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
|
December 18-24, 2008 editorial@boulderweekly.com
• See Jim Hightower
• See Danish Plan
Do something
(Re: “Green lights not a go,” Letters, Dec. 11.) I was somewhat dismayed by the comments made by Brian Quade regarding Ithaca’s Green Light project, which was initiated as an attempt to challenge sexual assaults on the streets of a college town similar to Boulder. Not once were there any reports of the Green Light being employed as a tool by rapists, so I was taken aback by Mr. Quade’s dismissal of this program (which I did not invent). The main point is that, along with several other community-wide responses, citizens in Ithaca exhibited the will to do something about this very real evil, rather than sit back and write snide, insulting remarks about why such programs won’t work. I didn’t see any positive suggestions in your letter, Mr. Quade. Don’t you think it might be a lot more meaningful to use some creativity and adapt what has been tried by others, or are you OK with the status quo?
Gene Ira Katz / Boulder
Getting objective
(Re: “Objectively wrong,” News, Dec. 4.) I enjoyed your Dec. 4 article, “Objectively Wrong,” about what happens when journalists try to include every point of view on a subject, and end up including non-credible or wrong information. The part about the woman who included the Holocaust denier in her news story was especially poignant.
As a journalist myself, I know that although we are required to be objective, we have a lot of influence in the voices we choose to cover. I had never seen, until now, how we can harm the public by covering this wrong information.
Maybe we are coming to a time when it no longer makes sense to be objective. Maybe it makes more sense to use our words to fight for civil rights, environmental ethics, an end to hunger, and all the other facets of a healthy population and planet. I certainly appreciate Boulder Weekly’s willingness to do this.
I also really enjoyed Pamela White’s “Militant Merry Christmas.” My cousin forwarded me that same e-mail, and it was annoying.
Carol Maskus/Boulder
A mix on mixed-use
(Re: “Let the people decide on mixed-use,” Danish Plan, Dec. 4.) Bravo, Paul Danish. I have also been fighting the “Canyonization” of Boulder. We are losing the very heart and soul of our beautiful city with the enormous ugly building boom and the elimination of any of “old Boulder’s” charm. Additionally, if solar power is, indeed, the desired wave of the future, we are losing all opportunity with these megaliths blocking not only our wonderful views but our sun!
So far, two City Councils have not listened to what the people want. It is time to take the time to stop. Put a moratorium on all building, and let the citizens speak. Try to hear what we are saying.
Mikki Rainey/Boulder
I’m afraid I don’t understand the point Paul Danish was making in his most recent column on mixed-use development. There wasn’t a single mention of nuclear power.
Am I missing something here?
Eric Johnson/Lafayette
Paul Danish is becoming so out of touch with the times that I think it’s time for him to resign as a Boulder Weekly columnist and take up blogging instead. People who want to follow his ideas about mass producing community-scale nuclear power reactors and his attacks on mixed-use neighborhood development can follow his blog.
In my opinion, Paul is dead wrong on both issues. The n-reactors he describes would be only 30 percent smaller than existing ones. Anything mass-produced is going to have human error in it. Paul’s recent column on this issue looks like he simply reworded a company’s sales pitch on the topic.
On the subject of mixed-use, the Washington School issue was different. It was more about keeping neighborhood schools intact than mixed-use. In the future, like the past, kids need to be able to walk to schools in their neighborhoods. Eliminating neighborhood schools makes no sense if the community looks five to 10 years into the future. And, yes, while the mixed-use development downtown is a visual failure, that failure may be due more to lack of design oversight and a need to help new building designs fit into the existing townscape. Living, working and shopping in your own neighborhood is both an old idea and a good one.
Alexia Parks/Boulder
Offensive sexism
(Re: “Rape is complex,” Letters, Nov. 27.) I first thank the men who already wrote in response to the letter by Milos Novotny. I’d like to add three points.
The most important is the mental health of abused women. They are faced with the difficulty of not believing all men are bad, and there’s this guy telling them we all are. I don’t think you’re helping, Milos.
Second, popularity aside, the accuracy in Milos’ letter stinks. It was very offensive sexism.
Third, the squirrels in my yard, Milos, really enjoy each other, and you’d have to be blind to miss it.
Bob Winter/Boulder
Pot is protected property
Why is the press aiding and abetting the deprivation of rights under the color of law?
Millions of Americans have been arrested and their property has been seized for violating the marijuana laws.
Millions of us have the right to question the validity of these laws and are denied the right to the due process of law.
Marijuana is still illegal because the judiciary does not recognize marijuana users as persons and does not recognize marijuana as property. Only persons and property under the Constitution’s 4th and 5th Amendments are protected from unreasonable deprivation of liberty and property.
Lawyers and judges deny the enforcement of the marijuana laws affect individual rights to privacy, liberty and property secured by the 4th and 5th Amendments.
The courts claim no rights are affected by the enforcement of the marijuana laws because marijuana is not a fundamental right. Judicial review is the rational basis test, not the reasonableness standard of the 4th amendment. Reasonable criminal laws are to protect the rights of others from an individual’s activities.
This year, without review, the U.S. Supreme Court is saying that it is rational to search and seize my person, house, papers and
effects for violating the marijuana laws.
The Bill of Rights was adopted to the Constitution of the United States on Dec. 15, 1791. What happened to 4th and 5th Amendment of the Bill of Rights?
I would have to say “killed in action” in the “war on drugs” by those who take an oath to protect them.
Michael J. Dee/Windham, Maine
Back to top
|
| |
