they may benefit from a little assistance, please do make a polite offer of help. I, for one, will appreciate it.
Posted by JT on November 14, 2007 06:48 PMI think people don't want to accept what Ms. Lahmann is saying. She's not saying (at least how I read it) go ahead and ask if I need help and I'll tell you whether or I do or not. She's saying DON'T EVEN ASK. For example, she ridicules those who might have the gall to ask: "frankly, your offer to push me sounds a little silly considering I’ve handcycled up Vail Pass multiple times." and says "Asking me if you can push me implies that I am helpless and I am stupid." I don't think she's merely saying ask first. I think she's saying bug off and leave me alone I don't need your help.
I have never helped someone without asking. And I can't imagine starting to push someone's wheel chair without asking first. I get the idea that the wheelchair feels like an extension of your body and that it's impolite to touch first and ask later. That's common sense to me. And my offer to help is not an effort to achieve sainthood or otherwise stroke my ego. My offer to help is merely an offer to help - nothing more nothing less. Where I think Ms. Lahmann really offends me is that she writes so angrily about those who are really only well-meaning. I know it's not easy to accept help. And if people touch Ms. Lahmann when she doesn't want to be touched, we can all agree that's not good and they should not do so. If that's all she was saying, I don't think this article would be so controversial. But I think what she is saying is stop asking me if I need help, don't dare help me without my permission and even though I look weak I am stronger than you. I suspect, if I knew Ms. Lahmann, I never would have thought to feel sorry for such a capable and strong woman. However, in this article, she comes off as basically resentful and angry at people just trying to do the right thing by offering her help. Which reveals her as insecure and scared. And now, ironically, I feel sorry for her.
I know this is long but one more point - I'm not pregnant but people VERY frequently assume I am. They ask me friendly questions about when my baby is due and am I trying for a girl, etc. It's hurtful because I hate looking pregnant. But there are medical reasons why I do and I can't do much more about it than I am already. However, the fact remains, every single person that enquires about my health or offers me a seat is only trying to be nice. And I have to accept that. And when I say gently that I'm not expecting, they feel worse than I do. Sometimes I let them think I'm pregnant just so I don't have that awful moment. Ms. Lahmann's article reminded me I need to remember that no one is trying to hurt my feelings, imply I'm incapable or otherwise insult me. They are just being friendly.
One day my mother and I were in the grocery store.We went up this one isle and walked past an older man in a wheelchair looking down a a small list in his hand.
We walk past him then I turned around and went back . I asked him if he needed some help. He said his wife had given him a list of things to get and one of those things was a can of chili with meat and no beans.
The cans were up higher than he could reach and read . So we I went through the different brands and prices with him and handed each one to him so he could decide. he made his decision and thanked me very much for my kindness.
I told him it was my pleasure and asked him if he needed anymore help with his list. He said no, that was the last thing .I wished him a good day and he thanked me again.
He waved at me when my mother and I were at the check out lane ,he was in another check out. his smile warmed my heart.
When my mother and I were loading our groceries in the van,she turned and said to me. " I knew I brought you up right" I cherish that moment because my mother died 4 years ago. I'll never forget that beautiful memory that man gave me.
Posted by Can I get an AMEN! on November 13, 2007 05:51 PMHi Folks,
I'm in a wheelchair and just want to make a quick comment. Apples are apple and oranges are oranges a disability is a disability. It is what it is. My wheel chair is part of my body and extension of me. My legs for God's sake ask ! if your going to touch me. Common courtosey. I ask people if they need help abole bodyed or not..Ask me and I will say no thank you have a great day. When is the next lesson?
Hi Everyone.
Let's not escolate or get out of hand on this subject. I'm a wheelchair userin Carbondale Colorado and here are my thoughts. First I dont see a lot of hate.Call it what it is a disability is a disability. I catch myself on many occasions asking Able Bodyed people if they need help.It would be nice if everyone treated each other with kindness and respecrt.
I'm in a wheelchair and an atholite. When I was abole bodyed I would not go out of my way but I would ask people in wheelchairs or just having a hard time if they needed help. Common courtosey.
My first lesson to everyone in the class of Disability 101 is to learn that a wheelchair is not a wheelchair but is an extention of my body. Like it or not it's part of me and I have learned to like it infact love it as part of my body. I dont think anyone likes to be pushed around or touched with out first giving permission. If asked, I have no problem with saying no thankw you have a good day.aJust keep in mind my wheelchair is part of me. My legs. Thanks I'm looking forward to the next class.
Folks Both sids of the conversation should look at the motivation,understanding, and proper help required in any given situation .
The oppertunity to help each other and create possibly a human interaction far outweighs the misconceptions that is being thrown around. when in doubt Ask. I am no diffrent than you other than my mode or means of movement. There is nothing wrong with respect and compassion. Thanx sandy for making us all think
I think a lot of the frustration that Sandy experiences is valid. I, too, am in a wheelchair. I dont mind when people ask me if I need help because I know that they are being nice. There is an inner feeling that we are looked at as helpless and I think that is what Sandy is trying to point out. There are times when I do need assistance and ask for it. I always appreciate help when I need it.
When it comes to pushing my chair, I dont mind when people ask if I need a push. 99.999% of the time I do not need it and I will politely say, no thank you. I have been in a wheelchair for almost 3 years now and the only times that I have fallen out of my wheelchair is when someone was pushing me. Each of those times I told the person who was pushing me to please not and they did not listen. I have since cut the push handles off of my chair to prevent that from happening because I can get hurt from it.
I guess the bottom line is this... Assistance is appreciated when it is warrented but please do not force it.
Posted by John on November 12, 2007 07:02 PMFellow Commentators,
Would you voluntarily tell a fat person to eat healthier foods (or ask them if they need help eating healthier)? If that fat person asked for your help and advice on what they could eat to be healthier, would you then help them? Same concept. Just because you have a good heart and mean well, does not mean it is the right thing to do.
BRAVO SANDY! for all you have accomplished, and for goodness sake I will stop if you flag me down in the snow because your van broke down!
Posted by Sarah on November 12, 2007 06:03 PMGeesh, all of the posters here (except raoul) appear to be IDIOTS.
All that she is saying is...don't touch her. If you want to help, ask "would you care for some help?". She considers her chair an extension of herself, which is her prerogative. It's personal. The fact that you would get upset about it proves her point....apparently helping her is all about YOU.
Posted by FlorenceNightingale on November 12, 2007 03:57 PMSandy
Thanks for the letter. It was insightful for the rest of us who haven't had to experience such limitations.
Some might consider your stubborn-like resoluton to be independent as lacking gratitude or being obstinate.
However, I say keep on keeping on (in your own gritty way) since most would, possibly begrudgingly, have to commend you for having the inclination to be self-sufficient in light of all the reasons it would be easy feel like a victim.
Now, a question: Can we get some snow soon, please? I'm ready to ski.
Sandy what do you say to someone who tells you to piss off when you want them to get you something off a higher shelf? It works both ways.
Posted by Christopher Reeve on November 12, 2007 02:01 PMI am sorry if you are offended that people offer to help. I know that I sometimes I get that "I don't need your help look" from people that I offer my seat to on the bus or train because they are pregnant, elderly, or seem overwhelmed. However, for the most people they are grateful. If I am struggling to open a door or to carry heavy bags, please help me if I appear to need a helping hand. It is the right thing to do. If I rudely say No, then just pray for me.
Posted by Angie on November 12, 2007 11:54 AMI'll remember your letter as I drive past you after your van gets stuck in the snow this winter.
Thanks for saving me the trouble of trying to help your sorry butt.
Posted by And Another Thing on November 12, 2007 09:35 AMI couldn't believe the hatred in this article. You seem to be filled with anger and misery directed at people who are offering to help you. There have been so many times I've offered to help someone who was differently abled and they were entirely grateful. Now, every time I see someone in a wheel chair trying to navigate a curb that's too high or a person on oxygen struggling to get their equipment out of their car or a person on crutches who just slipped on an icy sidewalk, I'm going to have a moments hesitation while I remember your article. Fortunately, if I think about it, I'll remember that you were just bitter and that you don't really represent the majority of wonderful people who are differently abled and sometimes just needs the slightest helping hand. I myself need a helping hand every once in a while and I'm always grateful when it's offered. Good for you for being as independant as you are. Shame on you for acting like it's a federal offense to offer help when it may or may not be needed.
Posted by Emilie in Golden on November 11, 2007 03:48 PMThe writer will in about a year be complaining,No one pays any attention to me! I'm Disabled!
The writer is much more rude than the people just trying to help.
Posted by Can I get an AMEN! on November 11, 2007 10:39 AMStruggle and conquer on!!
BTW, you're not getting more of MY tax dollars then the able bodied, are you?
I didn't think so. I'm sure that YOU refuse to accept the "help" of unidentified others that you don't know, do you?
Perhaps you should wear a sign,"No, I don't want any help!!"
That way, you won't be angered further, and the rest of us won't be wasting our time.
Just a thought.
Comments (2)
By Greg Dobbs
It must be 20 years since I last came to Russia — back then, it was the drab and repressive Soviet Union. So on a trip this week to shoot a documentary for HDNet, I’ve been watching for what’s new and what’s not.
There obviously have been changes on major levels: capitalism has taken over, personal freedoms like speech, art and travel can be exercised — the other day I even saw a small public protest over property rights. And the politics of the nation have been like a ride on a roller coaster.
Both on the surface and deep down, this looks like a New Russia: you can spend $100 on a ribeye steak, Dior and Louis Vuitton advertise with bright lights on Red Square. But it would be a mistake to assume that the Russians now look just like us. Or more important, that they think like us.
In mid-October, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was here, and she said in unusually undiplomatic language that President Vladimir Putin has assaulted democracy in Russia. She was right. After the Soviet Union collapsed, democracy truly flourished. People freely elected leaders at local levels, at provincial levels, and for Russia’s congress, the Duma. Media flourished too; for the first time in the life of the country, critical questions were openly asked and debates were publicly aired.
But when Putin became president, he put Russia into a political U-turn to the point where, today, Putin appoints provincial governors, and they in turn appoint members of the upper house of the Duma; popular elections were unceremoniously abolished. Likewise the mayors of the two main cities, St. Petersburg and Moscow, are now appointed, not elected. Political parties had grown to number something like 50; today, thanks to Putin’s rules about qualifying as a party (rules that favor his own supporters), there are 15. As for the media, enough of it has been shut down that what’s left is a lap dog. (A Russian analyst told me Putin hasn’t been asked an “unfriendly” question in several years.)
But for many Russians, that’s just fine because democracy doesn’t mean the same thing to them that it means to us. I interviewed the most outspoken minority member in the Duma’s lower house, a liberal who is brave enough to go public with his complaints. When I asked him, “How does President Putin get away with this stuff?” in barely broken English he answered: “Russians in the ’90s had problems: economy fell down, incomes fell down, corruption grew up, many things were terrible, and name for that was ‘democracy.’” Often our biggest mistake as Americans — and this goes for American foreign policy too — is to assume that everyone else sees the world as we do. This is a good example of that.
Our documentary focuses on a potentially insidious “youth group” called Nashi, which in Russian can mean “ours.” Some members are taking courses to be Russia’s next leaders; others are taking martial arts to be Russia’s next enforcers. By all accounts, the Kremlin arranges Nashi’s funding, which means it asks businesses to contribute; if someone wants to stay in business, he complies.
Some of Nashi’s tens of thousands of members seem earnestly interested in a more efficient, more moral society. But today’s young Russians are the first generation to come of age since the Soviet Union fell apart. They haven’t been told stories about the bad old days of communism so much as stories about the good old days of superpowerism — when the United States could not just have its way around the globe as it seems to today.
It chilled me when everyone I talked to in Nashi defined patriotism as uncritical support for Putin, whose foreign policy is founded on the nationalistic conviction that when Russia rattles a saber, the world should tremble.
There is nothing wrong with nationalism, unless it is misdirected. The fear of some, both inside and outside Russia right now, is that the idealism of the young in this long-strong, long-suffering, long-proud nation will be channeled the way it was channeled in Germany in the years before World War II, to support whoever leads them toward their days of glory, and trample those in opposition. Putin seems to speak their language.
What’s more, we’ve become the target. On a miserably wet and snowy day in a city called Vladimir, we videotaped the performance of a traveling street theater troupe brought in by Nashi. The actors pretended to carry oil from a Russian oil pump to a barrel labeled “For U.S.A.” And when Uncle Sam came into the picture, he came out ... of an outhouse. The lesson for Russians was, if we don’t support our leader, his enemies will steal our economic assets and make us slaves to the United States. We videotaped a second performance in Moscow; when it ended, some spectators started shouting, “Yankee Go Home.”
There isn’t a whole lot we can do about the direction Russia is turning because, economically and diplomatically, America needs Russia. Maybe more than Russia needs America. But we shouldn’t be surprised if we find ourselves fighting a new Cold War ... on top of the war on terrorism.
Greg Dobbs is a former Rocky Mountain News media critic.
NOPE, SAME OLD RUSSIA.
Run by insane lunatics, madmen and bad guys for centuries, the 21st century is no different. This one just happens to be KGB.
Posted by Hank on November 13, 2007 08:18 AMI obviously cant get a forum to deliver a message about wasted money and horrible sports. RMN good for you for playing cover to this BS. Kronke, where are you, unless you are "special" why is Karl still coaching, and why does everyone think he is better then Jeff B.? I think Sam Cassell has proven that it doesn't matter who coached him, he was a proven winner. All Karl has done is.......wait nothing!!!!
The sad thing is, he is a million times better then Jim Bates. When are the Broncos going to fire this POS? Does he have dirty pics on Bowlen, because his "Defense" wouldn't even confuse the blind and deaf school that Nebraska plays on opening day. Bates is the worst coach I have ever seen, go Wade Phillips, the Broncos havent had a good Defensive Coordinator since you.
I love the Broncos, but Marshall needs to shut up until he actually catches a pass!!!!! Shannehan needs to actually take his job seriously, and not still lean on the comfort of ELWAYS SUPER BOWLS. I hate complacency, and our teams are just going to put up with way overpriced individuals who know how to bitch, but have no idea how to play as a team (Marshall, you can kiss my ass, b/c you think your great, but have not done anything to prove it)
Sincerely,
Fan losing Faith
Comments (4)
By Rep. John Kefalas
On Monday, I will spend a quiet day with my daughter-in-law and granddaughters, Lillie and Barbara. I have cleared my schedule because I want to pause for a day to honor and remember our veterans. On this Veterans’ Day, my wife and I will think about our son, a father and husband, in his fifth month serving in Afghanistan in the U.S. Army.
This Veterans’ Day, I ask you to do more than shop the sales and play with your kids. On this day, let us celebrate the past and present members of our armed forces for their sacrifices made and their courage displayed, as they risk their lives for others’ peace and freedom. While we may have different opinions about the foreign policies that have led to the Iraq war, we can agree that our soldiers and veterans deserve our deepest support and respect.
Soldiers and vets face serious challenges today. I don’t need to remind anyone about the dangers posed by the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. We are all well aware of the threats on the ground. Unfortunately, amid the ongoing media coverage in those troubled parts, the struggles that soldiers face after they return home from prolonged tours in battle zones are still widely ignored.
Our current military engagements impose a powerful plight and a lasting toll on soldiers and their families. As many as one in six soldiers are diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder upon their return. While accurate numbers are hard to come by, research indicates that returning veterans face much higher risks for depression and substance abuse when compared with their peacetime counterparts. More than 400 troops who served in either Iraq or Afghanistan have committed suicide since those two wars began. Army researchers found that the percentage of soldiers who intended to divorce their spouses increased from 9 percent to 15 percent upon returning from service in Iraq and Afghanistan.
A number of contributing factors are compounded to create the challenges that homebound soldiers face. The nature of the conflict forces soldiers to contend with protracted high-stress conditions. Many soldiers serve in the reserve forces or National Guard and may not be fully equipped to deal with the heavy combat operations or foreign military endeavors required. Finally, soldiers — more of whom are women than in any previous American military engagement — are likely to serve multiple tours-of-duty, which greatly expands the likelihood of both physical and emotional trauma.
My son, Staff Sgt. Harlan Kefalas, currently serves our country in Afghanistan. He served in Iraq from 2004 to 2005 and in Bosnia before that, as part of the peacekeeping forces there. He has chosen a military path to serve his country and I sincerely honor his choice, although I would like him to come home.
I can’t bear the thought of him or his colleagues returning to this country and not having access to all the resources he may need to make a healthy transition back into the U.S. But this situation is increasingly likely because resources for mental health for returning soldiers are drained.
Some, like the thoughtful leaders at Fort Carson, are working to solidify and expand the services available to veterans. We must support such efforts, or the soldiers returning from the risks and stress of the front lines may have to cope with more battles on the home front — homelessness, social disorders, substance abuse and family strains — all alone.
Democratic Rep. John Kefalas represents Fort Collins and Larimer County in the General Assembly.
I just completed 21 years of military service as an Air Force officer. I served three tours in the Middle East since 1991, and completed finished a four-month deployment to Balad, Iraq in November 2005.
Since I retired in February 2006, I haven't been able to find a decent job -- despite having three college degrees and myriad skills and experience.
My salary has gone from $70K per year down to $28K, and I have little hop of improving my situation any time soon.
In fact, at several recent job interviews, employers have expressed much concern over how my skills would "translate" and how I would "fit in."
I have a news flash for employers -- military people are some of the hardest-working most creative-thinking, dependable employees you could ever hope for.
Instead of writing off veterans -- how about giving us a chance to show what we can do in the civilian workforce?
THAT's how I'd like to see veterans being honored and supported.
Yellow ribbons really don't help us, you know?
Posted by Republican Guy on November 11, 2007 12:57 PMSorry 40 acres, but my experience is different from yours. My grandfather, an avowed republican (as well as a white guy) served in naval combat in WWII. Ever hear of Leyte Gulf.? My great uncle (also white and republican) flew fighters over England. Your race-fueled argument is full of holes.
Posted by Bumpskier on November 11, 2007 09:29 AM40 acres: If Republicans don't serve, how do you explain Mike Coffman (secretary of state)or State Senator Steve Ward (a Colonel currently serving in Iraq)? Huh? I'm listening!
Posted by Bumpskier on November 10, 2007 09:17 AMI wasn't surprised to see Rep. Keflas is a Democrat. The GOP and rich folks don't serve in uniform. The best way to serve our troops returning to Colorado, is for folks to put pressure on congressional reps, on both sides of the political aisle. Colorado's vets are handicapped because only one of these congressional reps, has ever served in military uniform.
I served in 3 deployments to Vietnam. I am simply stunned at how the VA can thumb its nose at federal laws, regarding disabled military benefits. I filed for disability with the Denver VA office in 1992. They refused my claim becuase the physician that had screened me, "retired". The "rule of law and spirit" and intent" of the law, as defined in CFR-38, specifically states, "vets will be given the benefit of the doubt".
Same situation with Denver Social Security Administration. Judge Antionette Martinze denied me my disability, despite the fact a that VA "contracted" rehab company (Vermeer Rehabilitation Inc.), stated I was "unemployable". A state "contracted" physician stated the same diagnosis. Several V A physicians also agreed. Because of my ebony "hue", I flunked Martinez's "color" test too. Taxpayers are paing multiple times for the same result (federal funds fruad, waste, abuse, and RICO violations).
US Sen. Shamnesty Salazar (captain. SS Amnesty-just another slave ship) won't help because is too busy pandinderig to his criminal illegal Mexican friends. Shamnesty and his brother did vote for their own $484K federal farm subsidy, but they didn't vote for my "7" years arrears social security disability pay. Allard did step up to bat. Blacks folks should write this down.
I proudly join US Rep. Murtha (USMC Vietnam War hero), "I wouldn't serve in today's armed forces with these guys and their draft deferments".
JJ Tenant
Lt. Commander, USN, LDO, Ret.
Comments (5)
By Polly Baca
As a former member of the Lyndon Johnson and Bill Clinton administrations, I know firsthand how divisive political debate can be. In Washington, D.C., and in state capitols across the nation, few issues are able to transcend the political divide. Whether it is immigration, health care, taxes, or the economy — with virtually every issue, deep political trenches have been dug on either side, making progress in these critical areas next to impossible.
Unfortunately, the issue of education — and specifically education reform and school choice — is no exception.
For our children’s sake, we must work to bridge this political divide by setting aside our political bias and viewing the issue objectively. To do so, it might be helpful to answer a simple question:
If you had equal access to a school with a proven track record of success and a school with a proven track record of failure, to which school would you send your child?
Would a parent purposely send their child to a low-performing school over a high-performing one, if they had equal access to both? Of course not. For instance, the vast majority of our representatives in Washington, D.C., have the freedom to choose between a private school and a public school — and most choose a private education for their children. Yet the harsh reality is that many of these same representatives oppose school choice for families without their financial means.
Low-income families have no choices outside of their public schools. They are stuck with a system that has yielded the following results:
More than 1.2 million students drop out each year. That’s more than 6,000 kids per school day — one child every 26 seconds.
60 percent of high school dropouts come from low-income families.
Only about half of America’s Latino and African-American students graduate from public high school on time.
Add to these numbers the fact that of those students who do manage to graduate from a public high school, the vast majority are still not ready for college:
Nearly one in three freshmen accepted to four-year institutions fail college placement tests and must take at least one remedial course to learn skills they should have learned in high school.
Among community college freshmen, that number jumps to 42 percent.
Consequently, only 56 percent of college freshmen entering a four-year institution directly from high school manage to earn a degree after six years — one of the lowest college completion rates in the world.
These statistics clearly reveal an American education system in crisis. Yet, many refuse to acknowledge this fact, allowing politics to skew their perspective. But with such a track record, is it any surprise that more and more parents are choosing alternatives to public education?
In the past 15 years, charter schools, voucher and tax-credit programs, and private scholarship foundations, such as Denver’s Alliance for CHOICE in Education, on whose board of directors I serve, have flourished across the nation, answering the growing cries for help from parents desperate to provide their children with a quality education.
Forty states — including Colorado — allow charter schools ... there are now more than 4,000 such schools across the country, serving more than a million children.
Just last year, 28 states debated school choice legislation ... five existing school choice programs were expanded and five new programs were enacted, bringing the total to 20 school choice programs in 11 states, plus Washington, D.C.
With each passing year, more and more parents choose proven success over proven failure. They don’t let politics dictate their decision; they choose what’s best for their child. It’s time to view school choice objectively, not politically — and give choice to those who have none.
Polly Baca is the executive director of the Latin American Research and Services Agency.
Monopolies are always hostile to the consumer, and there is nothing worse tha a union dominated educational monopoly.
There is only one way to excape the continuing madness and failure of k-12 and that's VOUCHERS, COMPETITION and CHOICE!
What are the unions afraid of?
Posted by Hank on November 12, 2007 10:17 AMJust wondering....Is Bruce Hanson blaming the children? So, why bother because some kids just can't be helped. Unfortunately, this is a pervasive attitude in the public educational system. It is sad that educators would have this belief. Every child can learn --If you don't believe this then you should not be teaching or involved in the process. School choice would provide more opportunities for kids to learn. Kudos to Polly Baca -- she is right on.
Posted by Cali Nichols on November 10, 2007 12:24 PMProven success and proven failure. I would challenge Polly to take those teachers at the school with proven success and exchange them with the teachers with proven failure. In most cases, I would be willing to bet my first born child that those teachers that were succeeding will suddenly appear to have become failures. While there are certainly schools with great staffs and others with mediocre ones, the clientele of those schools are the biggest factor. There are some truly significant inequities in our country that fall along racial\economic lines, and these inequities will not be solved by simply giving children the opportunity to choose to leave their poorly performing school to attend a "better" one.
Posted by Bruce Hanson on November 9, 2007 08:42 PMMany good reasons to have more school choice and/or vouchers. When a parent has the oppurtunity to choose and evaluate a school it automatically helps solve one of our problems; parents being involved.
Posted by brain on November 9, 2007 08:38 PMAll for the choice to chose where one's kids go to school. The more choses one has the better for the education system in a whole. It will force the gov. schools to improve and it will weaken the teachers union so to get rid of poor teachers faster.
Posted by cr on November 9, 2007 05:56 PM