E-mail letters, Dec. 1, 2010
Obeying speed limits eliminates speed traps
In response to Mr. Langhorn’s concerns about the speed traps he encountered. We, too, traveled through Delta and Montrose over the Thanksagiving weekend. I am quite familiar with the speed traps to which he refers. I have found these areas to be well marked as to the speed limits, with plenty of time to slow down to meet the new speed. I have, also, been passed by cars being driven by people who feel that the speed limits must apply only to other drivers.
In addition to the speed trap(s) on North Avenue, I can only hope that our police department continues their enforcement there, as well as the parkway. I would like to suggest a couple of other traps. Northbound
Redlands Parkway where it expands to four lanes and 24 Road north of F Road (Patterson).
I think that our police enforcing traffic laws shows well for the cities they serve. If Mr. Langford and other speeders would use their brain as the governing organ rather than the right foot when they drive there would be no speed traps.
ROBERT D. ANDERSEN
Safety is preferable to public image
This is in response to Jim Langford’s letter to the editor on Dec.: The letter “Speed traps harm local image” leads me to believe that he and others who agree with him need a reality check.
These “traps” are there because people speed. It is a safety issue not an image issue. Speed kills and/or hurts people when they have a traffic incident. Police officers are there to enforce our laws which are meant to help maintain safety for all drivers.
I would prefer having police officers be enforcing the laws rather than having an officer giving a talk on safety. I am sure you know they can and do both. How many drug runners or violent offenders or illegal
aliens are caught when our traffic laws are enforced including speeding? I applaud our police officers for “stopping an average-looking family man” for speeding. Maybe his family is a lot safer now because he was stopped for speeding.
Grand Junction has five or six officers who are assigned to traffic enforcement. They respond to our calls about speeders, folks running red lights or stop signs as well as investigating and responding to all vehicle incidents. Mr. Langford should check with the city traffic engineers as to why the Riverside Parkway speed limit is set as it is. It has everything to do with traffic flow and left hand turns off the parkway onto other access points, not how fast you think you should be able to travel on the parkway.
It seems to me that Mr. Langford should be more concerned with his speed rather than how many speed traps there are.
I was recently stopped on I-25 speeding 15 miles over the limit. It was not the speed trap that got me the ticket. It was my disregard for the law. I paid and I will learn. I prefer safety enforcement versus public image.
Columnist is wrong about new START Treaty
Charles Krauthammer, with Washington Post Writers Group, is presented by The Daily Sentinel as an intellectual, yet his views on the new START Treaty presents him more as a crazy republican ideologue.
“Good grief,” he says, the START treaty has no priority and is currently useless. Then he claims, “arms control are not necessary.” Pretty naive for an intelligent man. Any reduction in nukes is good for the economies of the world. How many have gone hungry for the sake of nukes both here in the United States and in other parts of the world? Check what is happening in Iran and Korea. How many millions are impoverished their for the sake of nukes?
Krauthammer begins to write stupidly when he says that in post Soviet times, the Russians are no longer a threat. He suggests that if the Russians want to spend themselves into a penury creating a bloated arsenal, they should do it. It doesn’t take much to realize that as nuclear arsenals increase the more likely their use and the more likely the sale of such weaponry to other countries. It only takes one rogue nuclear bombing to create havoc and great suffering in the world.
Krauthammer says that Obama insists that the new START Treaty is important as a step toward his dream as a nuclear free world. “Where does one begin?” he asks. Dumb question for an intellectual. You have to begin by getting rid of two, ten, a thousand and then more. But why does he assume the extreme? Nuclear-free may be a wonderful ideal, but not likely and he knows this. “A world without nukes would be the ultimate nightmare”, he claims.
If we get rid of our nukes, the outlaws, the crazies, the rogues and psychopaths will have them. Again he argues the extreme to make his argument. This is tiring. He continues saying that the new START Treaty is 90 percent useless and 10 percent problematic. He then claims that President Medvedev of Russia has insisted on no major advances of U.S. antimissile deployment as a condition of the entire new treaty. Yet we know that Russia is working with the United States on a missile defense system for Europe. Aren’t we in a world of hurt if Krauthammer is to become our new renowned seer and futurist?
JOSE U LUCERO
The DREAM Act only seems like a win-win situation
In his rambling column to find something of substance, Bill Grant missed several points. Many illegal immigrants coming into this country are also teenagers. Many do not have a high school education. Yet they are finding a way to earn a living, albeit illegally. So, why should those who came here with their parents several years ago and were educated at U.S. taxpayer’s expense, demand a path to citizenship without any sacrifice?
Mr. Grant wrote, “... the waste of thousands of dollars spent on an education that will not be allowed to make a return on that investment.” When investors are facing a losing investment, they cut their losses. In this case, deport the illegals. Send them to their country of origin where their birthright already provides a legal citizenship. They could then use the valuable education — that was given to them — to improve their country of origin much like JFK’s Peace Corps.
The United States will gain a return for all the benefits provided, a stoppage of the hemorrhage of additional U.S. taxpayer subsidized benefits, and the countries of origin will gain a U.S. educated person that would increase the overall per capita education of that nation.
The DREAM Act is ill conceived and should be defeated.
This seems like a win-win situation to the casual observer.