Email Letters: April 21, 2017
There is little local help for those with drug problems
You want to know why there is a drug problem and high suicide rate? Grand Junction, wake up. You can’t get help even if you wanted it. I know that I have been trying for months to
get help for an adopted child who has a drug problem, ditches school, runs away to go get high either in the park or at someone’s house and who disappears for days. It’s only going to get worse because there is nobody with authority that will help. They don’t want to be bothered – but where’s my paycheck?
Whether you’re older or younger with a drug problem there just isn’t much out there to help you. I’ve seen it for many years with a lot of kids and adults. And we ask ourselves why?
We need Sen. Gardner to uphold air quality rules
Last week, Senator Cory Gardner took time on his trip back to Colorado this month to stop in Grand Junction and hike Devil’s Canyon. I am glad to see he appreciates the beautiful place we call home. It is clear he understands the value of our public lands to our West Slope communities; however does he understand the value of our air quality?
Right now, the Senate is debating whether or not to repeal important new protections that reduce air pollution from oil and gas development on our public lands. These are common sense rules that not only protect our air quality, but also save taxpayers millions of dollars per year in lost royalties from wasted natural gas.
Strong national protections are important because in western Colorado, we see the results of air pollution from Utah being blown into our cities and towns. Not only do we Grand Valley residents see this during our winter inversions, but other border communities, like Rangely, have exceeded federal ozone standards on many occasions.
Air pollution knows no borders so it is critical that we have uniform rules that protect all Americans equally – and save us all extra taxpayer money in the process. This is why we need Sen. Gardner to uphold these rules in Congress.
When did Trump bluster about nuclear weapons?
Jim Denton (Bluster about weapons will only escalate things), in letters on April 20, is way up in arms that “Trump is full of bluster about North Korea having nuclear weapons.” Wow! The only “bluster” about a North Korean nuclear weapon I have read about is only that from the little fat boob who happens to run that country.
Denton goes on to deplore the fact that we, and we alone it seems, developed an atomic weapon with the Manhattan Project in the 1940s. Perhaps Jim is unaware that Nazi Germany was also undertaking the same task.in 1939. We beat them to the punch, so to speak, and in 1945 we ended WW II with the bombing of Japan. Which, incidentally, saved many thousands of our armed forces that we would have lost in a ground/sea invasion.
I still cannot pin down exactly when President Trump “blustered” about nuclear weapons. Perhaps Jim could enlighten me when exactly that was, and how it was done.
Is transparency in the eyes of the beholder?
The editorial in this morning’s Sentinel, to me, is long overdue. What has been a voluntary tradition as part of the election process for president has been ignored. We need to know about possible conditions that could lead to conflicts of interest and part of the evaluations of candidates for office should take into consideration a show of good faith to be as transparent as possible. Now that the tradition of voluntary disclosure has been breached laws are necessary to ensure that the office will not be a source of fraud and conflict of interest. As the prime offender would say, sad.
The editorial doesn’t cover the fact that the current administration makes a big deal of the need for getting rid of many regulations and laws. The very situation of lack of transparency they’ve created is the reason for the laws and regulations in the first place. If voluntary good faith doesn’t get the job done, laws and regulations result to protect the general public. It is ironic that the administration advocating fewer regulations is the biggest offender in demonstrating why they are necessary.
The current administration is big on blaming all their woes on the Obama administration. The assumption is that if they say derogatory things often enough they will be commonly accepted as fact. The writer of the editorial has perpetuated that situation by seemingly accepting that the Obama administration was notably lacking in transparency. I can understand differences of opinion in policies being categorized as ”mistaken” or even ”wrong.” I can’t accept the characterization of the Obama administration as being notably non-transparent without some proof. Reasons of national security and harm to individuals in the future also bring about accusations of non-transparency. Differences of opinion exist. The author seems to accept ”common knowledge” as fact as attested to by one journalist. It’s not a minor concern. Prove it.