Monthly Archives: November 2010

While bowing at the alter of “Politically Correct” idiocy, how far are we Americans willing to go? Must the public capitulate to the loss of 4th Amendment rights against illegal search, just because our vacuous TSA leadership says this is the only way to be “safe” on the airlines? It just isn’t true!

Our TSA safety practices revolve exclusively around finding a device, rather than identifying the terrorist. And following this approach, a “threat” has grown to include everything from a water bottle to hand lotion, having long surpassed nail clippers, and pen-knives, while we tolerate actions that elsewhere are punished as physical assault. This Administration’s leaders are actually proud to claim no bomb device has gotten past our inspections, as if depriving travelers of efficiency and even intimate personal privacy is perfectly acceptable and logical!

Meanwhile, in a far more threatening atmosphere of terrorism in Israel, our Israeli friends have perfected a fully effective security system using common sense to look for the terrorist, instead of devices, relying principally on behavioral profiling – not “racial” profiling, mind you. Whatever his skin color, the individual’s behavior is the key, so time is not wasted on 5-year-olds or elderly grandmothers, and Israeli security practices have been successfully employed for decades. Passenger lines are staggered, and prevented from bunching up to form an inviting target, and time spent to pass through all six of the security perimeters is only minutes, not hours. The use of sophisticated detection equipment is reserved for those whose behavior warrants it.

However, Israeli security personnel are extensively trained in behavioral psychology, and meticulous observation, compared to our US counterparts, who are trained to ignore levelheaded thought while tediously following written procedures on the operation of sophisticated scanners, etc., and how to “legally” invade the personal privacy of innocent individuals, looking for hidden “threats”.

This current TSA insanity will only be superseded by intelligent practices when our liberal PC fixations are replaced with more of that very rare commodity – common sense.

Don Lloyd
Boulder Continue reading →

Why not Cabral?
Why is a national search relevant?

If memory serves me correctly, recent national searches did not provide a CU President.
Hank Brown and Bruce Benson, CU’s recent past and current Presidents – both gentlemen were already right here locally in Colorado.

In addition, major searches for the current CU basketball coaches, (men and women) ended with Tad Boyle, another Colorado product, and Linda Lappe, a CU graduate and former star basketball player for the Lady Buffs.

Finally, following both a national and international search, Susan Connelly was selected as Executive Director to lead Boulder’s venerable Chautauqua Association to greater heights, and she has certainly done so most successfully! Guess where Susan came from (?) – a local Boulder County home builder, just down the road.

I originally met and visited with Brian on several occasions in the early ’80s, shortly after he returned to Boulder to join CU’s coaching staff. What a personal and humble human being! I have enjoyed watching Brian grow and develop as an assistant football coach over the past three decades. He has also turned out many outstanding performers, both on and off the gridiron. His “passion” for CU and the Buffs is unmatched!!

I believe CU’s next football coach, currently the interim coach, is far and away the logical and best choice. And again, Brian is already here in Boulder – at CU!

How about those Buffaloes – go CU and best wishes to Coach Brian Cabral.

J. Nick Madsen
Boulder Continue reading →

Shame on the Boulder police officer who wrote Francis L Sterns a $175 ticket for unknowingly parking on a bike/pedestrian path (Open Forum, 11/29/10). Wouldn’t an explanation and perhaps a warning ticket sufficed?

Charles Proudfit
Boulder Continue reading →

It’s true that we can over the fact that the courts are standing behind CU-Boulder in its efforts to get rid of Ward Churchill.

Let us not forget, however, that the verdicts to date could have gone the other way had it not been for the firm and steady hand of then acting (now permanent) Chancellor Phil DiStefano and two faculty investigating committees headed by Joe Rosse and Mimi Wesson.

Fairness and a strict adherence to the academic rules required to defrock a tenured professor – in this case, one who made a mockery of honest research – were the keys, even though the process was painfully slow.

I was CU-Boulder’s interim spokesperson at the time of the investigations and was fully aware of the enormous pressure on DiStefano to fire Churchill outright — to heck with the process and the threat of Churchill winning huge monetary damages.

Now, because of a chancellor willing to take the heat and the work of two highly competent faculty investigative committees, CU is indeed the winner. And so is higher education.

Barrie Hartman
Louisville Continue reading →

Would the decision makers responsible for selecting the new football coach consider a package deal with Coach McCartney as Head Coach – Emeritus and Brian Cabral as Assistant Head Coach?

It seems this would be a win-win for both coaches, the football program, the university and the budget, if the coaches could be convinced to do it. The idea is for Coach McCartney to “season” Coach Cabral over a period of not more than 4 years, and then turn the program over to Cabral. I can’t think of any significant down-side risks.

Bill Taggart
Boulder Continue reading →

Waking up to a beautiful Thanksgiving morning gave me pause to think about how much many of us have to be grateful for amid our world of sturm und drang. But it was a short lived moment, for as I settled into my favorite chair and opened the Camera, my peaceful thoughts turned on me. Once more, as in continuing motion, Bill McCartney’s name as being supported by “some” for the football coach position was there in non-erasable thought.

Times they are a’changing, and although we’ve come a long way in differences about gender recognition, apparently, the shadow of Sisyphus toiling his way up the Flatirons is still blocking the sun . How could those who are leading the search committee even consider the appointment of a man whose beliefs about gay people are torrid and ugly. At a news conference, in March ’92

McCartney called homosexuals “a group of people who don’t reproduce, yet want
to be compared with people who do reproduce.” Citing the Bible,he said his
“personal feeling is that there is sin involved here. ” “Homosexuals , he said,”burn with lust.”

And this is a man who would represent our university?

Kathy Arnold
Boulder Continue reading →

The Faculty Assembly of CU delivered a resolution to Chancellor DiStefano advising “that the the school hire a football coach who supports academic performance and citizenship” (Daily Camera, 11/23/10). How pathetic it is that the faculty felt it necessary to remind the administration that “Mens sana in Corpore sano” does not mean an university is defined by its athletic championships. The anxiety of the faculty is perfecly understandable. After all, the administration allowed a Nobel Laureate in physics to leave while simultaneously increasing the funding for football. It recently ignored established procedures by hiring a scholar of quesrtionable qualification as a full professor merely to be politically correct. The attempt to undo the damage made him into a poster child for academic freedom and CU into a laughing stock of the academic community.
It is clear that CU needs a change in the culture of the administration. If the Harvard faculty can oust a prominent president for
merely making a stupid politically incorrect statement, the CU faculty should attempt tot cleanse an administration which has been an embarassment to the faculty as well as to the citizens of Colorado.
A Y Sakakura
Boulder Continue reading →

In response to Richard Radcliffe’s 11/26/10 editorial, I don’t find the new TSA security procedures to be, as he stated, an “astoundingly minor inconvenience”; I believe that these types of “procedures” would be considered a felony crime in any other situation. Please note Mr. Radcliffe, this opinion in no way diminishes my deep appreciation for the great sacrifices our military personnel makes on a daily basis for our liberties.
In fact, I feel that these new screening procedures would be construed as a huge slap in the face to our military personnel who make the ultimate sacrifice for our liberties. It is a very sad day to see that the terrorist have managed to manipulate our own government into doing their dirty work for them. I’m sure they find great contentment in knowing that they are the cause of habitual sexual molestation of US citizens by our own Government in the name of “Security”. Kind of ironic eh? Patrick Henry once said “Give me Liberty or give me Death”. It obvious what option he would choose in this situation.

Sheri Hay
Erie Continue reading →

With all this passionate anger about the TSA screenings/gropings it seems strange we haven’t heard anyone suggest another possible alternative. After deciding to avoid the unknown dangers of the radiation emitting scanners, we currently have no choice but to be physically violated. Consider this…rather than being felt up and down, inside and out, by someone without your consent, you get to choose who gets intimate with you. Envision a lineup, maybe like at an old-time brothel, staffed with men and women, from whence you quickly choose your groper. As the gropee, this is surely preferable, no? They could even take tips! Imagine the transformation we would have in the nature of our TSA personnel. The currently grim security area, would become invigorating. Shoot, done right, they might even attract more paying travelers.

Ken Machalek
Boulder Continue reading →

While posturing politicians and pundits continue to pontificate about the sad state of the economy, whose fault said economy is, how to fix it, blah blah blah, no one wants to utter a word about what is really needed. Not only do we-individually and collectively- need to spend less, we need to pay more; ie. benefits have to be reduced and taxes raised. Wanna bet me re the chances of anyone buying into this?

June Warwick
Boulder Continue reading →

Editor:

So, the Erie trustees have a “feeling” that marijuana is a gateway drug? How arrogant that small-time elected officials are permitted to substitute their “feelings” for science and medicine. It is nothing but an attempt at circumventing the will of the voters. So much for going the legal way and enacting laws in a democratic manner. Officials with an ax to grind and vested interests are always ready to torpedo whatever the voters decide if it’s not in accordance with the officials’ “feelings.” It is disgraceful and undemocratic, a typical action of petty tyrants, and a cause for shame.

Richard Hode
Los Angeles, Calif. Continue reading →

With all due respect to the Camera readers who’ve recently written in to defend the new invasive TSA scanning and “groping” pat-downs, I’m compelled to point out some major flaws in their position…

First, just because they feel these scans and groping pat-downs are “no big deal,” does not mean they aren’t a big deal for others. Survivors of rape, incest or other sexual abuse, among others, can, and do, have strikingly different reactions to total strangers exposing or touching them in intimate ways.

Second, their argument assumes that airport personnel (and machines) will operate without error or deviance. We’ve already received reports to the contrary. Particularly disturbing was an in-depth radio interview of a pregnant woman who was traumatized when a TSA agent broke protocol by not first explaining the procedure, groping her in the open isle, and then proceeding to reach under her clothes to feel her breasts, buttocks and even genitals. Seriously, is this what we want for our wives, mothers and daughters?

But the biggest myth of all in this debate is that these procedures make us safer. Yet all any ‘underwear bomber’ has to do is copy what diamond and drug smugglers do every single day on commercial flights: place a powdered explosive inside a condom and into a body cavity. Alternatively, a bomb can still be placed inside checked luggage since, unlike passengers, they go largely uninspected. Furthermore, if a terrorist group really wanted to knock out an aircraft, a ground-to-air missile would work just fine. Finally, has anyone forgotten that a suitcase bomb can be carried right through the front door of any airport terminal in America and detonated BEFORE the security check?

In short, I see little evidence that x-ray scanning and groping millions of air travelers will make any of us safer against a determined terrorist or group. Clearly, it’s only one big show that invades our privacy, and further strips us of our civil liberties.

Michael Wagner
Erie Continue reading →

I am disappointed.

I had hoped that holiday travelers would opt-out of TSA pat-downs and scans, telling the government that they have crossed the line in forcing us to submit to humiliating searches, allowing strangers to touch our most private parts or view us unclothed. I had hoped that we would refuse such a degrading intrusion. Instead, we were more interested in just getting through the lines, reassuring ourselves that this is for our own good, and unwilling to spend a night in jail or pay a hefty fine to preserve a most basic right: to be secure in our persons from unreasonable searches. Freedom does not come without a price tag, and there is never a convenient time to fight for it. Once we relinquish a liberty we can never get it back.

I would rather retain my individual autonomy than subject myself to a government that promises me security in exchange for my liberty, a security that they cannot even guarantee. I was hoping other many Americans felt the same way, but I guess I was wrong.

Casey Kinnard El-Taweel
Boulder Continue reading →

Today’s challenge: Give a rational and factual argument against same-sex marriage that is not based on religious beliefs and can’t be equally applied to some opposite-sex marriages.

Example #1: “Marriage is for procreation.” This argument fails on several points. No such requirement appears in any legal basis for marriage. Also, not all heterosexual couples can or want to have children, and same-sex couples can have children.

Example #2: “Children do better in families with a male and female parent.” This is not substantially supported by research. Even if we assume that statement is true, is it grounds for not allowing a marriage? I would argue that children do better in families with parents who do not drink alcohol, so should we not allow people who drink to marry? And regardless of the “average” case, there is a wide overlap between “good” and “bad” parents among drinkers and non-drinkers just as there is a wide overlap between “good” and “bad” parents among heterosexual and homosexual parents.

Example #3: “The government would force religions to accept behavior that the religion views as immoral.” That’s not true: a church already is not required by the government to marry just any couple that wants to be married there. Perhaps it would greatly simplify things if ALL couples that wanted to have their relationship recognized by the government (and receive all the associated legal privileges) would be defined as “civil unions.” Then, each religion could define “marriage” however it sees fit without any government intrusion.

So, if no reasonable arguments can be provided, then we should recognize and all admit that opposition to same-sex marriages is invalid, irrational, and goes against our country’s founding principles of equal rights for all Americans – “We The People”.

Issue settled. Legalize it and let’s move on.

William Blent
Denver Continue reading →

Two phrases caught my attention this week.

“American Exceptionalism” is being described as our god given destiny to be the strongest most important nation on earth. This caught my attention because of all the polls I have read over the past few years that seem to indicate that America is not even in the top ten of any measure one would use to describe an advanced society. From happiness of its citizens, to healthcare outcomes, infant mortality, education and on and on we continue to lag behind. We are leaders in consumption, whether it be energy or material goods we can claim victory in our accumulation of stuff. A hollow victory perhaps?

“The Common Good” would describe a situation where the citizens of a nation would sacrifice for the benefit of all. The current debate over the Bush tax cuts illustrates how this notion of the common good has been ursurped by the idea of the more I have the less I wish to give. The question of extending unemployment insurance to millions of our fellow Americans seems like a no brainer, yet we continue to debate. Should not the wealthy or even the not so wealthy be thankful to be able to contribute more to ease the suffering of many of our unemployed and their families or provide the stimulus that could return us to exceptional status. It would not seem so!

Albert Petersen
Boulder Continue reading →

Like so many others, I object to the TSA’s recent changes in screening procedures. I am told (in no uncertain terms) that if I don’t like it, I can always choose not to fly.

Now that courthouses in Colorado are starting to use those full-body scanners, will one of you anti-privacy supporters please tell me how to opt of a court appearance?

Thanks.

Dave Blackwood
Boulder Continue reading →

In Sunday’s (11/28) Camera were were treated to “illustrations” of what Boulder might look
like today if it weren’t for all the wonderful land-use policies and regulations enacted over
the years. I found these illustrations to be humorous because they were so grossly
overstated. One example – a colossal “pro-coal” billboard spanning the tops of the first and
second flatirons – seemingly dwarfs the entire Boulder valley with a very anti-Boulder slogan.
It could at least advertise something a little more Boulder-friendly and positive … like “Go CU,
Beat the Huskers!”. I guess that ad would soon need to be changed since CU is moving to the
Pac-12. A second “feature” of that illustration was a massive telecommunications tower
seemingly sprouting from the top of the third flatiron. It looks like the “artist” simply cut the
giant Sutro tower from Twin Peaks in San Francisco and pasted it above Boulder. But the
most fantastic of all the illustrations was the last one, showing what might have been for the
Pearl Street Mall if it weren’t changed to a pedestrian mall four decades ago. The scene looks
hauntingly like Canyon Blvd., a mere 2 blocks away. But the most disturbing thing about this
illustration is its implication that, without land-use regulations, the British would have
invaded Boulder and forced us all to drive on the left side of the road. Check out that crafty
“photo illustration”! Hats off to all the city planners who have protected us from reoccupation
by those we booted out almost 230 years ago!

Dale Hurst
Lafayette Continue reading →

In order to justify benefit cuts, conservative politicians and their followers are deliberately sowing confusion about the relationship between the Federal deficit and Social Security, the most popular and effective government program in our nation’s history. The truth is Social Security has not added one dime to the Federal deficit, and claims to the contrary are flat-out false.

Social Security, by law, cannot add to the deficit. The Social Security Act of 1935 requires that funds collected via the Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) pay-roll tax, go directly into the Social Security trust fund, to be used solely to pay out benefits. By Federal law, general revenue money may not be used to pay Social Security benefits, thus prohibiting Social Security from borrowing.

The Social Security Trust Fund currently runs a $2.5 trillion surplus (www.ssa.gov) and The Economic Policy Institute estimates the surplus will grow to $4.2 trillion in 2024. With no congressional changes at all, Social Security is projected to pay 100% of benefits through 2037.

After 2037, Social Security will be able to pay 75% of benefits through 2084. The projected shortfall is the result of slower than expected wage growth, a growing share of income accruing to high income workers (above the $106,800 contribution cap), and a greater share of employee compensation being paid in the form untaxed benefits, like health insurance (www.epi.org).

The projected shortfall, still decades away, is by no means a crisis and can be corrected without cutting benefits. For example, in 1983, 10 percent of all earnings were above the cap of $106,800, and therefore not subject to the Social security payroll tax; in 2008 however, that share had grown to 16%. By eliminating the $106,800 cap, the 2037 shortfall would be fully funded for 75 years (www.prospect.org).

Another deficit falsehood is lumping Social Security’s projected shortfall with the Medicare and Medicaid debt. Social Security does not face the same dept problems as Medicare and Medicaid, because Social Security payouts are not affected by rising health care costs.

Social Security is a defined pension plan sponsored by the federal government. It belongs to the people who work hard all their lives and contribute, along with their employers, from their very first paycheck to retirement. Half of all households have no retirement savings accounts. Of those who do, 50 percent have less than $45,000 in their accounts (www.epi.org). Social Security will distribute benefits to over 53 million citizens this year and according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, lift 20 million of those out of poverty.

Grandpa and grandma’s monthly social security checks are not the reason we have a huge deficit. Social Security is under attack because its success runs counter to conservative claims that government can’t do anything good. Americans must not allow themselves to be tricked by politicians bent on cutting their Social Security retirement benefits. Now is the time to strengthen Social Security, not cut it.

Robert Pilkey, retiree
Longmont Continue reading →

Sadly, CU’s defeat at Nebraska raises the specter of a future football coach besides Brian Cabral. But Bill McCartney, said to be in consideration for the post, would certainly be the wrong choice. Although it’s reason enough that it’s been almost twenty years since he last coached, we reject McCartney as a viable candidate for reasons that run much deeper.

Previously, McCartney used his position as head coach to further an anti-gay and patriarchal political agenda. These activities are not aligned with CU’s expressed values and make him a very poor choice to represent the University of Colorado. History strongly indicates that McCartney will use his position to further his fundamentalist religious right agenda at a public school. As founder of the Promise Keepers, he actively supported Amendment 2 (an anti-gay measure later ruled unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court) and has called homosexuality an “abomination against Almighty God”—both from the CU podium while wearing a CU Buffs logo. Orders from CU Administrators did not stop McCartney’s crusading.



McCartney may be a proven winner as a football coach, but his divisive stances would not bode well for the future of the University of Colorado. As the state’s flagship public university, CU and its most visible representatives must uphold the values of this community and be inclusive of all its members.

Even discussing McCartney as a potentially viable candidate has resurrected painful memories for LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) people and their straight allies. In 1993, when the LGBT community was reeling from the passage of Amendment 2, perhaps we did not object strongly enough to McCartney’s hateful rhetoric. Today this community is much stronger —and we will respond intensely and publicly: McCartney’s hiring will not be tolerated. The University of Colorado and the larger Boulder community mean too much to us to remain silent.

Lester Wall & Jackson Dreiling
Out Boulder board members, straight allies Continue reading →

Regarding David Martosko’s piece about Thanksgiving. People are entitled to their opinions and about their food choices to a point.
I have an issue when poor food choices lead to endemic health problems, extreme animal suffering, environmental pollution, worldwide deforestation and increased health care costs. All these things affect everyone else on this planet, so then it is no longer about personal choices anymore.

I encorage readers to fill up on vegetable side dishes this Thanksgiving and to go try turkey
-free. There are numerous benefits to be found from eating more fruits and vegetables and reducing animal products in the diet. For more information, I challenge naysayers to check out WWW.earthlings.com.

Thank you and have a safe holiday.

Jen Wilson
Boulder
Continue reading →