We all love Colorado for its beauty and its wild places. It’s why we live here; it’s what keeps us healthy, happy and sane. Our national forest lands give us places to hike, bike, hunt, ski, snowmobile, fish, camp, dirt-bike or ATV.
Like so many of the people who live here, I want those places to remain free of development. And this week, it’s important that we let the Forest Service know that.
The proposed Colorado Roadless Rule falls far short of protecting Colorado’s inventoried roadless areas, with loopholes leaving room for extractive industries to build full-size roads deep into roadless areas and develop these places we love.
No matter how we like to recreate (all the above activities are allowed in inventoried roadless areas), we can all agree that our backcountry deserves protection from industrial development.
That’s why it’s important to let Forest Service managers know our backcountry deserves protection for our water, wildlife and the recreation values listed above.
Please stop by the Forest Service’s open house on the proposed Colorado Roadless Rule at the Glenwood Springs Community Center (near Target and Sports Authority) any time between 5:30 and 7:30 p.m. this Thursday, June 16, to learn about the Roadless Rule, and to let the Forest Service know that we won’t let our backcountry be left unprotected from extractive and destructive uses.
James Kellogg’s June 7 column, which advocated cutting “the combined entitlements of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid,” deserves some comment.
Those of us who are beginning to “flood into these programs,” as Mr. Kellogg describes it, have in fact been paying into these programs for our entire working lives.
Social Security is a social contract between the U.S. government and hundreds of thousands (perhaps millions) of American citizens. We’ve upheld our end of the contract, and when age or infirmity prevents us from earning our keep, many of us will need our government to honor its financial promise to us.
I notice that certain legislators – who presumably are not as dependent on these programs as the average citizen might be – and younger, 40-something politicos are quick to suggest that we old fogeys should tighten our belts and, in the interest of balancing the budget, forego our benefits. If they’re looking for noble and selfless sacrifice, then why don’t they step up to the plate?
I resent being referred to as “the real debt bomb.” I resent the term “entitlement” when it means “giveaway to elderly deadbeats.”
Make no mistake, we baby boomers are a huge social demographic. We are not all gumming our pablum in some retirement home, which most of us could not afford anyway. We expect that our government will honor its commitment to its own citizens.
Since the return of Heather McGregor as editor of the Post Independent, the commentary section is now the opinion section. All previous columnists were kept, and Mary Boland and “Right Angles” by James Kellogg were added.
Boland’s “What Do We Really Want?” is a nonclassical liberal column that, compared to Kellogg’s “Right Angles,” would be less devious if, instead of asking what we want, it was titled “Left Angles” by Mary Boland.
The Post Independent should be appreciated for adding both columnists for its readers who need to be informed of what is being thought, whether they like it or not.
“Right Angles” should appeal to the majority of American voters, Republicans, Libertarians, Tea Party and even thoughtful Democrats.
Hopefully “Right Angles” columns will cover radical environmentalism, which has inhibited production of our natural resources.
It also appears that a lecture to Opinion page writers is in order, asking them to read carefully and thoughtfully before they write, so they will not miss the relevance of what they read to current local and national events and problems.
Dooley P. Wheeler Jr.
Fred Ingelhart’s letter of June 11 mentions no facts. It is base and merely an anti-Mary Boland screed.
I couldn’t be more in agreement with Mary Boland regarding the hijacking of our democracy by corporate interests and money.
However, my problem with Mr. Ingelhart’s letter, and his disagreement, is about why he name-calls two people’s ideas “ignorant” and “dumber than wood.”
One is tempted to ask if Mr. Ingelhart’s mother would approve of him talking this way.
Editor’s note: Mr. Ingelhart’s letter crossed the line of civility that we are working to maintain on the Post Independent’s letters page. In the future, such letters will be returned to the writer for revisions.
Start a dialogue, stay on topic and be civil.
If you don't follow the rules, your comment may be deleted.