Letter to the editor of the Denver Post 12/08/09

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.

LTE to Denver Post 12/06/09

Here is another Letter to the Editor I wrote to the Denver Post in their Open Forum section (unpublished). The title of the article I addressed was "We all Pay the Price for Obesity, Diabetes."
The article is about the growing problem of diabetes and obesity in America.

The author never addresses an actual solution; he simply spews out arbitrary stats and hides his agenda behind his supposed ‘good intentions.’ After all, who wouldn’t want to lower diabetes in America, especially in our children? Yet, look closer and it is clear this author simply wishes to enforce the way he believes we should all live our lives. The fact that costs will go up – because of government mandates, Medicare and Medicaid – is why we must do something, as the author postulates. The author does allude to a personal responsibility we all have to ourselves, but fails to connect that idea to the principle of individual’s rights.

The fact that we are paying people to lead unhealthy lives is the real problem. Begin to rid our nation of the thousands of government intervention in the medical industry, and we will begin to see people take responsibility for their lives. Nothing will get people thinking more about their own health, than when it hits their pocketbooks.

Letter to the editor of the Denver Post 11/29/09

Below is a short LTE I wrote to the Denver Post in regards to THIS op-ed piece. The article is entitled "Salazar Right to Rebuff Critics." The article is about interior Secretary Ken Salazar position on the oil and gas industry, and critics pegging him as an anti-driller.

Be wary whenever you hear a politician claim what they are doing is for the “public good,” or for the good of the “taxpayer.” Salazar stated that trade groups don’t own public lands; taxpayers do. What exactly does that mean? Who specifically is the ‘taxpayer,’ and how does anyone know what’s best for them? An important thing to understand is that there is no such thing as a public. The public is merely made up of individuals. You cannot have a public commodity or a publicly own anything, because this concept “public” is simply an abstract term denoting a group of individuals. The question we must ask is if these policies help me as an individual?

By using this term “taxpayer” Salazar is asking for a free-for-all in his ability to trade political favors. After all, as long as he can say it is in the “public good” he can get away with almost anything. America’s constitution is designed to protect individual rights, not public rights; which is a contradiction in terms.