Email letters, Aug. 8, 2012

By Staff
Wednesday, August 8, 2012

Four-minute flap stifles job creation for residents of Colorado, Wyoming, Utah

Are we seriously willing to hijack a process supporting the potential creation of tens of thousands of jobs and development of a critical energy source for the nation over four minutes? I am referring to The Daily Sentinel story on Aug. 3 that reports that Uintah County officials have voided their resolution strongly opposing the obstructionism of the Obama Administration in regards to oil shale development in the West, only because they were sued over posting the notice for the meeting “four minutes fewer than the 24 hours’ notice required by Utah law.”

The first question is probably who, in this economy, has the time to waste to watch the clock closely enough to document to the second when such a notice is posted. The more important question is “why?” Why would anyone in his or her right mind waste time and money suing over four minutes? Does anybody, anywhere, honestly think that the four-minute deviance was part of a wider conspiracy? That posting the notice at 10:04 a.m. instead of exactly 10:00:00 a.m. as confirmed by the International Atomic Clock is the smoking gun indicating criminal intent to rival Watergate?

What this is really about is diverting attention from the fact that the Obama administration is running roughshod over the economic futures of thousands of Colorado, Wyoming and Utah residents by placing trillions of barrels of oil off limits to development, complicit with the wishes of the radical environmentalist lobby.

As soon as the duly elected representatives of those residents took a proper stance against this federal intrusion, that same environmental lobby had to step in and do the only thing it knows how to: bully the locals with legal technicalities.

Exactly how much more of this abuse-disguised–as-environmentalism are the people of the West going to take?

ERIC THOMPSON
Grand Junction

Garco commissioners should spare organic farm from asphalt contamination

I’m writing to offer a perspective on the value of Eagle Springs Organic Farm as it faces another threat from asphalt contamination due to Bedrock Asphalt’s second proposed operation. As an advisory circle member of the Roaring Fork Food Policy Council, and as a farmer in Silt for several decades, I speak to the increasing necessity of local farmers to collaborate in order to keep our businesses viable.

We work with ESO on organic grain crops for our laying flocks, among other things. As I write this, our apprentice, David, is heading there now for another bi-monthly pickup. We appreciate having an organic farm that is large enough to grow and store grains close by and willing to work with us. With 150 birds, we go through a lot of feed, and this collaboration has been great for us over the past several years.

Farmers of any size do best when not faced with additional issues (air, water quality) from industrial outside sources that are detrimental to their operations.

We here at Peach Valley CSA feel strongly that any industrial operation that adds to these environmental concerns or reduces crop quality and viability should not be allowed. For Eagle Springs, as an organic grower, soil contamination would shut them down.

Please make our local farming industry a priority and join us in voicing this concern to the Garfield County commissioners as they weigh this upcoming decision to allow asphalt crushing adjacent to Eagle Springs.

KEN AND GAIL KUHNS
Silt

Checking ladies’ purses at local theater just a show

I’m writing to let the management of the local Regal Theater know that they didn’t fool me for a second. I still know that I’m not any safer in their theater now than before the Aurora massacre.

They took peek into my mother’s purse, then my wife’s purse, in an attempt to make it look as though they were searching for weapons. Just a quick glance, never moving or removing any items. Both ladies’ purses were as large as most ladies’ purses, which means they could’ve easily held handguns, explosives and any quantity of ammunition concealed under what could be seen through the opening at a glance.

After the movie, I couldn’t help but wonder what they thought they had accomplished with such a half-hearted attempt. Then I got it; they were putting on a show for their patrons to try to make them feel safe while watching a movie. Of course, the way James Holmes pulled off his massacre in Aurora, this search would have been as meaningless there as it was here.

So, Regal Theater, I want you to know you didn’t fool me for a second. I knew that nobody, including the police, or your so-called weapons search, could protect me while I watched the movie.

So, as always, I took some comfort knowing the handgun I was wearing on my hip was there, along with my own proficiency in its use, should some idiot come in the door shooting. I knew I would have had a fighting chance to stop him, if I happened to be fortunate enough to not be one of the first to go down.

Thank you, Regal Theater, for reaffirming the reason I got my concealed carry permit in the first place.

ROBERT TATMAN
Grand Junction

‘Willful ignorance’ on benefits of Affordable Care Act underpins local opinions

Mike Higgins’ ill-informed polemic (“Pace would ignore opinion of majority on health care,” Aug. 8) confirms that local “opinion” opposing the Affordable Care Act (“ACA”) remains firmly grounded in willful ignorance of its benefits.  Thus:

First, nothing in the ACA prevents anyone from continuing to see his or her physician-of-choice, and its Medicaid provisions increase compensation for many such physicians.

Second, every authoritative study finds that health insurance premiums will likely increase at a slower pace under the ACA rather than without it, as will total health care costs – particularly, as its provisions promoting primary and preventive care take effect.

Likewise, third, Higgins disingenuously ignores the Congressional Budget Office’s recent report that the ACA will actually reduce the national debt over the next 10 years.

Fourth, Higgins totally misses the point as to why Grand Junction has been touted as a paradigm for health care reform – and as a viable alternative to both avaricious for-profit health insurers and to “socialized medicine.” Because of cooperative community-wide efforts and Rocky Mountain Health Plan’s not-for-profit status, the Grand Valley enjoys lower health insurance premiums and lower overall health care costs.  By promoting not-for-profit health insurance cooperatives in state insurance exchanges, the ACA will create free-market competition for commercial health insurers that will help control premiums.

Fifth, nothing in the ACA entails “health care from a centralized federal government.”  Rather, the ACA addresses the questions of who pays how much for what benefits, rather than who provides health care.  The American Hospital Association supports the ACA because – by insuring millions more – hospitals will be compensated for the health care services they already routinely provide to the uninsured.

Thus, as suggested by Bill Grant’s timely column (“Women must stand with Obama to protect their health care rights,” Aug. 8), Sal Pace – not Scott Tipton—is responsibly leading public “opinion” toward better appreciating the ACA.

BILL HUGENBERG
Grand Junction

Apply editorial’s logic on personhood issue to controversy over civil unions

Since it is not wise to argue with someone who owns a printing press, I would like to make a request of the editorial staff at The Daily Sentinel.  After reading your Aug. 8 editorial, “Personhood provision confronts voters again,” I would like to ask you to apply the same logic and write an editorial on the subject of “civil unions.”

The last paragraph of your editorial said, “It’s unfortunate that Colorado’s amendment process makes it so easy for groups like this to keep pushing a measure that the majority of Coloradans clearly don’t want.”

Following your logic, your last paragraph should go something like this, “It is unfortunate that groups like this who are composed of such a small percentage of our population (less than 2%) can continue to push measures that the majority of Americans clearly don’t want.”

KENNETH LONG
Grand Junction