Letters the week of 11/2/06

Straight-edge stereotypes

(Re: "Core History," cover story, Oct. 26.) Thank you so much for publishing these articles. It means so much to me to finally see justice done in the media. I am a straight-edge teen that loves the Denver hardcore scene, and I'm so sick of the media and authorities acting out against the participants of the culture they perceive as violent and mischievous.

I read an article from the Rocky Mountain News not so long ago about "hate-edge" kids from Salt Lake that stabbed some kid outside of a show, and they made the entire movement seem brutal and radical. Reading these articles though, about people I know, bands I listen to, cast in such a positive light was just gratifying. I work at a small venue in Centennial called Lifespot, which often hosts hardcore shows. (On Nov. 3, Rally the Fray, Speak In Vowels and Rebuild are playing.) Sox Place is, of course, the beating heart of the Denver hardcore scene, but it's picking up steam and moving out of downtown into the suburbs. It's great to see, and it's great to see media portraying it the way it is.

I go to Cherry Creek High School and was recently stopped for wearing a hoodie that had "Slut Free" across the front. I understood the security guard's reasons for stopping me, but when I removed it, she saw the shirt I was wearing underneath, which had three blood-red Xs down the front, with DRUG FREE written vertically. "Oh, is that one worse?" It stung to hear it, seeing as I was simply carrying out my First Amendment right. I started a conversation with her about the straight-edge movement, and unfortunately she had read the Rocky Mountain News article and was convinced I was a violent, angry teen. I hope she gets her hands on this article. This movement, this music, it's my life, and it really means the world to me.

I hope you revisit this topic occasionally. I look forward to any more articles on the subject. Although I would love to see some coverage of hardcore dancing in the media. It's annoying to hear people talk about it like it's a street fight, when it's just a bunch of kids having fun.

Brian/via Internet

Vote to protect the climate

For decades, Boulder has been a leader in environmental policy. The Blue Line law to preserve our mountain backdrop was an early success. Our open space program is a nationally recognized treasure. We implemented one of the first curbside recycling programs in the nation, and county voters elected to build a recycling center to move waste reduction and recycling even further along.

Now it's time for Boulder to lead in the fight against global warming. By approving measure 202, Boulder voters will enact the first voter-approved funding mechanism for greenhouse gas reduction in the nation.

Other cities have outstanding energy efficiency programs, and we'll do well to copy those strategies that work best. But the programs in other cities were implemented by city-owned utilities, or by action of city government.

Measure 202 will save us millions of dollars, while doing the right thing for the environment. It'll set an example for other cities in Colorado and around the nation.

Let's pass measure 202 on Nov. 7!

Jaime Schlomberg/Boulder

Almost everyday we read about new evidence confirming what climate scientists have been warning us for years: Global warming is real. Ice caps are melting, continents are sizzling, and weather patterns around the world are going crazy. Once ice caps really begin to melt, entire landmasses may be submerged in water.

Some 35,000 people died in European heat waves in 2003. Birds are changing their migration patterns. Hurricanes are becoming more destructive as ocean temperatures rise due to global warming. Already several abnormally destructive hurricanes have ravaged cities across the world.

This isn't some slow-moving phenomenon in the distant future. These changes are occurring alarmingly fast. As a sophomore in high school, I realize that they'll occur well within my lifetime. Think about it. Is this the future you want us to live in? Scientists have demonstrated that C02 emissions are higher than they've ever been historically and will keep shooting upwards unless we change.

So what can we do? It comes down to the decisions we make everyday.

Conserve energy around the house. Turn off lights, insulate houses, turn down the heat and use a fan instead of air conditioning.

Before you get in the car, think if there's another way to get where you're going. Can you get a ride with a friend? Can you walk, bike or take the bus? We're so lucky to live in a city built around alternative transportation.

Support officials who will devote funding to developing renewable energy and raise fuel emission standards for vehicles.

Vote for the Climate Smart Initiative 202, which will help our city fight global warming.

Natasia Poinsatte/Boulder

Vote Paccione for a change

Supporters of Marilyn Musgrave like her because she's predictable. They know what they'll get. How true. They'll get a representative who blindly backs the president on his Iraq war policy even as other Republicans admit his policy isn't working. They'll get a representative who is bankrupting our children by her fiscal irresponsibility.

And, yes, they'll get her proposal for a constitutional amendment, delivered just before the elections every two years. In other words, they'll get lip service—"hypocrisy"—what this Congress has truly been all about.

What they won't get is change in the failed policies of the one-party Washington system—a party that hasn't dealt with immigration reform, with entitlement reform, or with our failed health system. With six years as the party in control, she and her party are failures.

We desperately need a Congress that takes its responsibilities as the third branch of government seriously. In the Windsor debate, I saw in Angie Paccione the candidate who can fight for the people of the district. She has demonstrated the ability to go toe-to-toe with anyone on the critical issues. For the good of this great country, please admit that it's time for a change.

Bruce Anderson/Loveland

Clarifications on Amendment 38

(Re: "Ballot Bombardment," cover story, Oct. 19) Your thorough and generally balanced article on Amendment 38 (Petition Rights) was marred by a few errors.

The signature verification process is NOT "eliminated." Of the four paragraphs on petition rights in the one-page text, one whole paragraph is on verification only. Both governments and private parties may still protest signatures. Random sampling is still allowed to determine whether closer scrutiny by a protester is warranted.

Amendment 38 does not "restrict government officials from talking about ballot proposals." It only bans spending public funds and resources on petition campaigns. Anyone can still spend his own money and time to express his views. No one should spend tax money telling citizens which way to vote.

There is no "fine print" in the text. It is all in one type size, the same 10-point size as most newspapers. Nor is Amendment 38 a "lengthy proposal." It is one page. Compare that with the 49-page state petition manual we have now. Which is simpler?

The critic of petitions mentioned 14 issues on the ballot, but half of them came from legislators, not petitioners. There were zero petitions last year. She was inaccurate in saying we would be petitioning to vote on what books to buy. Purchases are an "administrative procedure," not a new law, and specifically exempted by existing petition law, which Amendment 38 continues.

She says a 75-word limit on ballot titles will breed "more confusion" than the 300-word monstrosities we must decipher now. That claim is absurd on its face.

At least she concedes that petitioners, not taxpayers, pay to print the forms. However, it is my opinion that her side still makes the opposite claim in its utterly false TV ads.

Her criticisms all reveal her contempt for all citizen petitions. Her blind faith in politicians and government is naïve. Readers should visit www.PRA2006.com to learn more. Then vote for Amendment 38. Give yourself the power.

Barbara Chalmers/Boulder

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