'Bias" is in the eye of the beholder
While local “liberals” empathize with Gary Reeder’s question (“When will Sentinel print a positive story about Trump?”, Oct. 6), he presumes that such “positive stories” go unreported — not recognizing that (sadly) they barely exist.
Last year, Jay Seaton anticipated Reeder’s lament by replacing “conservative” columnists who had “disavowed Trump” with “pro-Trump columnist Marc Thiessen” — promising to “look for more pro-Trump material” (“No political agenda, just promoting the interests of our region”, Apr. 15, 2018). Since then, even Thiessen has found it hard to find much “positive” to write about Trump.
Gary previously opined that “If people loved God, then they would love their president” (May 27), but he still hasn’t explained why anyone should respect — much less “love” — a “wanna-be” potentate who brands patriotic Americans as “traitors” and “spies” to be executed (“Trump Suggests Executing the Whistleblower’s Sources Like in the ‘Old Days,’” Vanity Fair, Sep. 26), who reportedly mused about shooting asylum-seekers (“Shoot Migrants’ Legs, Build Alligator Moat: Behind Trump’s Ideas for Border”, NYT, Oct. 1), and brazenly violates federal campaign laws ("FEC chairwoman confirms accepting 'opposition research' from foreign national is illegal," The Hill, Oct. 4).
In Sunday’s letter, Reeder lauds Seaton’s recommitment to the core journalistic values previously articulated by the publisher of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette (“Newspapers best positioned to improve awful reputation of media," Sep. 19), but then distorts those values by falsely asserting that “True journalism is supposed to report facts, not opinion”. Rather, the Sentinel routinely reports both — so “there needs to be a sharp and clear distinction between news and opinion” to protect “the impartiality and credibility of the news”, Seaton explained. And, even though Sunday’s editorial (“Opinion 101”) reiterated that distinction, Gary doesn’t seem to get it.
“Bias” can also affect what the Sentinel opts to print — or not. Thus, while it published Gary’s letter, it didn’t print Fox News’ legal analyst Andrew Napolitano’s opinion piece (“Judge Andrew Napolitano: Trump’s call with Ukraine president manifests criminal and impeachable behavior”, Fox News, Oct. 3)(https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/judge-andrew-napolitano-trump-attacks-presidency?fbclid=IwAR0zPl21DfHeJb1xu-CtrpxKr99O8M47FMdtjsSzSh0PYAIhix3k24Boj3M).
Likewise, while the Sentinel reported that unemployment has reached a 50-year low of 3.5 percent under Trump, it did not publish Nobel Prize Economist Paul Krugman’s analysis of that fact (“Here Comes the Trump Slump”, NYT, Oct. 3), crediting President Obama’s eight years for the strong economy and Trump’s tariffs for its approaching weakness (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/03/opinion/trump-economy.html).
Meanwhile, sentient readers “can see right through” Reeder’s biased opinionating.
E-bikes bring hypocrisy to cycling community
So according to the bicycle purists, if your bicycle has pedals and a battery providing electric assist on steep hills, you don’t deserve to ride on wilderness trails because you may not “feel the burn” that justifies your ascent to the top of a hill. However, if your bicycle doesn’t have a motor or electric assist and can’t keep up with traffic, you’re somehow “entitled” to ride your bicycle on county roads as well as state and interstate highways even though you are a significant hazard to others. Seems hypocritical to me.
Never underestimate man's impact on the Earth
In a letter published on Sept. 22, Grand Junction resident Ron Corbett suggested that, since humans cannot affect the movement of the Earth's tectonic plates, it is equally impossible that human activities have any role in rising global temperatures. The argument is that being unable to have the ultimate impact on the physical structure of the planet means that we cannot affect the environment in any way. But this simply is not true. Humans have already significantly affected the environment — over short periods of time, in recent memory, and with documentation.
Here are a few examples. Prior to the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and the establishment of the EPA, the air in major American cities was visibly thick with pollution. Famously, during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the Cuyahoga River was so badly polluted by industrial runoff, that it caught fire at least 13 times. And then there are the multitude of animal species that we have wiped out in the last two centuries. Steller's sea cow, the great auk, the Tasmanian tiger, the passenger pigeon. Once plentiful, they have been hunted out of existence. We nearly lost the bald eagle through our use of the pesticide DDT. And many more animal and plant species hang in the balance. Humans have done all of this.
Now, we have to make a choice. Are we going to take action, based on the best science available, to reduce our impact on the environment? Or will we continue on as usual, ignoring the lessons of the past? Our children and future generations will have to live with the consequences.
Oh, and BTW, hydraulic fracturing has been proven to cause earthquakes in places that have been geologically stable for millennia, so maybe we will move continents one day!
We need new thinking on the edge of a new frontier
The subtext of contemporary distress is that we are now living as a minority in our founders nation: not English, not Christian.
We need a two-party system. Democrats are not being helped by any of their front runners... they appear as feckless as Republicans have been for the last hundred years.
Take some of their ideas that could be tweaked and put on the Democratic platform for 2020:
National Wellness not National Healthcare
0.000% Student loan
s not 10% + or free
Open dialog vs. name calling or labeling
Atomic accountability not nuclear proliferation
Make success equivalent to profit sharing
Daylight money not dark money
NRA courses not weapons ban
Pledge of Allegiance not silent assumptions
Life skills (sex, money, mentoring) not ignorance
High speed trains not 19th Century rail
Electric cars vs non renewable polluting
Colonization of the moon first not Mars
Carbon capture technologies not mad panic
There are things as a global community we face. It is a “New Frontier” as JFK said. We are not unlike Europe on the discovery and exploration of the New World back in the 1500s.
Didn't we just vote to give schools money?
Why should we have to raise taxes again for schools? I understand that schools need to be replaced and repaired as time goes on, but we voted on this two years ago and have not seen the financial responsibility from the school district in the last few years since the 2017 tax was voted in.
As it is, when marijuana was legalized with Colorado Amendment 64, the first $40 million in revenue raised annually was to go to schools so that districts would not have to raise taxes locally and continually. Where is that money? And what school districts are getting that money? — or is it still sitting in Denver or in someone's pocket? And how is it that a new school should cost $124 million? The new bridge in Glenwood Springs cost over $100 million and I think that was a waste of taxpayers money! A school should not cost $124 million! The taxpayers will continue to pay that bill forever and the school district will continue to ask for money every couple of years if we don't put a stop to this now and get someone in the district offices that is financially responsible and can save the district money rather than waste our hard earned money!
I wouldn't mind voting for a raise for the teachers as they are struggling to teach kids who have no respect and courtesy for their elders, and cannot discipline the kids rather than for a new school. But as I live outside of the city limits, I only get to vote for statewide or county issues. I also see more money going into the administration rather than going to those who spend nearly every day with the kids of our community; that includes bus drivers, teachers, assistant teachers, and coaches who try to give the kids a successful path in their life