Glenwood Springs, CO Colorado
As a high school teacher, the culmination of my students’ hard work is graduation. Up until this point, my undocumented students have been given more or less the same opportunities as their documented peers.
They’ve shared classrooms, sports fields and performing arts stages. They’ve planned their futures together.
They have dreams: dreams of going to college, dreams of choosing a career that interests them, dreams of changing the world.
Yet, as of now, very few of these students are given the opportunity to make these things happen. That’s why we need the Dream Act, as well as something similar at the state level, the Colorado ASSET bill, which would allow undocumented students an affordable education and an earned pathway to citizenship.
I know it’s easier to ignore an issue when we perceive it as faceless. In this valley, this issue is not faceless. This isn’t about a mysterious group called “them”. These are kids you know. Students you have passed on the street. Students you have cheered for at local sporting events. Students who have bagged your groceries, or served your dinner, or changed your tires. Students whose names you have read on the district honor roll. Students you have probably always assumed have the same opportunities as your own children.
Each of these students has a story. Each of them has overcome obstacles and carved a place for themselves in our schools and communities. Many have been here since before they could walk or talk. This is their home. When we tell them that their dreams essentially end after high school, we’re punishing them for something that was never their decision in the first place.
Are we, as a society, willing to sacrifice the futures of an entire generation as a message to their parents? I know that I’m not. It just doesn’t feel right. We can address the immigration question without sacrificing these kids’ dreams, and I hope we do, before it’s too late. Please, call and urge those in Congress to vote in support of the DREAM Act.
Renowned physics professor Hal Lewis’s recent letter of resignation to the APS is more consistent with concern over organizational structure than science. His letter asserts a position that “global warming is a hoax,” which was paled by his claims that APS was stifling open scientific discussion.
Prof. Lewis’s emotional abstractions stemmed from reading “Climategate,” which was an unauthorized release of internally hacked e-mails. “Climategate” was nothing more than a series of private discussions on research, technologies and climate theories debated within APS for nearly two decades.
Lewis specifically focused on “global warming” as a source of concern but defends discussion of global change theories as worthy of more open scientific debate.
Lewis resigned because he wanted to continue discussing “Climategate.” APS didn’t agree based on the single theory principle. New theories are created with new technologies daily. Lewis felt he was being dismissed. Hoax hero, or dishing out organizational sour grapes?
Global warming is one theory in many scientific theories assessing the affects of global climate change, natural and manmade. Climate change economists, like Ottmar Edenhoffer, exist to research climate change for mitigating damage to economies. Economies and countries are not synonymous. Climate change research is done based on economic impacts to those who stand to lose the most monetarily. Since more than 50 percent of the world’s largest growing economies are corporations, concern isn’t necessarily related to the indigenous farmer in a Third World Country. When money talks BS walks. It’s not difficult to get a global populace – hooked on consumerism – to side with entities that place profit over people.
Global warming, global cooling, sun spots, El Nino, etc. are environmental theories debated. The reason for this research is economic mitigation. The more provocative question is how much control over our natural resources should corporations have – locally, nationally, and globally?
Elitism believes that corporations have the right to continue consumptive practices – exploiting life’s natural order and rights for the sake of profit. True elitism defends artificial order – corporate personhood – and corporate authoritarianism based on profits for a few.
Today I read in the Post Independent that Antero is allowed to increase gas wells around Battlement Mesa. I remember a legend about the frog and the scorpion. They were standing at the edge of a pond and needed to cross. The frog in the spirit of camaraderie (i.e., “Colorado is a mining state”) allows the scorpion, who can’t swim, to climb on his back. Midway in the pond the scorpion stings and kills the frog, whom in his dying breath, asks, “Why?” The scorpion replies, “It’s my nature to sting.” They both died.
It must be the same with the oil and gas companies and the locals and commissioners whom support them. Everyone would surely be affected negatively by spills, pollution and environmental degradation. Yet, they continue to support toxic frac’ing methods to retrieve gas, write-off or hide major spills, ignore air and water pollution, and downplay health and safety problems. It seems they are totally ignorant of the inevitable condition of finite resource extraction. It must be in their nature to ignore what many of us see as destroying the world’s resources, compromising our economies, poisoning our rivers and aquifers, and endangering our survival.
Support Local Journalism
Support Local Journalism
Each donation will be used exclusively for the development and creation of increased news coverage.
If you don't follow the rules, your comment may be deleted.
User Legend: Moderator Trusted User