Contact Us Advertising Information Online exclusives Cover Story Buzz Feature In Case You Missed It Vote 2009 Boulderganic Fall 2009 Student Guide 2009 Boulder Weekly Sweet 16 Anniversary Boulderganic 2009 Summer Scene 2009 Email Newsletter Legal Services Best of Boulder 2009 Annual Manual 2009 Newspaper of the Future Kids Camp Guide 2009 Wedding Marketplace 09 Jobs available Student Guide 2008 Best of Boulder 2008 Annual Manual 2008 Join Our Mailing List
|
July 24-30, 2008 editorial@boulderweekly.com
• See Jim Hightower
• See Devil's Dispatch
Don’t pick Polis
(Re: “Vote Polis, Carlisle,” Uncensored, July 17.) I’d like to make a few points about your recent endorsement of Jared Polis, if I may. I live in the district, am an avid follower of the political news, and I’ve got to tell you, Polis is my absolute last pick in the race, for two central reasons that you failed to address.
First of all, though this may be too esoteric a topic for your readers, there was his bungled handling of Amendment 41, which was passed by the voters in 2006. I voted against it because I felt like I could see what was coming, and I heeded the warnings of politicians like Andrew Romanoff, the Speaker of the Colorado House. Amendment 41 was an ethics measure that was supposed to “take the money out of politics,” ironically enough. It banned gifts from lobbyists to state officials and prevents state employees from accepting gifts of more than $50.
What Polis, in his infinite wisdom, failed to foresee or correct was the multiple unintended consequences of the law. Soon after it passed, state employees were worrying if their children would be able to accept scholarships to college, and professors were worrying if they could accept donations of textbooks. Even Polis himself finally admitted that it was a badly written law, and the whole thing is still locked up in litigation over allegations that it unjustly abridges free speech (which is an entirely different and valid question, but one that I won’t get into).
The main point of this narrative is that I don’t want anyone associated with this horribly written piece of legislation anywhere near Congress. There are already enough maniacs who run off half-cocked on some ideological scheme to solve the country’s problems that they don’t think things through. We don’t need another one.
Secondly, I’m honestly disgusted by Polis’ attempt to buy his way into Congress. If you hadn’t noticed, he’s throwing millions of dollars of his own money into his campaign and flooding the airwaves with his campaign ads. If you check the FEC reports, you’ll find that Fitz-Gerald and Shafroth’s numbers combined don’t equal what Polis has thrown into his own race. And all this after he just helped pass Amendment 41 to “take the money out of politics.” It’s sickening hypocrisy at its most blatant, and I can’t believe that you would ignore it in your decision to endorse.
I respect what Polis has done for the state and the Democratic Party over the years, and I love his positions on basically every issue, but there’s no way in hell I’ll ever vote for him.
Jack Morris/Boulder
To drill or not to drill
(Re: “No excuse for not drilling,” Danish Plan, July 17.) Once in awhile I pick up the Boulder Weekly to search for a good laugh. Some of the political rants really make me wonder.
However, when I read the Danish Plan, “No excuse for not drilling,” I sat up and took notice. Finally, someone who has figured out what is really going on. Yes, we have to do the work now to benefit in the future. It doesn’t matter what the energy source is — you must start building it now in order to reap the benefits later.
It comes down to logic and common sense. Yes, it may take five to seven years to benefit from drilling on the continental shelf or ANWR, but after it is said and done the U.S. will greatly benefit. And if you don’t think energy isn’t driving our economy then you haven’t bought anything lately. (The price of diesel is a major factor in determining shipping rates.) Besides, the Chinese have already started drilling on the continental shelf in international waters off the U.S. coast.
I’ll touch on a delicate subject: if you increase taxes on oil companies, then they will increase the price of gasoline. And more taxes means less money to upgrade production on refineries, drill, and keep up with the ever-increasing environmental standards for fuel.
Hybrid vehicles are a move in the right direction, but the technology isn’t anywhere near what it needs to be. Where is the plug-in hybrid? Why doesn’t someone have a solar kit you could put on the roof of your car to charge the batteries in your hybrid? Who is the “someone” that is supposed to be researching this?
I hear and read so much about damage to the environment with the regards to drilling and energy production, but the sign, “$4.09 per gallon” really slaps my billfold right in the creases. Why not push for a responsible balance between environmental control and energy production?
Of course, the alternative could be to tell China and India to quit growing so fast. I’m sure they’ll listen.
R. Goodwin/Denver
We shouldn’t pursue ANWR or OCS drilling, because it would be at least five to seven years before any crude reached U.S. refineries.
As it stands, a dumb argument. I can only assume that whoever made this argument to Mr. Danish either lacked intelligence or assumed that he would see what, to me, is its clear implication. We could spend five to seven years and a lot of money to pursue a dead-end technology or spend the time and money developing renewable resource technology and infrastructure. It seems to me Mr. Danish has failed to look at the different end states achieved by these two courses of action. If we choose to spend resources drilling in these wild areas, we will be undermining some of last unspoiled wilderness areas we have, and, in the long term, we will be contributing to the pollution of our cities and atmosphere by encouraging the continued use of gasoline as a transportation fuel. In the short term we will have reduced the cost of fuel, but only for a finite time period. In the end, more drilling only delays the inevitable, while speeding the destruction of valuable natural resources. If instead time and money is spent developing renewable resources (I fancy wind), we will have begun to move away from an energy economy that has only harmed our environment and our foreign policy.
In response to Mr. Danish, I would say that those who do not fully consider the long-term implications of a course of action are being intellectually negligent.
Matt Carvalho/Louisville
The main point for not drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Range is not the seven to 10 years it would take, but rather that it is a beautiful pristine area that should be protected from any human interference forever, like the wilderness we have in our own backyard west of Boulder. That’s its great value. We humans have messed up so much of the world already, it’s good to know that the ANWR is still unspoiled. Let’s keep it that way.
Dr. Oakleigh Thorne II/Boulder
The Paul Danish article on the energy crisis is the most logical I have read to date. No doubt it will send the enviro-wackos ballistic. They always have a problem with irrefutable logic.
To expand on the topic, I would like to suggest consideration of my plan to solve the energy crisis. I call it the “Bob Lynch Super Green Laundry-Based Solution to the Global Energy Crisis.” It is a conservation-based plan that can be implemented immediately. The power savings are massive.
First, a brief physics lesson is in order. Any engineer is aware that using electricity to heat air is a highly inefficient use of power. Now consider the fact that most of the world uses electric power to dry laundry — this is the greatest waste of power known to man.
The solution is simple; it’s called a clothesline. The technology has been perfected for years. When I was young, every house on my street had a clothesline in the back yard. Nobody had an electric clothes dryer. The process was 100-percent efficient. All the clothes were dried with no energy input other than my mother clipping the clothes to the rope.
Now for the super-green aspect. Greenies consider switching to fluorescent light bulbs to be a badge of honor. However, the power savings are so miniscule that they are cited in savings over a 10-year period. My plan would immediately provide power savings that would dwarf the light bulb savings.
Now for the ultimate green badge of honor: the clotheslines would be placed in the front yard for the entire world to see. There would be some minor problems to be worked out. Bras and Jockey shorts are not a problem when the clothesline is located in the back yard. However, some people might have a problem with these items being on display for all the neighbors to see, but the problem is soluble. At least, the problem pales in significance when compared to the problems faced by the other energy plans.
Greenies, share my vision. I see the day when the entire city of Boulder has front yard clothslines with a kaleidoscope of clothes waving in the breeze. The entire world will follow our lead.
Bob Lynch/Longmont
Kudos from the Todd Squad
(Re: The anti-rock star,” Buzz, July 10.) I was delighted to come across the well-done article by Ben Corbett on the often overlooked, but oh-so-talented Todd Rundgren this week. So glad to see a local publication going above and beyond to provide an in-depth profile on a wizard, a true star. As a longtime member of the Todd Squad, I’m impressed that Corbett took the time and effort to provide such a thorough look at one of rock music’s legendary yet enigmatic artists.
Mike Bialas/Lafayette
BW jaywalkers
(Re: “How Stupid Are We?” ICUMI, July 10.) Boulder “Jaywalking” spoof was pretty funny. But funniest of all was probably your wondering how Boulder would “fair” in a Jaywalking-style interview. Maybe it isn’t “fare,” but I nominate you for the Boulder Jaywalk All-Stars Hall of Fame.
Mark Robbins/Boulder
Respond: letters@boulderweekly.com
Back to top
|
| |
