Find Local Events (pick a date)
 
Browse Boulder real estate by neighborhood, school and zip code along with other homes for sale in Colorado on COhomefinder.com
Browse Boulder real estate by neighborhood, school and zip code along with other homes for sale in Colorado on COhomefinder.com.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
Home / Articles / Views / Letters /  Letters | A moot point?
. . . . . . .
Give Through iGivefirst
Thursday, September 8,2011

Letters | A moot point?

A moot point?

I’ve been following the stories about GMO plantings, and I have a question that I’m not seeing brought up in the public debate, though I have heard it in private conversation, to wit: Isn’t the argument already a moot point, given the dispersal ratio of pollen?

That is to say, if any GM plants are planted in the county anywhere, which, indeed, they already have, has not the pollen from these GM plants already reached public land, and has it not been doing so for some time now?

If this is true, then all the posturing and posing about GMO Free Boulder is a waste of time. Please note I say “if this is true.” Is it?

Peter Johnson/Longmont

More bricks, please

(Re: “Buffs ready for Hawaii,” CU Sports, Sept. 1.) This was an engaging piece. I enjoyed reading it. I like Mr. Pronk’s writing. I hope to see more of it.

I hope to see more painted bricks in the Dal Ward Center, too.

Go Buffs! Tom May/via Internet

CU women’s sports

I can’t tell you how pleased I am that your paper has made the decision not just to cover football, but also to feature articles about the many talented women athletes at our flagship university.

While the football team through the years has brought a lot of negative press to CU, along with a few big wins and trophies, the women’s teams have performed like true student-athletes, working hard at their sports, mostly out of the limelight. They deserve every bit of coverage they receive.

Mary Roderick/Longmont

Insulting Christians

(Re: “Blame God,” In Case You Missed It, Sept. 1.) I’ve come to expect a certain level of snark from Boulder Weekly when it comes to matters of faith, but to refer to conservative Christians as the “American Taliban” was absolutely tasteless, particularly this close to the 10th anniversary of 9/11, a day when Americans died as a result of Islamist hatred. Talk about insensitive.

How you can compare American Christians with the Taliban I can’t say. Do you seriously believe there’s any moral equivalency between the average American who goes to church on Sunday and the AK-toting men of the Taliban, who are known to beat women with canes simply for appearing in public? The very idea is insulting.

You choose extremists like Pat Robertson to make your point. He doesn’t speak for most Christians and is more of an entertainer, in the business for himself and not for Christ.

But the average conservative Christian knows better than to blame human atrocities on God. Most of us are simple people trying to live biblically moral lives. Somehow that seems to offend you deeply.

We’ve buried a lot of Christian young men in the past month after Taliban fighters shot down that Chinook chopper, men who took up the challenge of defeating the Taliban to make our nation safer. You just spat on their sacrifice by comparing them to the men who took their lives.

You might ask yourself next time you want to take a swipe at Christians what you hope to gain by insulting an entire community of Americans.

Robert Gordon/Fort Collins

The battle begins (Re: “The power struggle,” Boulderganic, Aug. 15.) Thanks for your continuing coverage of the municipalization issue and Xcel. It’s a complicated topic, and I felt your writer did a good job of breaking it down for the reading public.

The arguments for and against are bound to become heated and emotional as the election nears. But as concerned as I am about the expense, known and unknown, of our city taking over Xcel’s job, do you know what will happen if the city doesn’t take the reins and push us toward a greener energy future? Nothing. I find that prospect even more frightening.

Keith Zimmerman/via Internet

GOP anti-intellectualism

I must admit the thought of Barack Obama not being re-elected or, even more importantly, that any of these Tea Party or Tea Party heavily influenced Republicans would be elected instead is rather depressing.

Additionally tragic is his having been blocked domestically by Congressional conservatives. That is to say, had he been able to assert his fairly subtle yet fairly exquisite geopolitical understanding and timing (as in the Somali pirates stand-off, the killing of Osama bin Laden and support of the Arab Spring via Libya in particular) to our domestic issues in a similarly effective way, there would of course be no question as to his re-election.

We solid Obama supporters — some of whom, including myself, are still upset with the cowardly way in which he behaved when it came to supporting labor in the crucial Madison showdown, among other things — will be out there nonetheless in order to stop the country from being taken over by people who don’t believe in some of the intellectual basis of our modern societies, from Darwin’s theory of evolution (ergo science itself, some would say) to global warming. [They] will go to great lengths to alter the facts in general to fit some of their more outlandish claims, which is an even more frightening proposition. And there is no need for my even beginning to list some of those different claims or various interpretations of reality because one can just listen to the leading Republican candidates do so themselves. Anti-intellectualism, along with anti-technologically sophisticated and well-trained people will, indeed, have us falling out of first place for real if we keep it up.

Grant Cyrus/Boulder

Remember Osama

Don’t forget in November: Republican Bush ignored August 2001 intelligence, Osama got us, then Bush let him go.

Democrat Obama acted on August 2010 intelligence, we got Osama, and we took his body.

So who’s better at defending our country next year?

J. Andrew Smith/Bloomfield, N.J.

[ Boulder Weekly welcomes your e-mail correspondence. Letters must not exceed 400 words and should include your name, address and telephone number for verification. Addresses will not be published. We do not publish anonymous letters or those signed with pseudonyms. Letters become the property of Boulder Weekly and will be published on our website. Send letters to: letters@boulderweekly.com. Look for Boulder Weekly on the World Wide Web at: www.boulderweekly. com. Boulder Weekly ]
  • Currently 3.5/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
POST A COMMENT
No Registration Required
 
Close
Close