Glenwood Springs, CO Colorado
Jan Girardot supposedly just recently discovered that 980 KGLN is broadcasting a daily lineup of conservative radio programs. He claims that they are all supplied by Fox News. A small amount of research would help his angry confusion.
Only Hannity is presently associated with Fox News. Fox News and News Corp. do not own, operate or in any way control any of the radio programs aired on KGLN, including Hannity’s radio program. Sorry to burst his Fox News hate bubble.
Mr. Girardot claims by citing FCC regulations that these radio programs are “intentionally distorting,” and “rigging and slanting the news.”
I challenge him to give specific examples, not generalities.
These are opinion programs, not news. I can give at least six factually verified examples of NBC News rigging, slanting, distorting, selectively editing and doctoring audio and video in order to smear Mitt Romney and George Zimmerman. By Mr. Girardot’s own argument, then, NBC should be forced off the air.
He decries, “Where’s the fairness and balance?” If he wants that, he can start his own radio station that airs liberal radio shows. But no, he wants to forcibly remove or censor KGLN programming. That is flat out wrong.
I have an equal stake in the airwaves and I will fight his attempts at censorship. He does not have the right to not be offended. Don’t like it? Don’t tune in to KGLN. Listen to NPR or KDNK instead.
Surely Mr. Girardot is familiar with the bumper stickers commonly found on Subaru Outbacks proclaiming “Tolerance” or “Co-exist?”
Progressive liberal leftists like Mr. Girardot pretend to believe and promote these concepts. Liberals also pretend to be perennial guardians against censorship.
The reality is that liberals refuse to co-exist or be tolerant of anyone who does not march in lock step with their line of thinking and beliefs.
Mr. Girardot has proven himself to be extremely intolerant, he does not want to co-exist, and he is clearly promoting censorship.
Look up the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights and refresh your memory.
I will write the FCC as well, supporting KGLN programming.
The high degree of mental health disorders in America is one of the best arguments for a complete ban on the sale, import and transfer of semi-automatic firearms, as proposed by U.S. Sens. Feinstein and Schumer.
A 2004 study based on 2002 data found that 11 percent (roughly one in nine non-incarcerated U.S. adults) suffers from schizoid, paranoid or antisocial personality disorders. We should examine what sort of Second Amendment is appropriate in light of our high prevalence of mental health disorders.
In 1791, when we ratified the Second Amendment, guns were muzzle loading, single-shot weapons fired with a flintlock. Reloading was an eight-step process.
The balance of power between shooter and targets changed dramatically with the invention of automatic weaponry in 1887, which the military first used widely in World War I.
As opposed to 1791, today’s typical citizen has no opportunity to overwhelm or negotiate with a rogue shooter bearing a semi-automatic firearm. Can you imagine a Revolutionary-era gunman walking into a classroom with a muzzle loader and taking aim? After one shot, even a kindergarten teacher could distract or overwhelm a shooter and prevent his eight-step reloading process.
Confidently, we can say that the Founders of our Constitution never meant for the Second Amendment to stand for unfettered access to semi-automatic firearms by persons of compromised mental stability. That is not a Constitutional right. That is twisting private insanity onto the public arena with bloody, deadly consequences.
It is time for rational public debate without catchy, misleading slogans. Our world has changed since 1791, when semi-automatic firearms were not conceivable.
It is time for rational regulation in which the gun lobby (primarily funded by gun manufacturers) must explain what reasonable use semi-automatic firearms have in nonmilitary civil society. If semi-automatic firearms are only used for the pleasure of sport, it is a sport far too costly for our society, where one in nine adults suffers from serious personality disorder.
These tragedies must end – these sudden massacres in our schools, shopping districts, theatres and public arenas.
This letter is in response to the Garfield School District Re-2 email regarding Sandy Hook Elementary.
At my children’s school in particular, I have personally seen many of what I assume are parents enter the school through various doors. I have also very rarely seen an adult go to the office for a visitor’s badge unless someone happened to see them roaming the hall. Adults come and go as they please for the most part.
I see people walk in the front door and past the office every single day. Who’s to say these people have children in the school? Who’s to say they are safe?
Another point I’d like to make is regarding the statement that the offices are situated so that the parking lot and traffic can be monitored. I have been to a few schools in the district, and I have yet to find a secretary or any other staff member sitting in a position that they are able to even view the parking area. In every case, their backs are turned to windows, as they are set up to view the hall.
I have also never been asked to wear a visitor badge at any school I have visited. I often am found wandering around asking where my collection box may be. No one “must” check in, they are only requested to do so by a sign on the door.
Again, I understand the school district’s position is trying to ensure the safety of our students with this email. However, it only made me feel less sure that my kids will be OK, knowing that almost every point made does not actually take place in any case that I have seen. I am sure I am not the only parent who has seen these examples at their child’s school.
I ask the district to please remind the staff members that everyone should be following these rules that the district has set forth. Only then will the parents feel safe.
My wonderful son brought up a great point with me about how the media sensationalizes the criminal in the heinous acts our society faces. I would like to ask that this be changed.
Starting here and moving forward, I ask that only the heroes’ names be mentioned. Make the story about the hero, how and what they did when this crime happened. Take the power out of the hands of those that want to go down infamously known for taking lives. Bring about the positive to these stories in the media. Negative breeds negative. Please change how these stories are viewed.
A positive spin on all the stories would help us all to see the world in a positive light, to feel a united nation of good is all around us. Take the power away from those who would delight in seeing themselves on TV as they take lives and destroy families. Even someone who robs a convenience store. Why does that name need be known as any more than a criminal? Post his picture to find him, but never say his name as anything more than “criminal.” If this story is dealt out positively to show how the clerk scared the gunmen off, or brought about his capture, the power is in the hands of the good to all the viewers.
The families whose lives have been forever altered deserve justice for those they have lost. Anyone who has suffered tragedy at the hands of someone else deserves justice. This isn’t justice in full, but isn’t it a good start? Please do what you can to change these stories and take away the criminals’ power. Maybe it will stop a criminal in the future.
Start a dialogue, stay on topic and be civil.
If you don't follow the rules, your comment may be deleted.
The final four: Glenwood Springs police chief candidates talk policing philosophies at community meet and greet
Thirty-six candidates applied for the Glenwood Springs chief of police position. None of the candidates were from within the Glenwood Springs Police Department.