Printed Letters: Aug. 1, 2017

Sad to see Boy Scouts apologize for president
A simple oath “on my honor, I will do my best….” This is the oath a young boy scout learns by memory, by heart.

I wish that young boy was sitting in the Oval Office because he is also taught the importance of being “trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, and reverent”, some things that the current president seems to lack.

Why, of all venues, would someone who holds the highest office in the land, use it to vent such vile political rhetoric? Why would he encourage young people to “boo” the former president of the United State of America? How does this make “America Great Again”?

In the 1990s, Boy Scout members thought the president’s conduct was not of good character and was not a good role model for America’s young boys. It was the protocol of the Boys Scout to make the sitting president the “honorary” president of BSA and have his signature appear on the Eagle Scout certificates, but Clinton’s signature was removed from the Eagle Scout certificate and replaced with the “real” president of scouting’s signature. This came about because BSA council offices all over the country received thousands of complaints following the Monica Lewinsky scandal and the impeachment proceedings. Members threatened to quit if President Clinton’s signature wasn’t removed and rightly so. At that time President Clinton didn’t display the values the Boy Scout Organization promoted.

It was sad to see that the head of the Boys Scouts had extended an apology for Trump’s inappropriate rhetoric at the jamboree. Instead of everyone having to apologize for Trump, maybe the only way to stop Trump’s inappropriate behavior is by not “inviting him to the party/events” until he understands how to be truly be more Presidential than any Commander-in-Chief except Lincoln.

SHERRYL BUCKLEY
Grand Junction


Retire ‘You Said It’ column — 
Wagner, too, while you’re at it
Your editorial, “More levity, please,” was welcomed with cheers in our household! As long-time subscribers, we have grown weary of You Said It.

Your description of the entries to this column was spot on — it is indeed a “grinding, snarky complaint forum.” Why waste space on mean-spirited attacks by individuals who prefer to remain anonymous rather than take responsibility for their opinions?

While on the topic of sarcasm and mean-spiritedness, I would also like to address Rick Wagner’s column. Mr. Wagner may be a fine attorney, but his column is consistently nasty, sarcastic and in poor taste. I realize he intends to be humorous, but his approach leaves me cold. Sarcasm is rarely humorous, even in the most skillful of hands, and Mr. Wagner lacks the skill to pull it off. Please consider substituting something that adds value (conservative, liberal or non-political — makes no difference to me) as a substitute for this nasty vitriol. Personally, I would be happy to see both You Said It and Mr. Wagner’s column disappear from The Daily Sentinel.

Grand Junction deserves better than this, and I, for one, am willing to sign my name and own this opinion.

MARTIE EDWARDS
Grand Junction


Gov. Hickenlooper’s action on climate change to be applauded
At a time when the country is reeling from the nastiest, most sarcastic, partisan and ad hominem political scene this 70-something citizen has witnessed, we are treated to what can only be described as a snide op-ed in the Sunday paper by our state Senate president, Kevin Grantham.

Mr. Gratham’s topic is Gov. John Hickenlooper’s joining the U.S. Climate Alliance. Grantham argues that only 13 other states have joined the alliance. He lambastes the action as unconstitutional (no treaty, no foreign powers), claims only the state legislature could change emission targets, questions whether the governor is going to monitor compliance by China, asks if Colorado will “make good” on the $3 billion in payments Obama “committed to” in the Paris accord, and states that “All that’s missing from this picture is a prospect of puppies and cotton candy for all.”

In fact, the governor’s order “Supporting Colorado’s Clean Energy Transition” declares “that it shall be the goal” of the state to reduce specified emissions. It directs state agencies to work toward these goals. This is exactly the province of the executive branch. Gov. Hickenlooper does not purport to change laws. Moreover, as Grantham notes, the Paris accord is not a treaty. Thus no country is technically bound by its terms. Naturally, Colorado’s association is also voluntary.

While Colorado may be only one of 14 states in the alliance, Grantham ignores the fact that more than 300 mayors, university presidents, and businesses have similarly pledged to work towards the Paris accord standards.

So, Sen. Grantham, in his desire to score some kind of political point, totally misses the real point. Climate change is a dangerous reality, one that every country in the world save Nicaragua and Syria (and now the U.S.) recognizes. Gov. Hickenlooper’s action is a step in the right direction, to be applauded, not derided.

JOAN WOODWARD
Grand Junction


Public must understand threat to watershed posed by drilling
This is a letter from a concerned citizen of the Grand Valley, concerning action proposed by the Bureau of Land Management, Grand Junction Field Office (GJFO), concerning the Updated Whitewater Unit Master Development Plan (WMDP)  for oil extraction.

The development of up to 108 drilling wells on 12 new well pads, plus new roads and pipelines, across a 26,000-acre project area, producing an estimated 8.7 million barrels of oil or gas over the 20-year life of the project.

The fact that BLM, is planning on many acres for drilling in the Whitewater-Palisade area of Mesa County, is one that needs to be brought to people’s attention, so the populace is aware of the negative effects it will bring to our beautiful land, air and the effects and closeness to the city Of Grand Junction’s watershed.

There will be extensive roads and truck traffic that these 108 new wells will need to operate. That will make this beautiful remote area devoid of its natural beauty, its visual strength. It matters little what route the BLM and Fram choose. Of the three route alternatives, all will have many trucks, emitting exhaust causing air pollution, which affects all people’s health, for we all need to breathe to live. The trucks will also degrade the area with their passage affecting the area’s roads and lands. It would take decades to restore the area from the effects of 108 well and trucks and roads needed to access them.

All this activity will happen at the base of the Grand Mesa, which will be degraded by Fram oil wells and the roads needed to be put in place to access those wells. Lots of truck traffic in this area will occur, which ever of the three road alternative is chosen for Fram. Much water will be needed for fracking and other related activities.

The citizens of Grand Junction, Palisade and Fruita need to be aware and respond,  to this action that is now under consideration by the BLM and Fram Operating LLC’s Whitewater Master Development Plan. Comments need to be submitted by Aug. 28 to the BLM: at http:bit.ly/2ttMDMH

PIERA KLLANXHJA
Grand Junction


GJHS alum urges support of ballot measures for schools
In 1947 I was in the graduating class from Grand Junction High School in the old school building.

The teachers did a great job in preparing me for Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois. And I did graduate from NU in 1951. Although I did not actually accomplish what I started out to fulfill. I did end up just fine. Two nice jobs, a lovely wife, three great children who are presently living in Colorado, Washington state and Illinois. Also a handful of grand kids.

Now I am retired and do want to come back to my hometown. I love my hometown and tell everyone what a great place it is to live and retire. Nice weather, the college, sports, the beauty and on and on.

Education is a key and a fundamental building block for any person in this world. If you don’t have it, you have a huge problem. I absolutely agree with Megan Fromm and please vote yes to fund the improvements on the schools. As an old GJHS Tiger and hopefully a future resident again,“Make me proud of the residents of Grand Junction.

JIM McDONOUGH
Gurnee, Illinois


John McCain distinguishes himself from other politicians
We have a mug at our house with big John Wayne’s face on it. As you tip the mug to drink you see a comment written on the inside that says: “Courage is being scared to death and saddling up anyway.”

I can imagine John McCain probably had some thoughts along that line. He is facing the biggest battle of his life, and for his life against brain cancer.

The day before he urged his fellow congressmen to remember why they were there and who they should be working for. His speech was about forgetting personal agendas, vindictiveness and to care and serve the greatest nation on the planet. I haven’t always agreed with him, being a lifelong Democrat by philosophy. However his speech and his courage to vote no to repeal the health-care law made me very proud. Perhaps our representatives will take a moment to pause and see the difference between being a statesman and a politician.

PENNY CREASY
Grand Junction


COMMENTS

Commenting is not available in this channel entry.
Page 1 of 2


Ms. Sherryl Buckley is one who is confused about the role of the Presidency and what it means to be “Presidential”, so she resorts to militarism, and a function of the Presidency “Commander in Chief”.  That is little else than “flag waving”.

One does not vote for a “Commander in Chief” as all that was done for was to insure that the military remained under civilian control, not such that a President could then use that for his personal political benefit, or that he/she would own the military, something which this President actually believes he does, and in his own words “my military”.

The lady also does not know much about Lincoln.  For, if she did, she would know that Lincoln would be horrified at the current occupant of the Oval Office.  Perhaps she would do well to study up on Lincoln by reading his writings, and before including Trump and Lincoln in the same article and/or opinion.  Lincoln knew what it meant to be President, while such as for Trump, it appears to be little else than an individual on an “ego trip” and of someone who apparently believes that he “owns” the government of this country (as well as its agencies) and therefore can do whatever he wants with them (something all too common in many of today’s public officials, from the local to the national level.

Penny Creasy is quite correct in pointing out the speech by Senator McCain.  What is unfortunate is that this speech should have been given, not only by him, but many of his Republican colleagues.  We should not forget that while his speech (and vote) were important, the leaders in opposition on the Republican side were Senator Murkowski of Alaska and Senator Collins of Maine.  Mr. McCain was a rather late in coming to his public stance.  It is also a fact that this position and these argument were stated previously by Democrats and independents alike, but totally ignored.

When looking at Senator McCain’s military record, one cannot but be impressed with his physical courage.  However, that is only physical courage and not necessarily intellectual courage where his record, some of us would consider somewhat erratic.

Robert Laitres, you need to reread Sherryl Buckley’s letter. Sherryl is a proud democrat, displayed Obama signs at her home and on her vehicle(KKCO news story 9-10-2012) and marched with the protest against Trump in Grand Junction (GJ Sentinel article 2-1-2017). Perhaps you need more coffee! Definitely off your rocker today.

Ms. Parrot.  Party affiliation (or none) does not excuse not knowing about one’s country, nor does it make one any more or less militaristic. That was what was being addressed in Ms. Buckley’s letter, not her political party affiliation which happens to be the same as mine.  And, I will forget that last sentence of yours as, in my opinion, it is little else than a “cheap shot” and one that does not speak very well of you as a human being.

Its unfortunate that so many of the proponents of Climate Change always default to the herd mentality of XX number of states have joined the alliance or xx number of countries have signed on to the accord, etc. Albert Einstein, arguably the greatest scientist of the last 100 years or more had his foundation firmly grounded when he said this about ‘consensus’ when confronted with 100 people who disagreed with him:  “Why one hundred? If I were wrong, one would have been enough.” I feel the same way about supposedly human caused climate change. Outside of computer models and manipulated data there has been no real proof that it is caused by our activities. Possibly it is because most people confuse pollution with actual climate changing activities. So when Gov Hickenlooper signs up Colorado to adhere to unfunded and unfounded science he is ultimately committing all of Colorado to an expense that he will not personally bear out. Not good leadership in my opinion. And for those who still believe in need for consensus they should go here: http://www.petitionproject.org/

Mr. Fullerton,

The ecosphere produces approximately 300 billion tons of carbon each year. It also absorbs approximately 300 billion tons of carbon per year. So naturally-produced carbon is balanced.

So what do you think happens when we start dumping another 60 billion tons of carbon into the atmosphere?

I think before anyone takes another to task and assumes that Lincoln would be horrified at the current occupant I would suggest they go back and read the real extra-Constitutional acts taken by Lincoln who ran laps around most other presidents in this regard and still got his mug enshrined on Mt Rushmore. Here is a great place to start if you want an honest look at Lincoln and not the white washed history of old: http://www.heritage.org/defense/report/abraham-lincoln-and-civil-liberties-wartime

Better crop production. Plants love CO2

Some suggested reading for those weather interested: https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/ef-gast-data-research-report-062717.pdf

Is that the only side-effect of an additional 20% more carbon per year, Mr. Fullerton?

And it’s not all CO2, either. Plants don’t do well with CO any more than other forms of life do.

I dont profess to be an expert on carbon emissions so I can not answer that. Nor was that the intent of my responding to the letters. I am more opposed to elected officials making assumptions on behalf of a country or a state as Mr Obama and Hickenlooper have done. The Paris Accords if we had partipated make no business sense and would do little to affect any change on the planets conditions. By their own estimates the Paris accords would cost the US $100B per year in perpetuity and would make no more than 0.1% difference in global temperatures whether we participate or not. Regardless of scientific data, that is pure insanity to commit our country to this sort of madness.

Right. So who cares if we make the planet perfect for green plants, but uninhabitable for humans, which, in general, are not plants. When millions are starving to death I’m sure we’ll be glad we saved $100 billion for a few years.

You completely gloss over this fact “make no more than 0.1% difference in global temperatures whether we participate or not.” Its a bad deal that accomplishes nothing, why is that so hard to accept? And you sound like you are assuming that I am against doing anything to be better stewards of the planet when the complete opposite is true. I recycle, I am ‘leave no trace’ trained, I pursue energy efficiency in all my purchases and technology, and believe that polluters must be punished. But I also know that without the advances in petroleum products that have affected the lives of countless people in countless positive ways, saved millions of lives, etc. that our world would be changed more dramatically without them than any minor increases in climate that may or may not have occurred thus far. The overwhelming majority of our climate is affected by the sun’s activity 93 million miles away which we can do nothing to alter. Within our ecosphere the majority of the surface heat is through venting of the earths activity. In the end we are a spec of dust and gas hurtling through space rotating around a larger spec of dust and gas doing the same thing, and so on, and so on.

Well, you ignore that the Paris Accord was also noted to be a start, not the final solution, so your 0.1% change, even if accurate, is irrelevant.

And yes, the sun does have an effect on out climate. That in no way means mankind cannot be having an effect as well. Are all your arguments such logical fallacies?

$100B = =/- .1% = Bad deal regardless of starting point. What is actually irrelevant about the Paris Accords are the Accords themselves. If the Accords were a good idea then then the president should have asked Congress to review and approve it like all treaties are ratified, which requires a 2/3’s majority. Because it was more focus on the redistribution of US dollars to other countries and not on actual climate change it would have never made it through both houses of Congress. Whether Trump kept us in or out it was non-binding since it was never officially approved as required by our Constitution, so the point is moot as to where it would have met its initial goals or long term ones. This is all undeniable fact unless one is blindly close minded about how our country works. Either people petition their Congressperson to bring the Paris Accords to the House and Senate floor for debate and vote, or they realize that it is DOA for now and move on.

Or they realize that it was never a treaty in the first place.

Ding, ding, ding, ding. Folks, the light bulb just flickered on. That is exactly my point. If its not a treaty, its not binding, therefore unenforceable, and has no weight of law or bearing on the United States or its people.

No one ever denied that it wasn’t a treaty. Do you always argue points that are not under dispute?

I only argue a point so long as people hold up useless agreements as if they matter. So we agree that the non binding agreement was going to cost us a lot of money, would made little if any change at all with respect to the climate, was only a starting point with no clear long term plan, and completely unenforceable. But you still hold it up as some type of worthwhile endeavor? Ridiculous, but it explains a lot about its supporters.

I see that there is more to it than the economics. You seem to ignore everything else and make bad arguments about the science. I’ll stick with the experts, thanks.

Page 1 of 2




TOP JOBS
Search More Jobs





THE DAILY SENTINEL
734 S. Seventh St.
Grand Junction, CO 81501
970-242-5050; M-F 8:00 - 5:00
Editions
Subscribe to print edition
E-edition
Advertisers
Advertiser Tearsheet
eTear Sheets/ePayments
Information

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