Letters the week of 7/15/04

Fire the piper

(Re: "I am a patriot," Uncensored, July 1.) Pam, I like your style. It’s hard hitting, shake ’em up. It seems that in so many ways the apathy of this nation’s citizens is overwhelming. We were born from rebellion, yet we seem like sheep being herded by the pied piper of corporate profiteering. With Bush as a mouthpiece these soulless entities owned by global interests pervert every aspect for which this nation was meant to stand. Keep up the good work. Semper fi, blessed are the peacemakers.

Desmond Bickford/via Internet

Bush: celluloid zero

(Re: "Campaign contribution," cover story, July 1.) Since seeing Michael Moore’s movie, Fahrenheit 9/11, I have read many criticisms of it. While I agree with some of the issues raised, the whole debate over the movie misses the most important points. It is not Moore’s voice but the voices of the ordinary Americans he interviews that have continued to haunt me since I left the theater.

I hear the words of Michael Pedersen, who wondered in the last letter he wrote home before his helicopter was shot down, whether there was any purpose at all to his presence there.

I remember the soldier who, unable to look at the camera, said that a part of him died each time he killed someone. And I think about the Marine who, having served in Iraq already, said he would do anything not to return.

In discussions about the movie, I have yet to hear anyone suggest a response to these soldiers. It is devastating to imagine American soldiers risking their lives without understanding why. How will we help soldiers recover? What does it mean if soldiers are willing to risk court martial not to return to this war? What can we tell the families of the 852 soldiers who have lost their lives? These are the questions I’d like to hear answered.

Christi Greeff/via Internet

I just saw Fahrenheit 9/11 on top of reading Bushwacked by Molly Ivins and Lou DuBose. I have to think that W is probably the worst president in our history. I get a lot of agreement on that. Many others think he is great. We are really polarized, big time. My number one concern is the huge debt that Bush is growing. That is going to come crashing down one of these days, and the consequences will not be nice.

Frederick C. Sage/Boulder

Smoke this, Reagan

I have to agree with Stan White’s assessment of the Reagan years, "Jury Out on Reagan" (letters, July 1). Nancy Reagan’s simplistic "Just Say No" approach to substance use and abuse led to an explosion of big government, creating huge drug war exemptions in our precious constitutional rights. Worse, the Reagan Administration stifled research into medical marijuana, thwarting the will of the people and over two-thirds of U.S. states whose legislatures passed medical marijuana laws in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Ironically, recent research into a synthetic marijuana compound, Dronabinol, revealed significant reduction in agitation in subjects with Alzheimer’s. In addition, their caregivers reported reductions in their own stress and depression as the patient became easier to manage. It is a continuation of the same mentality that stifled research into medical marijuana that stifles research into stem cells today. The quest for knowledge should not be blocked for political reasons, because, as the Reagan situation illustrates, the unintended consequences can easily backfire.

Gary Storck/Madison, Wis.

C-word sentiments

(Re: "Cunt-roversy," Uncensored, June 24.) Pamela White’s essay was cogently argued and eloquently articulated. Excellent. For several decades women in the literary world have been attempting to legitimize the vocabulary that describes our bodies. I was using the word cunt as accurate, descriptive terminology in poems in the ’80s, as were a host of other women writers across the nation. As White states, those who are outraged by Hoffman’s analysis would help women more by embracing and transforming the word than ceding its power to misogynists.

Marilyn Krysl/Boulder

First, I agree with you that a complete housecleaning should have occurred at CU. That whole crew is tainted and not worthy of respect.

However, I disagree wholeheartedly that the C-word or any of those other words could be terms of endearment among civilized people. That is the key. The N-word isn’t used as an affection among civilized African-Americans. The C-word is held in special regard for those men and women who are beneath contempt. The B-word is very similar but to a lesser degree. One might see it used affectionately by patrons of various biker bars, but that’s about it.

I’m a recovering liberal on the mend now these 20 years. One thing I learned is that words mean things. Part of the liberal agenda is to blur and change these meanings, unless a conservative uses the wrong word. Watch out then for a double standard to apply.

Pat Desrosiers/Denver

Rocky debate

(Re: "Thanks, Access Fund," letters, June 17.) Imagine my surprise to pick up the Weekly and find myself taken to task in the letters by none other than my old friend Mark Rolofson! I feel like a celebrity.

We’ve known each other a long time, Mark, can’t you call me "Joe" rather than "Huggins"? Oh well, where to start for this round…

Your defense of Cave for its steepness and challenge is superfluous in this debate. Your description of the area as "urban" is ludicrous; look up the definition of urban. You wrote, "just because Huggins doesn’t like Cave Rock is a poor excuse not to fight for public access." Strange, I wasn’t thinking that my wishes had anything to do with the issues involved.

I’m reminding myself not to make this some kind of replay of last year’s "bolt wars." The disagreements among climbers, and you and I personally, are beside the point. The bureaucrats don’t want to close Cave, Mark; the Washoe need their beliefs respected. Puerile rebellion against the Downpresser Man might feed your identity. It doesn’t serve justice.

Joe Huggins/Boulder

Bad dogs

I presented a packet of letters to the Boulder City Council and asked them what the city’s shared liability is for the ongoing injuries to people caused by dogs off-leash. The packet of letters was from:

A mother whose child was mauled by off-leash dogs in Sanitas Valley.

A mother whose child was repeatedly harassed by off-leash dogs.

An author of hiking and natural history books whose elderly friend was injured by off-leash dogs.

A dog guardian whose dog was killed by an off-leash dog.

Two dog owners who understand the negative impacts of off-leash dogs on nature and humans.

A user of open space who has observed the damage of off-leash dogs and the failure of the "voice and sight" rule.

A renowned local naturalist who sees the damage and wonders why it is accepted.

These people represent themselves and they are not a special interest group.

If any other user group was causing problems for 60 percent of open space users and seriously degrading the experience for 28 percent, killing wildlife, injuring children and the elderly, harassing and removing wildlife from their shelters and foraging areas, trampling vegetation and creating new trails to riparian areas, spreading weeds and increasing erosion, would it be accepted? Of course not; that would be ludicrous. But for some reason we are forced to accept the negative impacts of dogs.

Dogs off-leash on open space is bad management. The national parks know it, the state parks know it, the county knows it, but we have had to go through an honorable experiment to test it for ourselves. How many times does the experiment have to fail before we reject the hypothesis, or have the unintended consequences become so severe that we wake up in a nightmare. All dogs should be leashed on open space.

Patrick Murphy/Boulder

No on GMOs

My name is Garry Sanfaçon (pronounced san-fa-sawn) and I am a Democratic candidate for Boulder County Commissioner. My opponent is Will Toor. I am writing to let readers know about my views on genetically modified organisms (GMOs). In the June 3 edition of the Boulder Weekly, Mr. Toor was quoted as saying that he is "very skeptical of allowing GMOs on open-space lands" ("Food fight," news).

I’m not skeptical at all. I am adamantly opposed to genetically engineered crops on public and private lands in Boulder County. And I will vote to ban them.

Furthermore, I believe the county should encourage more natural and sustainable approaches to agriculture. I would like to see the county provide incentives for organic farmers to operate on county-owned agricultural lands. Wouldn’t it be great if we had more organic farmers supplying local natural grocery stores and restaurants with locally grown produce?

My vision for Boulder County in 10 years is that it is the most sustainable county in the country. A critical part of reaching this goal is for our county to grow more of our food locally and to do so in an environmentally sustainable manner. The benefits are many: It supports the livelihood of local farmers, helps the local economy, provides greater self-reliance for food supplies, helps people stay connected with the food they eat and reduces packaging and transportation.

Together we can make Boulder County a leader in natural and sustainable agriculture. I hope you will consider voting for me on Aug. 10. To learn more about me and my stands on the issues visit my website at www.garryforbouldercounty.com.

Garry Sanfaçon/candidate for Boulder County Commissioner, District 1

Boulder Weekly welcomes your correspondence by mail, e-mail, in person or by facsimile transmission. Letters must not exceed 400 words and should be typewritten if possible. Include your name, address and telephone number for verification, although addresses need not be published. Send letters to Boulder Weekly Letters, 690 South Lashley Lane, Boulder, CO 80305, FAX to 303-494-2585, drop them by our office or e-mail them to: letters@boulderweekly.com

Respond: letters@boulderweekly.com