Home / Articles / Views / Letters /  Letters | Let's all support Ibash-I
. . . . . . .
Give Through iGivefirst
Thursday, August 5,2010

Letters | Let's all support Ibash-I

Let’s all support Ibashi-I

This was a great story by David Rosdeitcher. It helps us understand a lot about street performers and about this unique and interesting personality.

Ibash-I is a valuable citizen and performer who adds enrichment to the Boulder scene. He should not be deported.

What a dreadful idea! Please keep following his case.

Ann Hayes/Boulder

Ibash-I has been a spirit guide for many years on the Pearl Street Mall. He’s guided people like my children, who are now all adults and have seen him perform many times. They heard and saw much more than just a performance. Ibash-I always talked about life and the planet and human connection. He has been one of their mentors and a strong positive influence.

Let’s all do what we can to support Ibash-I and help him to stay in Boulder.

Jeff Richey/Boulder

Story misleading at best

In response to “Economic Struggle, Ethnic Cleansing” in the July 22 edition of the Weekly (In Case You Missed It) — let me analyze the first three paragraphs that state the “new law enables racial profiling” and that, according to the Guardian UK, “Latinos are fleeing the state…” and parts of Phoenix are ghost towns almost overnight, Mexican businesses of all kinds are closed, etc.

First, racial profiling has to do with individual police men and women who choose to do it for personal reasons. They don’t need a law to give them permission. Second, why do we Americans have to have the UK Guardian tell us what is happening in one of our own states on a nationally debated topic? Is our mainstream press failing us? If it is true that areas of major Arizona cities are now “ghost towns,” that shows how serious the illegal alien problem is in pointing to the true numbers of people who are not here legally! I can’t believe a citizen of this country would abandon his/her business because of fear over racial profiling. Maybe folks who are here illegally can get business licenses, who knows?

Plus, if tens of thousands of Mexican heritage folks are fleeing the state, watch the crime rate drop quickly!

Now, as far as the term “ethnic cleansing” that is used in the article, is it ethnic cleansing when a normally white neighborhood all turns to Mexican, Asian or black when the “whites flee”? Give me a break! Hitler and the leaders of Serbia did ethnic cleansing, blacks in South Africa did ethnic cleansing against white land owners. Arizona is not performing “ethnic cleansing,” as people are leaving of their own free will and heading to other states, including Colorado, to take advantage of our social safety net programs for housing/food, schools and medical facilities, and to take jobs Americans won’t do (which are those, by the way, with millions of Americans out of work for long periods of time now?).

Thanks for listening. I always enjoy reading left-wing/progressive articles and laughing at the intellectual dishonesty and lack of critical thinking that you emote to us poor folks in hopes of enlightening us to your world view and how terrible this country is to live in!

Charlie Hanes/Louisville

Be reasonable about taxes

(Re: “Chamber is wrong,” Letters, July 22.) A major issue behind the American Revolution was taxation without representation. Now that we’ve had representation for 223 years, some like Ms. Natalie Menten want to do away with taxation, period. How nice (it might be). Just think: $10 to register a car. But do away with what little discretion or leeway state and local governments in Colorado have to continue providing crucial and necessary services, and perhaps there will be no non-U.S. highways on which to drive.

How economically efficient it would be, to be without the nasty burden of providing free public K-12 education. They got along without it in Jefferson’s time. Just don’t expect companies to relocate to a state with a poorly educated work force.

What of prisons? And law enforcement? Who needs them? When we rid ourselves of government, we’ll all be completely civil, beyond reproach, without moral mistake of societal wrong.

How do we support a viable modern Western society? First, those who can should pay. That is why it costs more today to license a BMW than a Ford Focus. If Ms. Menten could see past her hood ornament she might discover that Amendments 60 and 61, together with Proposition 101, mean, for example, goodbye affordable housing (except perhaps a few private operators such as Habitat for Humanity, Thistle, etc.). Of course, these will no longer be able to borrow money from the Colorado Housing Finance Agency, but the wealthy will willingly seed these projects, needed now more than ever.

Won’t they? What’s that? Once we’re free of “public” tyranny, all housing will be affordable? That’s easy: the majority of it will be vacant. You won’t be able to get a space on any outbound road for months if these atrocities pass, owing to the coming mass exodus.

If only these self-absorbed mavens could see that economic multipliers work in reverse, just as they do positively in times of growth. That is, for each state or local government job eliminated, more than one private-sector job will also disappear. Out-of-work persons of any kind don’t buy as many goods and services, in case she had not noticed lately.

Perhaps the businesses cited in Ms. Menten’s letter know something she doesn’t: With “60” and its cousins, business in Colorado may be free of taxation woes, but will also be freed from a little thing called demand. Austerity during contractionary times is financial suicide.

As an urban and regional planner I know how to compute fiscal impact. Ms. Menten cites a “mere” 2 percent of all government expenditures combined. Is that before or after the expected transition period, before or after many of our citizens leave? Let me make it easy: the wrath that would come is much like the enterprise or rental property that never spends anything to keep itself viable — it decays. In the case of our state (her state), that decay would likely be swift in coming, and potentially irreversible. What’s 2 percent of nothing? Another statistic without meaning.

Finally, show us the tax “increases” that hit overnight. Each TABORed non-cut, which persons of the Doug Bruce mentality consider a tax increase, is announced and subject to public hearings and, usually, a vote. Of course, Ms. Menten attends each and every budget hearing in Lakewood and Boulder, and of the Joint Budget Committee of the General Assembly. Doesn’t she?

Measures 60, 61, and 101 are definitely not worth the risk. Not even to Ms. Menten, though she apparently does not know it.

Gregory Iwan/Longmont

San Lazaro populated mostly by Hispanics

(Re: “Mobility impaired,” News, July 22.) My name is Alisa Feldman, and I would first like to commend you on your recent article about the park I live in, San Lazaro. I found that it addressed many of our residents’ issues. I did however find it interesting that you stated, “It is a neighborhood that is inhabited primarily by Caucasians, some Bosnians, and a growing number of Latinos.”

I found that statement to be false.

I’ve lived here for about two to three years, and I must say that this place is primarily inhabited by Hispanics, then some Bosnians and finally, a dwindling number of Caucasians. I don’t know why but that part of the article just bothered me because we put up with a lot of families sharing households and etc., which you do cover in the article, so I guess it seems like a contradiction to say that there are so many “illegals,” yet San Lazaro is primarily inhabited by Caucasians. That just doesn’t seem to make sense to me.

However, I am so happy that you brought so many issues to light. I think it’s wonderful that people now know what it’s truly like in this neighborhood. There are many injustices, and I think you’ve helped to make us feel like we are finally being heard.

Alisa Feldman/Boulder

Romanoff for U.S. Senate

Andrew does an ad that says he isn’t taking special interest money and that Michael is. Then Michael does an ad that says, “Andrew took PAC contributions when he was in the statehouse.”

Both statements are true. But the second one is not particularly relevant to your decision in the race.

One of these guys is going to be in the Senate (I don’t think highly of the Republican candidates). If Andrew is in the Senate, he won’t be beholden to special interests. No special interest will have helped him get there. He will just be grateful to us — the voters. If Michael wins, he will be beholden, because of the million dollars-plus he has gotten from interests like banks, oil companies, insurance and pharmaceuticals. Michael is trying to make it like virginity. You either are, or you aren’t. The truth is it’s functional. It is not about whether you once took PAC contributions. It is about whether the interests have their hooks in you now.

Another way to look at it is this.

Say you have an issue that is important to you. Let’s say it is public education. You think we should pay teachers better, fix up schools and buy new books.

(Do they still use books?) Now say your elected representative doesn’t agree with you, and doesn’t vote the way you would like. So you ask him to go on a tour of schools. He meets teachers and students. At the end of the tour he says, “OK. I think you are right. I will vote for more resources for education.” And he does. Are you mad at him because he disagreed with you earlier or are you happy that he agrees with you now?

I’m glad I have a candidate to vote for who is on the people’s side, not the money side. This is fairly simple:

1. There is too much money in politics. The wealthy interests run Washington.

2. The only way to change it is to elect candidates who don’t take the money.

3. Andrew Romanoff is the only candidate in this race not taking the money.

One, two, three. This is important.

You may never have another chance to vote for someone who doesn’t take big special interest contributions.

Ken Gordon/Boulder

Where’s all of the oil spill money?

In a highly publicized meeting with BP executives at the White House, the BushBama Administration announced a $20 billion dollar fund to fix the damage done by BP’s massive oil spill. How generous of them. There’s just one problem. There is no such fund.

Details: brasschecktv.com/page/876.html.

Victor Forsythe/Boulder

Boulder Weekly welcomes your e-mail correspondence. Letters must not exceed 400 words and should include your name, address and telephone number for verification. Addresses will not be published. We do not publish anonymous letters or those signed with pseudonyms. Letters become the property of Boulder Weekly and will be published on our website. Send letters to: letters@boulderweekly.com. Look for Boulder Weekly on the World Wide Web at: www.boulderweekly.com.
  • Currently 3.5/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
No Registration Required