Your Letters |

Your Letters

Post Independent
Glenwood Springs, CO Colorado

I was grateful that Jan Girardot took on the task, in his May 24 letter, of educating Dick Fitzgerald about the facts of Mitt Romney’s tremendous advantages in life as the son of a business magnate and governor. When information is so wrong, one tends to think everyone knows that’s not true, but of course some don’t know.

And readers can rest assured that these facts will not change the views of Mr. Fitzgerald and many others who find facts in what they believe to be true rather than reality-based truth.

However, I think Mr. Fitzgerald’s letter of May 23 points out a bigger illusion. Mr. Fitzgerald seems to believe if Romney had started with nothing, he could be running for president today. The belief that hard work and an education can still produce income security, let alone wealth, is at the heart of what so many want to point out as all but an impossibility today.

Voices as diverse as Occupy Wall Street and Warren Buffett warn that we are no longer playing on a level playing field.

The tax code is one thing. Trying to pay off student loans on top of car loans, on top of a mortgage, with the jobs available is another; it’s a daunting task that beats back the dreams of our children and an entire unmoneyed class.

Mitt Romney had no experience with such adversity, nor will his children or probably their children. People busy with such concerns are not running for president. The inequities that the capitalistic system in its current unregulated form have created all but insure that economic injustice will also prevail in our government, and therefore for our children and probably their children.

“Predatory capitalism” explains the Romney-Bain formula, which takes money to loot or make money.

We need Wall Street regulation, and campaign finance reform, and an amendment countering Citizens United, or kiss the future of our children and our democracy goodbye.

Barb Coddington

Glenwood Springs

I guess it was inevitable. Gov. Hickenlooper is adopting President Obama’s communist concept of distributing the wealth. Those of us 65 years and older who have lived in our homes for at least 10 years will again qualify for a property tax exemption, but it is obvious from news reports that the underlying hope is that significant funding for several services aiding the elderly will result from seniors who qualify not taking the exemption.

The governor’s announcement of restoring the property tax exemption under the Older Coloradan Program prompted responses by AARP and other senior groups. They hope to persuade richer seniors to not take the exemption by telling them money that they don’t claim for themselves will go to more needy seniors, rather than back to the state’s general fund.

I have always been for needy causes, but contingent on these causes being funded appropriately. I don’t know under this new bill signed by Hickenlooper on May 22 whether or not I qualify as a rich senior, but I do know that this is not the American way.

Before asking us older Coloradans to make yet another sacrifice, why not raise the necessary funding simply by eliminating all the fraud in our welfare programs? That’s the American way.

Richard Doran


The scariest thing happened to me the evening of May 28. I was walking my dog on the bike path and a stray dog growled and charged at us.

I shooed the dog away and stomped my feet and he just kept circling us. This dog kept growling and charging for a good five minutes until something distracted him.

I walk the trail often and my husband runs on a daily basis. We see a lot of dogs off their leashes and a lot of dog poo left behind.

I recently read the May 25 article about the Glenwood Springs Police Department not tolerating dogs off their leashes and I totally agree.

I also have another idea for them. Since the nicer weather is here, we should have a police officer ride that trail at random to catch those dogs that are stray and to catch those owners who don’t pick up the poo their dogs leave behind.

To those irresponsible owners: There are dog poo bag stations posted all along the trail. Use them. That is what they are there for.

And to the owners who let their dogs run at will: You don’t know how your dog is going to react to every person or dog they come in contact with, so keep them on a leash.

Amanda Bello

Glenwood Springs

I am a devote Christian who supports homosexuals’ right to marry.

There is mounting evidence that some people are born with a homosexual disposition. We can argue whether or not they are that way because that was God’s original plan or because of a distortion of his plan, such as children born with physical deformities. But God made them and he said “that it was good.”

Readers can use the Bible to argue that God does not want homosexuals to have sex with each other. Readers can also argue that the homosexual acts that were talked about in the New Testament were acts of control and not love, normally involving an older adult and a child; the restrictions in the Old Testament are also listed right along with not having sex during a woman’s period, so do with that what you will. But we are not talking about making homosexual sex legal anyway, just marriage.

Marriage is a legal contract. Essentially it gives two people who love each other the power to look after each other and share their lives and livelihood. It is the opposite of the promiscuity that gave homosexuals a bad name in the past. Isn’t that what we should hope for for our fellow creations of God?

I think it is certainly what Jesus hopes for. It is telling that Jesus didn’t condemn or even mention homosexuality, yet he was very condemning of anyone who restricted the rights and wholeness of any, especially those who have lower standing in society.

Making homosexual marriage legal does not diminish anyone else’s marriage and it doesn’t make religious institutions marry people if they choose not to. It is a legal right, not a religious one.

I am proud that our president stood up and said that he thought that same sex couples should be able to get married, even though it will cost him votes. I figure if the leader of the free world can take that huge of a risk, I can risk voicing my opinion in the newspaper and to my congressmen.

Crystal Roney

Glenwood Springs

Stop for a minute and think about the following.

1. An American government obsessed with controlling every aspect of our lives is a greater source of terrorism then a nuclear bomb. If this current government is successful, we must think of ourselves as perpetual slaves. Nobody will ever achieve success.

2. The real 1 percent in this country are our active military and veterans who pledged their lives for this country. The majority of the other 99 percent are just along for the ride. It is the dedication of the few that gives us freedom of religion, freedom to assemble, right to a fair trial and the right to vote and much more. This segment of our population should be treated with respect.

3. How are we supposed to believe our elected officials when they constantly bombard us with fictitious economic and political rhetoric? The average citizen casts a largely empty vote to replace the devil-in-office with the devil-in-waiting and hopes that the caustic nature of power to corrupt will somehow be neutralized.

A vote this November will determine if the land of opportunity will survive. Educate yourself and do what’s right. The impact of your vote will directly affect your children’s future.

4. Do readers understand the thinking of our leaders in Washington, D.C., who are against presenting identification to vote, when we all have to have proper identification papers to board an airplane, cash a check, purchase alcohol or 100 other things?

5. If successful high income earners pay 86 percent of all personal income tax, how could they be accused by Obama of not paying their fair share by people who pay no income tax at all? And how could Obama talk about corporate greed when he attends a $35,000-a-plate fundraising dinner party?

6. The way our country has been heading during the past three years, I have to believe our founding fathers have to be rolling over in their graves.

Stan Rachesky

Glenwood Springs

Thanks to Bob Millette (“ICLEI’s sustainability message sure beats the alternative,” May 27) for beginning what I hope will be an ongoing conversation over the timeless battle between freedom and slavery. People need to be aware of what’s breeding under ICLEI’s green rug.

It is important for everyone to realize one small fact: the genesis of ICLEI and Agenda 21 are both easily tracked to the United Nations. I don’t think the UN was anticipating the uprising that has occurred here at home, having carefully concealed their agenda in plain sight for over 20 years.

Remember, the UN is all about the ultimate genocide of freedom — the coup of all coups – with too many willing (and currently free) Americans mesmerized by the promise of its green utopia.

For the legions of ICLEI faithful, google the “UN map” and explain the almost total absence of human habitation in say, Colorado, which ends up being one huge conservation easement, and, Colorado, along with the rest of our nation, appearing devoid of any of its hallmarks of freedom, liberty and private property rights.

For those who are curious, google Agenda 21 for Dummies to get started. For the rest of us who are suddenly awake, we’ll continue this alert as long as free expression allows.

Betty Scranton

Glenwood Springs

Why is it that when the debate about legalizing drugs is mentioned, the drug war card is played? That’s because it’s a crutch. Now that it is out, let us address it.

Yes, America is encouraging other countries to participate in the drug war, with $40 trillion spent since 1971. In 2010 alone, the U.S. government spent $15 billion. The reason those laws were passed is because drugs were killing Americans. With the first laws passed in 1885, this is not just a 40-year-old issue.

Those are facts. Let’s look at a few others.

My original letter of May 19 was about the real potential in human lives lost. I compared it to the very real and highly used drug, alcohol. I used that baseline to show the ever-so-likely outcome we would experience if we legalized drugs. I pointed out that all of the negative criminal impacts will not go away.

Mr. Kirchenwitz, in his May 24 response, commented that “any drug use in and of itself is generally non-violent.” I suggest he ask any law enforcement officer who has ever had to deal with a violent suspect what was driving the destructive intent. Most will respond with drug use or alcohol.

Remember, drug usage is still currently at a low level. Legalization will only increase the number of addictions due to easier access.

Continuing with my comparison, the annual national costs of alcohol abuse is staggering. In 1998, it was $198 billion a year. The National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism estimates a 25 percent increase every five years. That makes the 2012 numbers roughly $370 billion. Again, the only difference is what substance is used.

Billions and trillions are really big numbers. It is all spent and will continue to be spent. It’s $15 billion ounce of prevention vs. a $370 billion pound of cure. It’s a reality, Mr. Kirchenwitz.

People are ignoring the risks and I am saddened to know that they, in their current drug-induced haze, are happy with the number of deaths that will continue to rise once it’s legalized.

Zell Zordel

New Castle

Shame on the Post Independent for publishing Mike Johnson’s letter of May 26. Mr. Johnson, of De Beque, asked the rhetorical question, “Can anyone explain to me why the illegal-undocumented aliens get all the welfare and assistance they need?”

Undocumented aliens do not receive food stamps, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), Medicare, Medicaid, Children’s Health Insurance Program, Section 8 Housing, Social Security or SSI. (Source: Guide to Immigrant Eligibility for Federal Programs, 2002, National Immigration Law Center, as updated by NILC Oct. 2011.)

Any rational resolution of our immigration debate is retarded when the paper publishes letters that use inflammatory and false facts. I thought the editor had the ultimate responsibility for what runs in the newspaper. If you are going to persist in permitting people to publish demonstrably false factual information, how about printing a correction under the letter?

Ted Hess

Glenwood Springs

Editor’s note: The Post Independent offers a forum for diverse opinions on this page. We do reject some letters that contain incorrect information, but other letters blur the line between fact, perception and opinion. We encourage our letter-writers to respond and correct what they see as errors.

Support Local Journalism

Support Local Journalism

Readers around Glenwood Springs and Garfield County make the Post Independent’s work possible. Your financial contribution supports our efforts to deliver quality, locally relevant journalism.

Now more than ever, your support is critical to help us keep our community informed about the evolving coronavirus pandemic and the impact it is having locally. Every contribution, however large or small, will make a difference.

Each donation will be used exclusively for the development and creation of increased news coverage.


Start a dialogue, stay on topic and be civil.
If you don't follow the rules, your comment may be deleted.

User Legend: iconModerator iconTrusted User