(Re: “Priorities, people,” ICUMI, Jan. 17.) I am not a resident of Boulder so cannot speak to the legacy of city control, but have aligned in outrage with the conscientious and right-minded citizens of Boulder and formed some impressions concerning the elk murder.
First, I saw part of a news brief featuring a Boulder police official very shortly after the incident. The official slid into a “Me ’n’ my boys will be boys, Semper Fi” mode, nonchalantly mumbling something about possibly having the codes/regs reviewed. The murder stank from the get-go, and this dismissal added unneeded stench; I interpreted the remark as an authoritative attempt to minimize and dismiss the issue. It failed.
Then in the Denver Post a contributing columnist, imaging himself the next Carl Hiaasen, submitted what he believed to be an amusing take on the murder “conspiracy” of the elk; it is probable he has now alienated his follower.
On Jan. 5 the Daily Camera printed: “One good sign for me is that there is a lot of anger here over these recent activities,” Beckner said. “It’s not like people are circling the wagons to protect people who don’t make good decisions.” I never had the idea the people were planning on circling — I did have the idea some of the police had already circled.
I have sent emails expressing my opinions to both Boulder City Council and Colorado Parks and Wildlife and received positive responses. I applaud both for their quick and thorough action and have every reason to believe Boulder will benefit from the results.
It is beyond my skills to imagine that Carter and Curnow will remain free, much less employed (in any capacity) by the City of Boulder. The citizens of Boulder have shown themselves to be thoughtful, fair, considerate, concerned, mature people — they are getting the short end of the stick when they are forced to endure public servants such as Carter and Curnow.
Nice job on the last few issues. Lots of meaty stuff.
Kevin Patrick McCarthy/via Internet
Take one more step
Thanks for the preview article on the Joan Samuelson documentary playing at the Dairy this week. (Adventure, Jan. 10.)
Still, the article reads like something journalism taken straight off a press release from the movie’s producers. With all the world-class marathoners in the Boulder area, couldn’t your reporter have found at least one local runner or coach to give a comment or two on Joan’s place in marathon history? In addition to all the world champions, world record holders, and a head coach at CU who has turned out some of our country’s best distance women, we also have Constantina Dita, Lidia Simon and Lorraine Moller … a trio of women who have won Olympic gold, silver, and bronze medals in the marathon … living right in our backyards.
Brendan Reilly/via Internet
Danish’s fallacies and cliches
Paul Danish’s “Repeal the Second Amendment? How about the First?” is a mess of logical fallacies and tired NRA clichés.
For starters, he straw-mans those calling for gun control: Aside from a single letter to the Daily Camera, no one is talking about repealing the Second Amendment, no one is talking about abolishing gun ownership. It’s a lot of demagogic hysteria whipped up by the far right, the NRA and ideologues like Danish.
Enter the second fallacy, the slippery slope: Even the tiniest bit of gun control will inevitably lead to the outlawing of all firearms; this, in turn, to a totalitarian America. The evidence is usually Nazi Germany, as seen in both Danish’s piece and the raving rightist letter “Judas Obama.” But that’s cherry-picking history. For starters, most of the developed world has stricter gun-control laws than the USA. (Not coincidentally, they also have lower gun-death rates.) Has Great Britain gone Nazi since the country banned handguns? No. Canada has stricter gun laws than we do; have they turned into a dictatorship? No. Sixteen years ago, Australia banned semi-automatic weapons; have they gone Stalinist? No. For 10 years, the USA banned assault weapons; did we lose our liberties in 1994? No. Did we suddenly see a flourishing of freedom again in 2004, when President George W. Bush let that ban lapse? No. The anti-gun-control zealots act as if “Gun control leads to totalitarianism” is an iron law of history. It isn’t.
Also, if this slippery slope is actually true, then shouldn’t the far right, neo-Nazis, the Klan, ultra-conservative vigilante groups and militias — shouldn’t they be the most ardent advocates of gun control? After all, it’ll lead to the totalitarian America they lust for, right? What we see is the opposite: American fascists are the most rabid opponents of gun control. When they rant about President Obama being a Hitler, it’s denial and projection.
Shortsighted on Bridgewater in Erie
It saddens me, my neighbors and numerous Erie citizens that the mayor and trustees call the Bridgewater Development a “win-win” for Erie. Let’s really look at what we lose by this so-called economic boom and the board’s decision to think “outside the box.”
Fact No. 1: We lose another wildlife refuge along Coal Creek and County Rd. 3. First the eagles left, then the hawks were gone, next the fox were driven out and now the coyotes will be gone. Through the decades, my wife has recorded over 50 different types of birds nesting in the wildlife refuge. Where will they go?
Fact No. 2: Our historic “Boot Hill Cemetery” will be encroached upon, surrounded by new houses and we will lose the Old West ambiance, plus in the dust of progress the great open space and its history will disappear.
Fact No. 3: We lose acres and acres of farmland now used to grow wheat and corn and, in the process, lose more farmers.
Fact No. 4: The mayor and trustees expect Erie taxpayers to subsidize this destruction of our open space by deferring $2.8 million of upfront infrastructure expense. When Erie Parkway needs to be expanded to accommodate the increase in traffic caused by the Bridgewater residents, why will the Erie taxpayers have to pay for this project? Because upfront the mayor and trustees gave this perk to the developers.
Mayor and trustees of Erie, we citizens feel your shortsighted views on the Bridgewater development are beyond thinking “outside the box” and not the “win-win” that you are trying to sell to us.
David L. Johnson/Erie