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.

Grand Junction

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 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.

Grand Junction

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.

Grand Junction


Commenting is not available in this channel entry.
Page 1 of 1

The difference, Ms. Patton, is that the financial disclosure form is non-specific. Tax forms are. The financial disclosure form’s highest category is “over 50 million” but does not require specific amounts or sources.

Surely you can agree that specifics are necessary to get a true picture of the president’s financial situation, and to what interests he may be tied?

Mr. Bricker, I know bluster when I see it.  The President claimed that we have a “huge” armada heading to the rescue, when in actuality the air craft carrier group was headed in the opposite direction, to Australia.  Trump’s erratic actions must not be a substitute for a well thought-out strategic policy.  The one adjective that has not yet been ascribed to Donald Trump is the word “responsible.”  Hugely Sad!

Sure, Ms. Patton. I believe in transparency. So do a lot of other people. Hence the furor over the lack of released tax returns. Your lack of curiosity about Trump’s taxes casts serious doubt on your claim to belief in it yourself. Your mention of Obama’s sealed documents (whatever those are) suggests that it is you who are only interested in transparency from those you disagree with as well.

So sure. Let’s discuss transparency. You seem far more concerned about alleged “sealed documents” of a past president than you are about the possible financial ties the sitting president might have to unfriendly foreign powers. I wonder why that might be.

Asserted is not the same as proven. The birth certificate was in no way “proven” to be a forgery. You have been lied to, and you believed it. That, by the way, is how Trump got elected in the first place.

Let us know when you have something other than lies you have swallowed.

And your willingness to believe whatever you want without bothering to ask for supporting evidence explains a lot about yours. Did you ever bother to actually ask for evidence that the birth certificate was fake, or did you just believe it when you were told so? Did you look for any evidence against that claim, or did you just swallow it unquestioningly?

The answer is obvious.

So all you have is speculation. That’s what I thought. Thanks.

I haven’t called anyone anything that could be construed as an insult, Ms. Patton. You, on the other hand, haven’t provided anything that could be construed as evidence.

Sorry, Ms. Patton. You say “proven” but the word you are looking for is “asserted”. The opinions of random people who claim to be “experts” in Photoshop don’t count as evidence. Certainly not sufficient to support such a massive claim. Of course, it is commonplace for modern conservatives to confuse the two. You are no different in that regard.

Page 1 of 1

Search More Jobs

734 S. Seventh St.
Grand Junction, CO 81501
970-242-5050; M-F 8:00 - 5:00
Subscribe to print edition
eTear Sheets/ePayments

© 2017 Grand Junction Media, Inc.
By using this site you agree to the Visitor Agreement and the Privacy Policy