Here is another letter I wrote to the open forum of the Denver Post. It is in regards to the article on sunday entitled: CSU Gun Ban is the Right Call.
This author makes several illogical statements to fuel his false conclusions. Point one, accidental shootings might occur if students are allowed concealed weapons (with a permit). This is equivalent to claiming we should ban driving on campus because students may get in accidents. Driving accidents do happen frequently and should be punished accordingly. Gun accidents from a licensed holder rarely happen, but should be punished if they do. Second point, shooting sprees are too rare to really worry about. This is no reason to take away any persons right to defend their life. When was the last time someone accidently shot thirty people? Third point, the killer probably wouldn’t run into a gun holder, especially considering the 21 year old law. This is a good reason to repeal the law banning 18 year olds from acquiring a license. The author raises one more point worthy of addressing. Rape victims don’t need to use guns, they should use pepper spray. The idea of worrying about the offender of a crime is not only silly, but evil.
In regards to the last sentence of students not fighting back; we will.
Showing posts with label Local Issues. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Local Issues. Show all posts
Saturday, December 12, 2009
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Denver International Airport Monster
The government rarely gets anything right. In 1992 the Denver government continued the many millennium long failure of projects done in the name of the ‘public.’ The monstrosity I am referring to is the blue mustang located outside of the Denver International Airport. This project was commissioned to artist Luis Jimenez 17 years ago for $300,000. In a normal laissez-faire deal Jimenez would have to prove his artistic work to people actually interested in the money, since of course it would be their own. Instead, the government, with its deep pockets was issuing the money. There was no artistic ‘objectivity’ in their evaluation. More than likely Jimenez was merely adequate at filling out forms and meeting the right sorts of government cronies in order to procreate this savagely grotesque horse from his mind into the real world.
There is currently a quite popular facebook site called byebyebluemustang.com, where thousands of denverites and others have voiced their dissent. The site is full of complaints about the ‘ugliness’ of the artwork. They decry that this should not be the first thing visitors to our great city encounter.
My opponent may cry a different song. Pointing out a few facts and pulling on the emotional strings of their audience. In 2006, for instance, after spending more than twice the estimated budget, Jimenez was killed when a piece of his artwork fell on him. The Jimenez family finished the project and is adamant about keeping the horse where it stands.
The other issue, or moot point I should say, is the fact that the project was funded with municipal bonds rather than taxpayers money.
All of these points are of no consequence to the fact that the government once again misallocated scarce resources.
Although it is true that municipal bonds are issued in order to fund projects. It is also true that the projects could go to more needed venues, such as police, roads and more.
To allow the government to fund art in such a way is to make art an open forum for the pull-peddlers. This discourages true artists from even approaching the field of aesthetics. When pull-peddlers can gain the upper hand, this discourages more talented yet less social artists from attempting great work.
It is time to take art out of the realm of the ‘public’ good and into the realm of the individual good.
There is currently a quite popular facebook site called byebyebluemustang.com, where thousands of denverites and others have voiced their dissent. The site is full of complaints about the ‘ugliness’ of the artwork. They decry that this should not be the first thing visitors to our great city encounter.
My opponent may cry a different song. Pointing out a few facts and pulling on the emotional strings of their audience. In 2006, for instance, after spending more than twice the estimated budget, Jimenez was killed when a piece of his artwork fell on him. The Jimenez family finished the project and is adamant about keeping the horse where it stands.
The other issue, or moot point I should say, is the fact that the project was funded with municipal bonds rather than taxpayers money.
All of these points are of no consequence to the fact that the government once again misallocated scarce resources.
Although it is true that municipal bonds are issued in order to fund projects. It is also true that the projects could go to more needed venues, such as police, roads and more.
To allow the government to fund art in such a way is to make art an open forum for the pull-peddlers. This discourages true artists from even approaching the field of aesthetics. When pull-peddlers can gain the upper hand, this discourages more talented yet less social artists from attempting great work.
It is time to take art out of the realm of the ‘public’ good and into the realm of the individual good.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Inhale the Freedom!
Take a deep breath. Smell that? That’s the smell of tyranny. The Colorado Clean Indoor Act, passed in 2006 is now looking to go back in time 2 ½ years. There is a new proposal which will allow business’s that receive 5% (or 50k) of their income from the sale of tobacco products to be able to apply for a permit to be established as a cigar-tobacco bar.
The anti-smokers aren’t happy about this. In their world it’s somehow acceptable to force another human being to comply with their way of life. I’m a non-smoker, personally I dislike smoking immensely, I also dislike mind numbing techno beats at Rock Island, but I’m not going to pass legislation to ban their music.
It’s time these people who are supposedly looking out for the rest of us to grow up and start living their own lives, quit dragging me along. Coloradans are not so stupid that they can’t make their own decisions. If someone meanders into a bar that has smoking, yet they hate smoking, if they decide to stay for a drink wouldn’t that be their choice? Call me crazy, but I think it’s ok for people to make their own mistakes. I know plenty of people who eat too much Mcdonalds. I dare people to try and take our micky d’s away from us though
The anti-smokers aren’t happy about this. In their world it’s somehow acceptable to force another human being to comply with their way of life. I’m a non-smoker, personally I dislike smoking immensely, I also dislike mind numbing techno beats at Rock Island, but I’m not going to pass legislation to ban their music.
It’s time these people who are supposedly looking out for the rest of us to grow up and start living their own lives, quit dragging me along. Coloradans are not so stupid that they can’t make their own decisions. If someone meanders into a bar that has smoking, yet they hate smoking, if they decide to stay for a drink wouldn’t that be their choice? Call me crazy, but I think it’s ok for people to make their own mistakes. I know plenty of people who eat too much Mcdonalds. I dare people to try and take our micky d’s away from us though
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Editor of Rocky Mountain News Chooses NOT to endorse political candidate
Another article I did for the school newspaper. This one is about John Temple, Editor and Chief of the Rocky Mountain News (denver newspaper) and his decision to NOT endorse political candidates anymore. Endorsing political candidates is something that has been going on for a long time and there are many people who agree with newspapers decisions and many who disagree.
It’s curious to me that there are so many people threatening to cancel their subscription to The Rocky Mountain News, among others, simply because the editor refuses to support either candidate. Honestly, I can’t blame Mr. Temple for refusing to endorse a candidate this time around. Consider the options. Not since 1972 have we had such painfully inadequate candidates running for president. At the same time, to make accusations that endorsement is a tradition, that newspapers have a ‘duty’ to their readership is ludicrous. John Temple being the Editor, Publisher, and President of the Rocky Mountain News has every right to remain politically neutral, regardless of potential loss of readership.
In Temple’s judgment, rather than popular opinion in mass media, a newspaper’s job should focus on giving fair and balanced news, allowing the reader to decide, instead of telling them who to vote for. Temple has said:
“I don’t think fair-minded readers resent opinion per se. In fact, it’s clear that they value opinion writing a great deal. What they do resent is evidence that their newspaper is in the tank for one political party or the other. And too many reader’s tend to confuse endorsements – particularly if a majority happens to be for one party – as evidence that a newspaper is partisan as opposed to principled”
But it is the tradition for a newspaper to endorse a candidate some say. This is true, since the beginning of newspapers in America there has been endorsing of candidates. Since 1791 when the Bill of Rights took effect and newspapers jumped all over the opportunity to garner monies from political candidates to report their ‘opinions’ of their particular candidate. Newspapers were formed mainly for this purpose they were not trying to hide their opinions or endorsements, in fact the majority of readers purchased certain newspapers simply because the papers views were somewhat in line with their own. There was also a much different environment to work a newspaper in. Today readers of print papers are declining dramatically and hometown newspapers rarely have the chance to interview major candidates anymore. Whereas in the past the newspaper was the only source to get the information needed to decide. The internet, TV, and more have changed the political scene forever, as the saying goes Abraham Lincoln and FDR would never have been elected if they were interviewed on television. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing, simply a different thing. What needs to be done now is to change with the times, sticking with something just because its tradition is crazy. Just imagine if we stuck with human sacrifices just because it was tradition.
Some people may choose to cancel subscriptions, as many comments to John Temples article “Input not Endorsements” have shown may happen. Temple obviously believes the loss will be minimal and the gain will be optimal. After all as he has said the papers motto is “Give light and the people will find their own way.” He will have to find out how correct he is.
John Temple is not alone; many newspapers large and small are deciding to not endorse political candidates. Jay Rosen, chair of the Journalism department at New York University says that using “the endorsement as a tool of power is just a display of institutional chest-thumping that proclaims the civic authority of the newspaper”.
Denverites are intelligent enough to garner the facts and make their own decision. We really don’t need someone to tell us who they think is the best person for the job, just give us the facts and let us think for ourselves.
It’s curious to me that there are so many people threatening to cancel their subscription to The Rocky Mountain News, among others, simply because the editor refuses to support either candidate. Honestly, I can’t blame Mr. Temple for refusing to endorse a candidate this time around. Consider the options. Not since 1972 have we had such painfully inadequate candidates running for president. At the same time, to make accusations that endorsement is a tradition, that newspapers have a ‘duty’ to their readership is ludicrous. John Temple being the Editor, Publisher, and President of the Rocky Mountain News has every right to remain politically neutral, regardless of potential loss of readership.
In Temple’s judgment, rather than popular opinion in mass media, a newspaper’s job should focus on giving fair and balanced news, allowing the reader to decide, instead of telling them who to vote for. Temple has said:
“I don’t think fair-minded readers resent opinion per se. In fact, it’s clear that they value opinion writing a great deal. What they do resent is evidence that their newspaper is in the tank for one political party or the other. And too many reader’s tend to confuse endorsements – particularly if a majority happens to be for one party – as evidence that a newspaper is partisan as opposed to principled”
But it is the tradition for a newspaper to endorse a candidate some say. This is true, since the beginning of newspapers in America there has been endorsing of candidates. Since 1791 when the Bill of Rights took effect and newspapers jumped all over the opportunity to garner monies from political candidates to report their ‘opinions’ of their particular candidate. Newspapers were formed mainly for this purpose they were not trying to hide their opinions or endorsements, in fact the majority of readers purchased certain newspapers simply because the papers views were somewhat in line with their own. There was also a much different environment to work a newspaper in. Today readers of print papers are declining dramatically and hometown newspapers rarely have the chance to interview major candidates anymore. Whereas in the past the newspaper was the only source to get the information needed to decide. The internet, TV, and more have changed the political scene forever, as the saying goes Abraham Lincoln and FDR would never have been elected if they were interviewed on television. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing, simply a different thing. What needs to be done now is to change with the times, sticking with something just because its tradition is crazy. Just imagine if we stuck with human sacrifices just because it was tradition.
Some people may choose to cancel subscriptions, as many comments to John Temples article “Input not Endorsements” have shown may happen. Temple obviously believes the loss will be minimal and the gain will be optimal. After all as he has said the papers motto is “Give light and the people will find their own way.” He will have to find out how correct he is.
John Temple is not alone; many newspapers large and small are deciding to not endorse political candidates. Jay Rosen, chair of the Journalism department at New York University says that using “the endorsement as a tool of power is just a display of institutional chest-thumping that proclaims the civic authority of the newspaper”.
Denverites are intelligent enough to garner the facts and make their own decision. We really don’t need someone to tell us who they think is the best person for the job, just give us the facts and let us think for ourselves.
Saturday, October 11, 2008
Amendment 48 (COLORADO)
A new amendment to the colorado constitution is being proposed for the upcomming vote. Here I wrote a short (200 word) article for the school newspaper The Advocate, in a section entitled "Grief, Relief, or Beyond Belief" where three writers write three different views, mine will be (if accepted) in the Beyond Belief section
ENJOY!
"Amendment 48 seeks to define a person at the point of fertilization. This is despite the biological facts that concur with the fact this doesn’t happen until birth. The consequences of this law are to enormous and ridiculous for most people even to consider. For instance, If a person is defined at the point of fertilization in Colorado law under sections 3 (Inalienable rights), 6 (Equality of justice), and 25 (Due Process of law) any woman or doctor involved in an abortion would be subject to criminal prosecution. Including and up to the death penalty, since an abortion would be a planned murder of a person and under statute 18-3-102 of Colorado Law this would equal murder in the first degree. The thought of such draconian views may be beyond the view of most proponents of amendment 48, but it is consistent with the laws of this state and nation. To do otherwise would undermine the very legal structure in America. Even things like the morning after pill and other such post fertilization procedures would be made illegal. Although we are protected under Roe vs. Wade, the proponents of A48 wish to overturn even that. Amendment 48 is ludicrous and beyond belief!"
ENJOY!
"Amendment 48 seeks to define a person at the point of fertilization. This is despite the biological facts that concur with the fact this doesn’t happen until birth. The consequences of this law are to enormous and ridiculous for most people even to consider. For instance, If a person is defined at the point of fertilization in Colorado law under sections 3 (Inalienable rights), 6 (Equality of justice), and 25 (Due Process of law) any woman or doctor involved in an abortion would be subject to criminal prosecution. Including and up to the death penalty, since an abortion would be a planned murder of a person and under statute 18-3-102 of Colorado Law this would equal murder in the first degree. The thought of such draconian views may be beyond the view of most proponents of amendment 48, but it is consistent with the laws of this state and nation. To do otherwise would undermine the very legal structure in America. Even things like the morning after pill and other such post fertilization procedures would be made illegal. Although we are protected under Roe vs. Wade, the proponents of A48 wish to overturn even that. Amendment 48 is ludicrous and beyond belief!"
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Letter to the editor of the Denver Post
This is a short LTE (letter to the editor) I wrote to the Denver Post regarding a most common phenomenon, that of blaming any and all natural occurances on 'global warming' Here is the article in the Denver Post I replied to. http://www.denverpost.com/nationworld/ci_10374393
notice two things: 1) the first paragraph blatantly blaming the occurance on global warming. 2) the scientists never are quoted as saying it was global warming that caused it.
Here is my LTE, lets see if it gets posted or not.
LTE DENVER POST “ICE SHELF BIG AS MANHATTAN BREAKS LOOSE IN THE ARCTIC” 9/4/08
It’s important not to jump to conclusions when researching something as complex as global warming and the ‘breaking off’ of the arctic shelf. Though that’s exactly what seems to happen in most cases. When an ice shelf breaks off, which happens quite often, it is not necessarily the work of ‘global warming.’ In many cases, as NASA (among many others) have discovered, it is actually caused by variable oceanic and atmospheric currents such as the Arctic Oscillation. NASA has also admitted that not all of the large changes seen in arctic climate in recent years are a result of long-term trends towards global warming. So let us not get too worried and blame everything on global warming, let us look at the science first.
notice two things: 1) the first paragraph blatantly blaming the occurance on global warming. 2) the scientists never are quoted as saying it was global warming that caused it.
Here is my LTE, lets see if it gets posted or not.
LTE DENVER POST “ICE SHELF BIG AS MANHATTAN BREAKS LOOSE IN THE ARCTIC” 9/4/08
It’s important not to jump to conclusions when researching something as complex as global warming and the ‘breaking off’ of the arctic shelf. Though that’s exactly what seems to happen in most cases. When an ice shelf breaks off, which happens quite often, it is not necessarily the work of ‘global warming.’ In many cases, as NASA (among many others) have discovered, it is actually caused by variable oceanic and atmospheric currents such as the Arctic Oscillation. NASA has also admitted that not all of the large changes seen in arctic climate in recent years are a result of long-term trends towards global warming. So let us not get too worried and blame everything on global warming, let us look at the science first.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Pull Peddlers
Once upon a time men of great merit ruled the lands through free trade, although for a very short time. One person in his or her free will was able to trade their ideas and products with one another, very few people forcing them to do the things they did not wish to. Men were not forced to purchase or endorse items and ideals that were not what they wanted. People actually had to develop sound business tactics and have a great new product in order to make it big in business. However, we have slowly been destroying our basic tenets of capitalism and giving way to the pull peddlers. It used to be someone would have a great idea or an improvement on an old idea and would then begin to seek all the necessary financing and such needed to run the operation. If the operation was good and solid with great leadership and economic foresight it very well could last the test of time and competition, to become a great organization. Nowadays it is straight to politics for new up and coming businessmen. Men of small minds, small ideas and gigantic ambitions go to politicians on both the right and left in order to get the things they want. They say ‘I’ll bring you constituents from the environmental group if you just simply sign off on this tax subsidy’. Or, ‘I’ll help get you elected if you just push this bill to ensure my company gets first dibs at new developments and tax breaks’.
A great, or rather horrid, showing of this is a 131 foot wind turbine which is on display near the Colorado Convention Center in Denver. In an article by Andy Vuong of the Denver Post entitled “Eco-energy advocates crank up efforts” (8/26/08) He quotes several businessmen in the Denver area whom are “showing off” their new technologies, and hoping to gain political allies to help their business ideas. Sam Ley a chief designer for Boulder-based Standard Renewable Energy discusses why he wants political pull to help his business. “In a new industry like this” he says, “the only way any company can survive is if everybody bands together.” Whatever happened to ‘may the best man win’? Capitalism is all about selling a superb product to the customer, if said customer is uninterested they will likely go elsewhere. In a free market renewable energy would actually have to prove its merit to their customers. Unfortunately, what we have now is far from a free market. With congress blocking the road to energy independence through offshore drilling, with politicians and the media alike misinforming the public about oil drilling on currently owned leases, and with a ever confused population, we have a very uncertain future. What we need now more than ever to save us is capitalism, what we need are those ‘greedy’ businessmen to step in and develop the energy sources we have available and ‘exploit’ the resources in order to make a dollar and provide us with outstanding products at a low price. That’s idealistic people would tell me. The businessmen would only be after their mighty dollar and neglect the public. But, to neglect the public would be to neglect the almighty dollar. If we were to have all energy be completely free, which means no subsidies to big oil or little renewable energy sources, also if we were to allow drilling in ANWR and off our coasts as well as lifting any and all environmental bans we would see a torrent of new energy supplies and we would see what the people really wanted. My guess would be the people would want nuclear energy, the safest, cheapest and all round most productive energy source available to us now. Even if we just slowly lifted bans off of our energy market we would still be light years ahead of the rest of the world. America would do what America does best, stand alone. We don’t need pull peddlers like Ron Lehr of the American Wind Energy Association who was quoted in Mr. Vuong’s article, at the Democratic National Convention in Denver, that securing political favor is a part of this week’s efforts!
Bring back the men of merit the men who built railroads (without political help) the men who built skyscrapers, eradicated many diseases, built the first planes, jets and so on. America doesn’t need people like Sam Ley, what America needs are the Bill Gates, Michael Dells, J.P Morgan’s, Andrew Carnegies, what America needs is a Rockefeller.
A great, or rather horrid, showing of this is a 131 foot wind turbine which is on display near the Colorado Convention Center in Denver. In an article by Andy Vuong of the Denver Post entitled “Eco-energy advocates crank up efforts” (8/26/08) He quotes several businessmen in the Denver area whom are “showing off” their new technologies, and hoping to gain political allies to help their business ideas. Sam Ley a chief designer for Boulder-based Standard Renewable Energy discusses why he wants political pull to help his business. “In a new industry like this” he says, “the only way any company can survive is if everybody bands together.” Whatever happened to ‘may the best man win’? Capitalism is all about selling a superb product to the customer, if said customer is uninterested they will likely go elsewhere. In a free market renewable energy would actually have to prove its merit to their customers. Unfortunately, what we have now is far from a free market. With congress blocking the road to energy independence through offshore drilling, with politicians and the media alike misinforming the public about oil drilling on currently owned leases, and with a ever confused population, we have a very uncertain future. What we need now more than ever to save us is capitalism, what we need are those ‘greedy’ businessmen to step in and develop the energy sources we have available and ‘exploit’ the resources in order to make a dollar and provide us with outstanding products at a low price. That’s idealistic people would tell me. The businessmen would only be after their mighty dollar and neglect the public. But, to neglect the public would be to neglect the almighty dollar. If we were to have all energy be completely free, which means no subsidies to big oil or little renewable energy sources, also if we were to allow drilling in ANWR and off our coasts as well as lifting any and all environmental bans we would see a torrent of new energy supplies and we would see what the people really wanted. My guess would be the people would want nuclear energy, the safest, cheapest and all round most productive energy source available to us now. Even if we just slowly lifted bans off of our energy market we would still be light years ahead of the rest of the world. America would do what America does best, stand alone. We don’t need pull peddlers like Ron Lehr of the American Wind Energy Association who was quoted in Mr. Vuong’s article, at the Democratic National Convention in Denver, that securing political favor is a part of this week’s efforts!
Bring back the men of merit the men who built railroads (without political help) the men who built skyscrapers, eradicated many diseases, built the first planes, jets and so on. America doesn’t need people like Sam Ley, what America needs are the Bill Gates, Michael Dells, J.P Morgan’s, Andrew Carnegies, what America needs is a Rockefeller.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)