Downplaying the violence of Jan. 6 riot is worrisome

Letter writer Mally Mechau-Strong and a handful of others say they have made their own assessment of the assault on Capitol Hill. Mechau-Strong attempts to reassure us that the MAGA mob was “naughty monkeys” engaged in nothing more than “criminal mischief.” She praises them for not coming armed with hordes of guns.

A reality check is in order here. The three-hour assault was violent. One hundred and forty individuals (mostly Capitol Hill police) were injured by hockey sticks, baseball bats and steel flagpoles. Officers received contusions, cracked ribs, gouged eyes, shattered spinal disks, blunt force injuries and inhalation damage from pepper spray and bear repellent.

Rooms throughout the capitol building were urinated and defecated in, and offices left unlocked during evacuation were ransacked. Laptops and other items were stolen. Irreplaceable furniture, paintings, statuary and murals were damaged. The stage built for inauguration was ruined. Photography equipment and sound equipment was destroyed. Those naughty monkeys created a price tag of $30 million for the clean-up and increased security necessary in the weeks that followed. They also left a nation reeling from the horrifying spectacle of it all.

What’s most worrisome to me is that any American would downplay this violence. It’s widely known that white supremacist and neo-fascist groups like the Oath Keepers and the Proud Boys are on the rise. Polarization and domestic extremism were openly encouraged by a former president who was voted out of office after one term. He even tweeted out a video DURING the attack to thank his followers and falsely reassert the 2020 presidential election was stolen. One-term presidencies rarely happen in the United States and that’s a bitter pill for some to swallow. But the voters spoke. Their only weapons were ballots.

JACQUE DANSBY

Whitewater

Sentinel owes readers a better way of correcting bad info

A glaring error was included in the front-page news article of the June 3 edition of the Sentinel on Senate Bill 260, an effort to raise funds to address the state’s transportation issues. The reporter of that article made the statement that “the average motorist will pay about $1,000 more a year, but that’s just with an increase in what they will pay at the pump.” The actual anticipated cost is less than $50. This is an error on the order of an overstatement of 20 TIMES what the actual “cost at the pump” will be in the proposed legislation for the average motorist.

To be fair, I wrote to the reporter to point out that something was amiss and he did write back to me acknowledging that he had erred. He also did state that he would “make the correction.”

Knowing how paramount the issue of excessive fees and taxation is, I was hopeful that a correction would be evident to the readers in short order to at least attempt to extinguish the letting and fueling of the anti-tax voting block (yes, fees and taxes cost us the same no matter how the lawyers and politicians have convinced the courts that they are not).

Nope. The “make the correction” did not equate to a PRINTED “correction” in the next available delivered edition for all who may have read the original article, but rather languishes in “corrected” typeset in the archived web-based edition on file. And, it was not a simple correction of taking out $1,000.00 and putting in $50. For some reason the writer altered the text altogether first identifying how much it would cost in a vehicle that gets 50 miles to the gallon (an example of which was never used in the original copy). It is distressing that the Sentinel’s editors and fact-checkers did not review a front-page article to be sure that extremely contentious issues are not muddled with such gross errors of math. It is disturbing that the anti-SB 260 slant of writing was not relegated to the opinion page where it belongs.

STEVEN SPYDELL

Grand Junction