(Re: “Sex vs. cell phones,” In Case You Missed It, Oct. 15.) I read the snippet on “sex vs. cell phones” and wanted to point out that for many people cell phones are major avenues for foreplay. Having completed my dissertation on electronic intimacy, I can scientifically state that many people, especially those under 30, use their cell phones as the primary approach to connect both sexually and emotionally. While men can be buttered up with the bootie call sex-text, a woman’s source of sexual desire often lies in the mind. With the right digital fingering, texting turns into an electronic version of a dozen romantic roses. Next time Samsung Mobile should do a study on sex and cell phones.
Dr. Jenni Skyler/Boulder
Gang of 4C
(Re: “The gloves come off,” cover story, Oct. 1.) It seems that everyone keeps missing the point about Project LifeBridge, the Gang of 4C developers, and Councilwoman [Karen] Benker. By writing this letter, I am sure that I will be accused of being anti-Christian. That would not be true. It is untrue when it is said about Ms. Benker. She is a life-long Christian and someone who gives generously of her time to do good works in this community. Thankfully, Benker stood up to the royal elite of this town: the developers, the Longmont Times-Call and the “old money,” when very few others would. In her lone vote against the LifeBridge annexation, she clearly expressed her view that this would not be good for the city. I believe this was based on a fiscal analysis of the various costs to the city, vis-a-vis the overblown projections of the actual benefits from the Gang of 4C. In spite of her objections, The Project LifeBridge steamroller passed our rubber stampin’ City Council by a vote of 6-1.
Here is where the most important part of all this gets left out. I would say this is intentional by the alleged journalists in the Longmont paper. The citizens of Longmont stood up! More than 6,000 registered voters signed a petition and overturned the Longmont City Council for the first time in its history. This was a great moment for the democratic process and should never be forgotten or dismissed.
The propaganda machine would have us believe that this was a gathering of all the Christian haters in town. That would be a lie. The statistics show that in our country, a large majority of people identify themselves as being Christian. Most of the petitioners undoubtedly would share this identification. The alleged activist bloggers in our town would have us believe this is a secret attempt by “Reds” from Boulder to take over our fair city. This is also a lie that gets mindlessly repeated over and over. Most of the recent waves of peoples moving here don’t come from Boulder. They could never afford to live there in the first place.
[Stephanie] Baum’s blog
is full of misplaced vitriol as well, and the chicken guy should be
taken to task for mistaking William Wallace for the cartoon
“braveheart.” The real Wallace would surely have taken the other side,
with heads of the monarchy on the chopping block.
the citizens of Longmont rose up against their council, they did the
truly democratic (small d) thing. They asked for the annexation
question to be put on the ballot. The Gang of 4C went along. What a
better way to prove, once and for all, that they did belong in
Longmont? However, they chickened out. The Gang of 4C withdrew from the
ballot. Then comes the biggest lie of all. The Gang of 4C couldn’t work
with the current City Council and were taking their ball and going
home. But the City Council was already out of the way. This was between
the developers and the people. It is as wrong to blame the City Council
for the Gang of 4C running away, as it is wrong to blame them for the
world economic collapse. Yet it seems that some people do.
I believe that religious freedom and free speech are the cornerstones of our republic. It is just sad to see them abused so consistently, and so obviously.
Deceit made pretty
As one with a
master’s degree in mass communication research and more than 25 years
of marketing experience, I write to warn my fellow Boulderites about
the on-going Madison Avenue blitz. The Boulder Wall Street wanna-bes
(the nextin-line developers, bankers, realtors, etc.) wish to cash in
on the upcoming City Council election, and they’re hoping their slick
advertising will sway or at least confuse enough of us to make the
wrong choices come election day.
of their strategy is to appear as progressive as their opposition. For
instance, the Boulder Outdoor Coalition website looks Madison
Avenue-slick, that’s for sure. It has pretty pics of Boulder
surroundings and even lists hyperlinks of other Boulder-based outdoor
organizations, as if those groups were likewise endorsing development
over conservation. Then under the guise of a few select
“outdoor-friendly” phrases (like “Educate and Engage not Regulate and
Exclude”), they’re hoping to deceive us into thinking their
pro-development endorsements are somehow a good thing. Just the
opposite, I can assure you.
consider the money to run slick ad campaigns. You know what they look
like. The for-profit health insurance industry has spent hundreds of
millions of dollars recently, trying to deceive us into thinking that
they actually provide us with something of value beyond paperpushing
and denying health care for their own profit.
the same with the Boulder Wall Street wanna-bes: they think they can
buy Boulder with their slick, misleading advertising. On Election Day,
let them know that Boulder is not for sale. Instead, I urge you to vote
progressively for thetrue community-caring candidates: Matt Appelbaum, Macon Cowles, Tim Plass, Jyotsna Raj, Valerie Mitchell.
W. Jerry Allen/Boulder
Teach Darwin’s other beliefs
Revolution,” Buzz, Oct. 8) We are now in the bicentennial year of
Charles Darwin’s birth in 1809, and next month will mark the 150th year
since the initial publication of his book On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. Both
Darwin and his publications remain controversial, yet his theories are
taught almost as sacred scripture in our government-run schools.
If we are to teach
Darwin’s theories, we should teach more Darwin, not less. For example,
his faulty methods of scientific observation led him to conclude that
“women, though generally superior to men in moral qualities, are inferior intellectually…” (1882
letter to Caroline Kennard, emphasis mine). Darwin then followed up
with his scientific observation: “Man is more courageous… and has a more inventive genius. His brain is absolutely larger…” (emphasis mine). In Chapter 19 of Descent of Man, scientist Darwin erroneously concluded that “Man has ultimately become superior to woman” (emphasis mine). Brilliant!
regard to the topic of superior and inferior races, Darwin declared in
a Feb. 6, 1862, letter to C. Kingsley that he had observed “a good many
Barbarians and savage(s)… .” Darwin’s scientific predictions were: “It
is very true what you say about the higher races of men, when high enough, replacing & clearing
off the lower races. In 500 years how the Anglo- Saxon race will have
spread & exterminated whole nations; & in consequence how much
the Human race, viewed as a unit, will have risen in rank” (emphasis
mine). His scientific prediction was that when his white Anglo-Saxon
race killed off the “lower races,” the human race will have “risen in
racist and chauvinistic scientific theories should be taught in our
schools along with Darwin’s other writings in order that all of his
scientific and social theories may be more properly evaluated and
understood. Let us bring the dark things to the light for frank
examination. It would improve the critical thinking skills of our
propose that instead of one Darwin Bicentennial Celebration, we have an
annual “Darwinian Memorial,” fashioned after the annual Holocaust
Memorial. After all, before Karl Marx’s ideas led to the death of tens
of millions of people, Marx wanted to dedicate his book Das Kapital to
Darwin, and Adolph Hitler considered Darwin’s ideas as giving
scientific legitimacy to the Aryan race’s intended “rise in rank”
through the extermination of a “lower” race. If our children are to be
taught Darwinian theories, then the students should learn all, not a
selected few, of Darwin’s scientific teachings — let us educate, not
propagandize, our students.
Bert Robinson/Baton Rouge, La.