In Case You Missed It
Boulderganic Fall 2009
Student Guide 2009
Boulder Weekly Sweet 16 Anniversary
Summer Scene 2009
Best of Boulder 2009
Annual Manual 2009
Newspaper of the Future
Kids Camp Guide 2009
Wedding Marketplace 09
Student Guide 2008
Best of Boulder 2008
Annual Manual 2008
Join Our Mailing List
September 4-10, 2008 firstname.lastname@example.org
• See Jim Hightower
• See Devil's Dispatch
Danish typifies stereotypes
(Re: “McCain knows how to make up his mind and live with the results. Does Obama?” Danish Plan, Aug. 28.) Over the years, Paul Danish’s rhetorical boat has drifted steadily to the right of the mainstream, but last week’s article beaches him firmly on the right bank. He touches upon an issue that, more than any other, typifies the difference between political thinking on the right vs. the left: namely, the appearance of certainty in stances on controversial topics versus the recognition that there is ambiguity and nuance to many of these questions.
It is no mere stereotype to characterize people on the right as desiring pat, “sound-bite” answers to complex issues, such as energy policy, economic recovery, Iraq withdrawal and immigration reform. All one has to do is tune into Fox or right-wing talk radio to hear how simply these conundrums can be boiled down to one-sentence solutions. Danish lavishly praises McCain’s “directness, succinct to the point of being laconic [that] hits you between the eyes,” while we’ve all been enduring a neo-con administration that could not have shown more clearly over the past eight years how gut-level decision-making, following convictions with dogged resolve, and “staying the course” have driven us onto the rocks. Having an answer quick at hand doesn’t mean it’s the right one.
In contrast, people on the left tend to appreciate that merely boiling down these intricate issues to terse slogans is no real solution. They generally don’t fear “gray areas” and are capable of holding a variety of competing, even contradictory, approaches in their minds simultaneously without the need to seize jingoistically on one or another. In the 2004 presidential election, when John Kerry voted for an Iraq war funding extension then voted against another, he did so because he objected to certain key provisions in the latter bill, a perfectly justifiable and understandable position to those on the left. Of course, the right made political hay of this, simplistically labeling Kerry a “waffler” and claiming he didn’t care about our troops because of the additional armor it denied them when, in fact, he had taken the time to understand the subtleties in the bill and made a principled stand against it despite the downsides of doing so. The right was successful in its attacks because of the predilection among their faithful for oversimplification and black-and-white thinking.
Perhaps Danish’s regard for Obama’s “intelligent, thoughtful, and articulate examining and weighing hard questions with a decent respect for their complexity” should be more duly recognized for exactly the asset that it is: a distinguished law professor’s ability to factor into his decision-making that there are many aspects to each issue. A hint of what type of president we will have in Obama can be seen in his response to the recent Georgian crisis. While McCain echoed the Republican party line in stridently denouncing Russian military intervention, further degrading the decaying state of U.S.-Russian relations with threats and saber-rattling, Obama coolly pointed out Georgia’s culpability in the matter first before calling upon Russia to withdraw from the region. His recognition that there are multiple perspectives on any dispute will allow him to find more diplomatic ways of defusing sticky affairs such as this, and to be fairer in those solutions he finds.
In a time where there is such a blatant need for change in so many corners of the political arena, I’ll put my money on a man who can survey the issues in all their complexity and chart a coherent course through the rocks over a man who quickly sets the helm on a course and says, “I’ll take on whatever we encounter in that direction.”
The truth of 9/11
(Re: “Conspiracy on the big screen,” Arts & Culture, Aug. 28.) Somebody tell Dylan Otto Krider that the “Gulf of Tonkin” as in the “incident” President Johnson used as an excuse to escalate the Vietnam War, was not a conspiracy but a deliberate lie even confirmed as such by Johnson, as well as the CIA. Then Krider should start doing some real research and explain how 80,000 tons of structural steel can fall symmetrically at free-fall speed due only to gravity. And why tons of molten metal was found under all three destroyed towers on 9/11 (metal starts melting at 2700 degrees F — far higher than temps can reach in an office fire). And why the molten metal contained the chemical signature of thermite, a high-tech incendiary. And why molten metal microspheres were found throughout the Trade Center dust. And why none of the 110 floors — an acre in size — are not sitting at the bottom of the rubble. And how 90,000 tons of concrete can be pulverized into a fine powder from a gravity collapse alone. And how a gravity collapse could cause four perimeter wall units from the 76th floor to eject laterally at 55mph and land 600 feet away. Start your research under “physics,” and you should be able to discover that 9/11 Truth is not a conspiracy, but a criminal investigation backed up with evidence from guys like Isaac Newton.
BVSD not doing all they can
(Re: “Head of the class,” cover story, Aug. 21.) I am very disappointed in your story “Head of the class” because you implied BVSD is doing more than they actually are with the recent law changes. Your statement about the 2007 bill not changing any practices because BVSD is already serving gifted students is deceptive because BVSD has absolutely not done anything regarding the 2008 bill.
I have a child who I requested (under the 2008 law) be evaluated for a move from preschool to kindergarten. I received a call from a woman in the district (I did not note her name at the time) who indicated that BVSD does not have any programs or processes in place to deal with the 2008 law change. The office I spoke with is hoping to have policies and procedures in place by mid-year to evaluate my child, which means she could be moved at the end of the semester (in the middle of the school year).
I have been through this process before with another child and BVSD at the current time absolutely does not support placing 4- and 5-year-olds in the appropriate grade level. As a matter of fact, the district is very open about the fact that TAG testing is not valid until second grade or after. I feel as if your story implied a level of action that is not happening in first grade or below.
Amanda Deane/via Internet
Amendment 48 is pervy
(Re: “Which comes first: a woman or her egg?, cover story, July 31.) Neither Pamela White nor letters since follow the consequences of Amendment 48 entirely to its Orwellian implication, namely: If “life,” with full rights, were to begin at conception, then the act of conception itself (nudge, wink) becomes a matter of concern for the government! Think it through: If one instant there’s not an embryo, and the next moment there is, then whatever happened in that moment created a new legal entity, and the law will have a right to know and inquire about the event. This is full-tilt perversion.
And don’t believe Amendment 48 supporters if they say, “Oh, that’s not what we mean!” because a) we know they can’t be trusted, and b) the law means what it says, not what somebody wants it to mean after the fact.
Dick Dunn/Hygiene, Colo.
Take back the streets
I want to share my personal experience as a peaceful protester in Denver. I do this with the goal of raising a warning flag that our free society is being overtaken by a highly militarized police state, the actions of which are both excessive and cause for great concern. Our freedoms are being encroached on in every possible sector of society, and I feel we must defend our rights now more than ever.
I was at the DNC protests, holding a sign for peace, exercising my right to free speech and assembly. Two blocks over, hundreds of my friends and fellow peaceful demonstrators, were first pepper sprayed and then corralled into a police circle to be harassed and kept like animals before they were booked into jail. Their crime: walking down the street, trying to let their message be heard.
Please don’t be fooled by the media hype: These people did not rush the police line, did not push boundaries, or incite violence. They were punished for marching down a street, for exercising their rights, and in a country where freedom is being taken by the second, marching for freedom is a direct threat to the regime.
Please know that more than $40 million was spent on new weapons for the DNC cops; they walked the sidewalks in full riot gear. They drove up and down our city streets in paddy wagons with machine guns hanging around their necks. They stood three deep on Aug. 25, gas masks in tow, staring us down, pushing us. Whom do they protect? Whom do they serve? It is no longer us, I can tell that.
I am personally terrified and incredibly angered by what I saw and experienced. More now than ever, we must fight to keep our rights and freedoms. I saw first hand that they are violently being taken from us.
Stop the army’s invasion
A dark cloud has hung over southeastern Colorado ever since a leaked Fort Carson map revealed their plan to turn our region into a live-fire zone. The debate has focused upon the removal of ranchers from their land through the use of eminent domain.
Now Sen. Wayne Allard has proposed legislation that would prevent eminent domain, but would also give the Army the go-ahead to start buying land in phase 1A of its plan. Preventing eminent domain is important, but there are other questions.
Does the Army really need more land? Is Piñon Canyon expansion really the only alternative? What about the millions of acres at Fort Bliss?
Congress asked the Army to answer these questions. But they didn’t assume that the Army’s July report would be adequate; they added a 90-day public comment period and then a review by the Government Accountability Office. Sen. Allard needs this public input before he gives the Army a green light to buy land.
The senator should also think about transferring more private property to the military. The Constitution allows it, but only with the consent of the state. Colorado legislators have withdrawn that consent. They understand that this isn’t about private property rights, but the Pentagon using our tax dollars to buy huge hunks of our state.
Does Allard think it would be good for more Colorado communities to imitate Colorado Springs in becoming dependent upon the military-industrial complex?
Sen. Allard shouldn’t reward the Army for defying the Congressional moratorium on spending for Piñon Canyon. He should assert civilian oversight of the military and tell them, “Hold your horses until the public and the GAO have had a chance to respond to the Army’s report.” He should block the transfer of land from private, agricultural ownership to federal, military use.
Doug Holdread/Trinidad, Colo.
The public’s enemy
I went to the Public Enemy concert on Aug. 27. It was originally a charged show, but the DNC decided to pay for the concert and make it free from what I understand. The concert and Public Enemy themselves were truly terrific. However, the city police were so stupid because there were so many cops there. This is a hippie-type town, and it was a 16-and-up show so there were kids present, too. Did they think we were going to riot or something? I am glad that DNC made it free, which is great because Public Enemy does hip hop about politics and such.
The cops wouldn’t let the theater fill up all the way. They cut it off and then a ton of cops were inside the building during the concert. It meant the theater was hardly half full. Just because it’s free doesn’t mean they should cut off the people getting in. It was surely not up to the fire marshal limit.
I felt like writing this letter to the local newspaper because I was really offended. What right do they have walking around inside the concert like that with guns around all those kids? They should be ashamed. It’s funny that Public Enemy rhymes about being held back and controlled and there the cops are walking around in their concert spreading negative feelings of distrust. I could understand maybe a few police, but the number of them there was uncalled for. Really ridiculous.
Back to top