Letters to the Editor, February 21

Published February 21, 2006 at midnight

Text size

More Letters to the Editor

Beauprez consistently anti-renewable energy

Appearing three days before President Bush's visit to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden, a commentary by U.S. Rep. Bob Beauprez, who has NREL in his district, would have us believe that Beauprez is a champion of renewable energy ("President's push for renewable energy means NREL, Colorado will take the lead," Speakout, Feb. 18). The facts demonstrate that Beauprez does nothing more than give lip-service to renewable energy.

More than any other member of Congress, Beauprez has failed Colorado on two key fronts: investing in renewable energy efforts and preserving jobs for his district. Beauprez voted for the president's 2006 budget which slashed key energy research funds, leading to a $28 million decrease in the budget for NREL and dozens of layoffs.

Then Beauprez refused to join more than 100 representatives in signing a bipartisan letter urging the president to restore funding to NREL.

Beauprez's record presents a stark contrast to his editorial stance. Four times in the last year he voted against renewable energy, including a vote to block the authorization of $250 million for new energy technologies.

Fifteen times Beauprez cast votes favoring the oil industry over renewable energy concerns when amendments to the energy bill in 2005 were introduced. This might come as no surprise as Beauprez was one of the largest recipients of the millions of dollars given to candidates by the oil and gas industry in 2004.

This is Both Ways Bob at his worst. While Beauprez is suddenly moved to talk the talk on renewable energy for political gain, his votes against renewable energy speak for themselves.

Michael Huttner

Executive director, ProgressNowAction

Denver

Dems talk the talk but don't walk the walk

Speaker of the House Andrew Romanoff stated last year that his political party (Democratic) needs to be more about values and respectful of life in the womb. He recognized that many in his party and many people of goodwill were not voting Democratic because the Democratic Party was not giving any value to life inside a mother's womb. He wanted to run legislation to show America and the state of Colorado that the Democratic Party does value life in the womb as long as that life is valued by her mother.

There was a perfect opportunity for Romanoff and the Democrats to show us they do value life in the womb. House Bill 1128 carried by Rep. David Schultheis was just what Romanoff campaigned about. This bill would not stop anyone from having an abortion. Schultheis was even willing to make the language stronger to ensure abortion on demand. Yet, if a woman who was killed by someone and was carrying a child in the womb, that person could be charged with two counts of murder. This would give the child who was desired and welcomed by her mother value in our state.

Yet the Democrats, on a party-line vote, defeated this bill. So much for valuing life in the womb. Romanoff talks the talk but does not walk the walk.

The Rev. Bill Carmody

Respect Life director, Diocese of Colorado Springs

Some Muslims have just a few simple rules

A Danish paper published some tongue-in-cheek cartoons. A cartoon that, like many others, is just an opinion. However, as in the past, Muslims have gone berserk in protest. To some in the Muslim community, life and opinions follow these simple rules:

1. It is acceptable to show the executions of innocent hostages by whatever means possible, just don't ever show a fellow Muslim in a not-so-"respectable" position.

2. It is acceptable to destroy 1,500-year-old Buddah statues, just don't you dare mistreat the Quran.

3. It is OK for fellow Muslims to blow up thousands of innocent men, women and children by "suicide" bombers, but if a retaliatory strike against terrorists kills some of their own, riots will occur.

4. Finally (as of now), Judaism and Christianity can be mocked and their symbols desecrated at any given moment, but a cartoon making fun of suicide bombers and featuring the prophet Muhammad means death to those who print it.

If more Muslims would condemn the terrorists and executioners and hunt them down with as much ferocity as they exhibit in their hatred for "infidels," then maybe there would be a better chance for peace.

Nick A. Adlon

Sheridan

Defender of liberty has it exactly backward

How interesting that Daniel Pipes, professional Islamophobe and founder of Campus Watch - an organization dedicated to chilling academic freedom - should be chosen as point-guy in behalf of freedom of speech ("Drawing a line," Feb. 11).

What began last September as a right-wing Danish newspaper's effort to inflame anti-immigrant feeling in Europe has now become a vehicle commandeered by the likes of Pipes to turn a malicious provocation into a worldwide crusade to confront "Muslim hypocrisy" and "Islamic supremacism."

Having engineered an uprising among the oppressed, fearmongers like Pipes now set about urgently lecturing the rest of us on "the historically abiding Muslim imperative to subjugate non-Muslim peoples."

Reading Pipes you might think it was Muslims who'd gone on a big old smash-and-grab spree of resource and land theft against the nations of the West, not the other way 'round. But of course it wouldn't do to believe the victims of our addiction to oil and war-profiteering could be anything better than taboo-ridden savages hell-bent on our destruction.

Bruce McNaughton

Denver

Alternative sexuality abundant in nature

Letter writer Floyd Scharlemann feigns hurt feelings that his intelligence was insulted by letter writer Ben Sconvolto's assertion that homosexuality is natural and exists "throughout the animal kingdom." He cites Jane Goodall's observation that she never saw homosexual behaviors in the one species she studied as proof of his claim, and arrogantly challenges Sconvolto to "Do the research" before Sconvolto robotically repeats liberal claims.

Well, the research has been done. Biologist Bruce Bagemihl published Biological Exuberance, Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity in 1999; a 768-page documentation of alternative sexuality in more than 450 animal species: Mammals, birds, fish, lizards, amphibians, insects, worms, crustaceans, cephalopods, etc.

Like so many conservatives published in the News' letter pages who don't like facts, Scharlemann resorts to name-calling and false accusations. But facts are not liberal or conservative, and denying the truth does not improve our values.

Deborah Cotherman

Denver

State Dems, Bush jibe

I'm so elated to learn that the Colorado House Democrats are giving their stamp of approval to President Bush's open-borders illegal immigration plan ("Immigration marathon in store for lawmakers," Feb. 18).

It seems that the House Democrats and Bush are on the same page regarding this issue. I've spent many sleepless nights worried sick that House Speaker Andy Romanoff and his State, Veterans and Military Affairs Committee might get mad and totally cut off our only constant supply of poverty here in Colorado.

The next couple of weeks should prove interesting with the proposed legislation coming up for a vote regarding illegal immigration.

Jan Herron

Evergreen

Radical experiment

Regarding Bill Johnson's column advocating the untried and radical social experiment of same-sex marriage, may I respectfully dissent? ("It's straight people who threaten marriage," Feb. 3.)

The reason for lots of things described as traditional is that the concept has been tried historically and has proven to be beneficial for individuals and society at large.

Therefore, I suggest using our time and resources to support and strengthen traditional marriage and family structure.

Carol Christensen

Castle Rock

Ex-smoker defends limits on 'vile habit'

It isn't that government is trying to control smokers (James Massey's letter of Feb. 9, "Trying to control us"); rather, they are trying to ensure a safe and clean-air environment for the majority who do not smoke.

As a person who smoked from the time I was 14 until I was 39, some 11 years ago when I quit for good, I can honestly tell Massey these things:

1. I didn't comprehend the nasty, disgusting stench that emits from cigarettes.

2. I wasn't really aware that the stink stuck to me and those around me.

3. I always believed I would be the one who would escape any serious health consequences.

4. I thought I felt good most of the time, and

5. I thought it was my right to force (yes, force) everyone to accept my vile habit.

So, if Massey is currently in that denial mode, let me tell him that smokers do stink, they make others around them stink, they will feel incredible if they quit and will save money in the process, they don't have the right to pollute my air and make me ill with their smoke, and, if they keep smoking, the odds are it will kill them! Is any of that worth the lost revenue Massey claims? I think not.

As much as I wish that all Americans would cease before the product kills them, they won't. The legislation so despised by some is a confirmation from all us nonsmokers that smokers are free to ruin their own health, but not ours.

For all our sakes, please quit. Until that time, you should be free to smoke in your car, your home or perhaps in the solitude of the wilds — period.

We've had enough.

David Ruthstrom

Elizabeth

'Nanny' legislation

A recent Rocky Mountain News indicates there is a good chance that House Bill 1175 prohibiting smoking in most businesses might actually pass.

The decision to allow or prohibit smoking in a private business has always been and should continue to be the responsibility of the owner. No one is required to either work in or patronize any business.

Although I do not smoke, this bill strikes me as one of the most intrusive and stupidest pieces of "nanny" legislation in a long time. If it does pass, I trust the governor would have the good sense to veto this terrible piece of legislation.

John Dunnewald

Arvada

Defeat smoking bill 'til people better served

I wish to congratulate my state representative, Mary Hodge, for her no vote on House Bill 1175 (statewide smoking ban). She voted against the bill because it exempts casinos, where some 8,000 employees would still be exposed to secondhand smoke.

It's an outrage that casinos would be exempted from this important legislation, and points up the hypocrisy of those who voted for it. It's all right to ban patrons of neighborhood bars from smoking but not casinos? Give me a break! Been to a casino recently? You could cut the smoke with a knife.

Once again, our legislators are giving in to the wishes of the wealthy corporations that own the casinos rather than truly acting to protect the health of their employees.

I'm a musician, and I work in bars and casinos. When I come out of there, my clothes, hair and gear reek of smoke. As a nonsmoker myself, I wholeheartedly support legislation to ban smoking in public places, but this bill reeks as bad as the aforementioned smoke because it lets the casinos off the hook. Until legislators can come up with an across-the-board ban on smoking, I urge the Senate to defeat this bill, and craft legislation to give the people of Colorado what they, not the corporations, want.

Shane Paul

Brighton

Cigarette smoke at eateries unappetizing

I am supporting House Bill 1175, the "Clean Indoor Air Act," without the exemption for bars.

My husband and I really enjoy trying the new restaurants that are opening all over the Denver area. However, we are very disappointed when we walk in and smell cigarette smoke. We usually leave and go back to one of the few restaurants in Denver that has designated their entire restaurant and bar as no-smoking.

We appreciate the restaurants that have eliminated smoking in the eating area, but I wish they would realize that the smoke from the bar still permeates the entire place.

I am happy to see that Denver is flourishing and attracting top- notch chefs, but do the owners (who are often the chefs) not realize that secondhand smoke affects the very product they are selling? The flavor of a good meal is just not as appealing with a side order of cigarette smoke.

Susanne Edrington

Lakewood

Assembly amuck

I didn't realize when I helped elect our state legislators that one of their primary duties would be to pass legislation that would dictate to private citizens what they could do in their own cars, homes and businesses, not to mention putting small business owners out of business!

What's wrong with putting a sign on the door, "This is not a smoke- free establishment"?

If smoking bothers you, don't go there, don't work there or don't eat there, plain and simple. But don't tell me what I can and can't do in my own business!

M.J. Fogarty

Denver

Ban will pass burden

If the smoking ban is passed, where will the extra tax revenue come from?

The voters raised the cigarette tax for extra money and by passing the ban Colorado will now lose it. I guess that means we the taxpayer will have the added burden of the lost revenue.

I do not understand why they want to pass the ban.

Why can't everyone be entitled to a choice?

Martha L. Homiak

Aurora

Subscribe to the Rocky Mountain News