Vote YES on Proposition 103
Thank you for publishing your excellent Boulder Weekly edition of voter information. I always look forward to reading this section because I can’t seem to find good information on the candidates and issues facing Boulder voters that is so well-compiled anywhere else.
I was particularly glad that you recommended voting “yes” on Proposition 103, which could provide some budget relief by raising income and sales tax slightly for five years to fund K-12 budgets, as well as those of public colleges. Revenue forecasts last September showed that the state will continue to make hefty cuts to K-12 education to balance its budget.
These cuts will impact school districts throughout Colorado. Voting “yes” on Proposition 103 will help to offset some of those state budget cuts and enable all Colorado students attending public schools and public colleges to not be so adversely affected. This year K-12 took a $228 million cut, and the same is probable for next year.
Forget Wall Street
(Re: “Occupy yourself,” Uncensored, Oct. 13) Awesome article! Definitely, the key is relocalizing our communities — local currencies, the whole damn enchilada. At the time of the Civil War, there were more than 300 local currencies in the U.S. Check out the Slow Money movement. Suggest that people invest in the local organic farms all around Boulder County, and when the U.S. dollar economy falls, we’ll have food locally, and if we all can eat and have water, we’ll build our local communities and won’t care if Wall Street goes to hell (not that we care anyway)! Thank you much!
Tom Wells/via Internet
Danish off on personhood
(Re: “Banning corporate personhood would destroy U.S. economy,” Danish Plan, Aug. 11.) People should vote for the best candidate for them without being subjected to endless corporately motivated and biased ads brainwashing people into believing whatever it is the corporations want them to believe, period. Citizens United is a clear attempt to foil this beautiful element of democracy, not (as you put it) “... rig American election laws in their [the Democrats’] favor.” Unless of course you (correctly) realize that thoughtful, well-informed voting is a trait common these days only to the Democratic side of the voters.
Your argument for the case of corporate personhood is completely contradictory and ludicrous, not to mention reminiscent of the insane rightwing B.S. that has convinced the easily brainwashed people of this country to buy into the corporate takeover and gotten this country into such a mess in the first place.
First of all, there is currently no debtors prison in America ... and there hasn’t been in 178 years. Although way to use fear tactics of non-existent threats to support your point.
You make the claim that corporate personhood is at the root of the American economic system, however, need I remind you of the current state of the American economy? Our government is currently $14.3 trillion (and counting) in debt to foreign investors (fact: a vast majority of this thanks to our former Republican presidents). Most banks in this country and possibly the rest of the world would have failed if the government hadn’t “stepped in” and decided to put the burden of fiscal irresponsibility of Wall Street on the taxpayers’ backs. Inflation and unemployment are through the roof; we have no speakable health care in this country; and apparently to you, all of this is indicative of a healthy financial and corporate system that is functioning as it should, without the need for reform. You want us to feel sorry for these “poor” corporations who clearly have no concern for anything but their own balance sheets because they might lose personhood and actually be held accountable for their actions, while all along, the only ones held accountable (so far) for these incredibly irresponsible (not to mention in many cases illegal) decisions being made on Wall Street are the people (the ones who have undeniable personal rights), the homeowners who did stake their credits, names and lives on the decisions these criminals were making on Wall Street, and the ones who eventually did end up losing all of this in the end because of decisions that were made out of reckless greed.
I would present the possibility that maybe increased accountability is in order in the financial sector and, furthermore, that these corporations have no right to stand as human beings. If the very people who got us into this mess in the first place had to risk their own credit and names to create these junk investments and ARMs that they created, knowing nobody could actually pay them off, we would likely not be up a creek without a paddle the way that we are, because those gambles would never have been made.
Lastly, you poke fun at the “chorus of angry leftists” who claim that corporations run the government, but I would ask you, if George W. Bush wasn’t taking cues from the corporate oil lobbyists that he is undeniably in bed with when he got us into the joke debacle of a war in Iraq, why then did he do it? To settle a vendetta with Saddam? Or, let me guess, you actually believe that (at that time) there was a connection between Al-Qaeda and Saddam, that the 9/11 attacks were somehow connected to Saddam.
Vote Yes on 2B/2C
Some are born here, some wander here, and some choose Boulder as a place to live. We chose Boulder from a short list of progressive communities when my husband joined me in retirement last May. We feel good about finally having choices regarding recycling, opportunities to eat a healthy diet and finally being able to use public transportation and our recumbent trikes to reduce our carbon impact. Is the public transportation perfect? No, but it’s much better than we have experienced elsewhere, and we can work toward making it better.
We like Boulder because people here are thinking about important issues and working toward solutions. I’ll restate that: People think about issues here, and a core of people are willing to work toward solutions. In Boulder, these solutions have a chance of success regardless of huge industry money behind the status quo.
The Boulder municipal utility initiative is a case in point. We support it and are willing to work toward it. We fully expect that citizens here will consider the issue carefully before they cast their votes. Give progress a chance, and vote “yes” on 2B and 2C. Our quality of life and that of our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren depend on the decisions we make now.
Linda Hollingsworth/via Internet
A clear look at 2B/2C
Biases have clouded the debate concerning Boulder’s potential municipalization. Advocacy groups and special interests have flooded the airwaves, newspapers and public forums with emphatic articulations supporting their cause. As a result, information necessary to cast a reasoned and educated vote has fallen by the wayside. This is why the CU Energy Club, the university’s second-largest student group, is hosting an informational forum for students and the public on Oct. 25.
Like the majority of Boulder’s residents, CU Energy wants sources of clean energy to play a greater role in Boulder’s energy supply. However, municipalization is a complicated issue that requires both consideration and balancing of multiple factors. Voting on this issue is too important to be based on biased arguments or pamphlets from Xcel or renewable advocacy groups. Therefore, we have tried to create an unbiased and objective forum to present essential information from both sides. Rather than holding a debate, we are hosting relatively unbiased energy experts who can explain the operations, economics, environmental impacts and governance that a municipal energy system would entail. No panelist will have a vested interest or have publicly advocated for one side or the other. This forum will be an information session rather than an adversarial debate.
The CU Energy Club invites you to the Boulder Energy Municipalization Informational Forum at CU on Tuesday, Oct. 25. The event will be held in the Glenn Miller Ballroom from 6:30 to 8:30 p.m. Please join us for one of the final opportunities to discuss the topic before the Nov. 1 vote.
Is Hugo our next target?
Research and development for the Gerald R. Ford, the first of the Navy’s next-generation aircraft carriers, is projected to be $5 billion. Construction is estimated at $9 billion, with commissioning set for 2015. A second ship is scheduled for 2019, and a total of 10 by 2058. Skipping past the sheer impact on our federal deficit and our assumption of the role of international cop, these new carriers are, primarily, attack weapons of war, capable of both missile and air strikes. An argument against carriers is that fully outfitted and armed, each would constitute upward from $20 billion worth of investment and equipment.
Also somewhat discomfiting is that the Navy is reestablishing its 4th Fleet, headed by just such an aircraft carrier, for operations in the Caribbean “to support counter-terrorism efforts and to protect our national interests” in Central and South America, regions in which our “economic interests” have frequently run counter to sovereign governments.
Given our penchant lately for attacking prickly, independent rulers of oil-rich nations, one may question if perhaps Hugo Chavez and the oil fields of Venezuela might be next in our “counter-terrorism” sights.
Obama and tree-huggers
I know wealth is a dirty word, but the fact remains that there are only three wealth creators! Mining, farming and manufacturing. Everything else — insurance, diners, beauty shops, retail chains — lives off of those things.
Obama can talk all he wants about shovel-ready jobs, but the only way for America to survive is to be able to compete against the Chinese and others who have minimum environmental or work safety standards.
Obama and the tree-huggers have done more to impede mining, farming and manufacturing than all of our enemies in all the wars which this nation has ever had to fight!
Joseph DuPont/South Towanda, Pa
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: firstname.lastname@example.org. Look for Boulder Weekly on the World Wide Web at: www.boulderweekly. com.