That's how it is. Period.

Friday, August 29, 2008

Letter published in
the Rocky Mountain News
August 27, 2008

MUSGRAVE IS RIGHT
ABOUT DRILLING
      Judging from the initial flood of letters to the editor aimed at unseating 4th District Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, maybe the attacks by her adversaries will rise above the sewer this time around proving they are indeed intelligent enough to engage in rhetoric without using dog excrement for emphasis. Let’s hope so.
      Musgrave is on the right side of the oil-drilling issue and a separate poll shows 67 percent of Coloradans agree. But that probably won’t stop Colorado’s liberal cabal of the two Salazars, Udall, DeGette and Ritter from trying to stifle all of our state’s fossil fuel development to please their special-interest groups who have taken over the government, while we ordinary citizens and the state’s economy are second thoughts.
      As for Musgrave’s new opponent, she may or may not be qualified. What is relevant is that it makes no sense to seat more Democrats in a Congress whose crowning achievement during its two-year term was proposing over 1,900 resolutions. That shows you how much they care about the price of gasoline.
      No wonder Musgrave and her fellow Republicans were unable to summon Speaker Pelosi back from her vacation so the House could consider relaxing oil-drilling restrictions to smooth the transition between oil and yet-to-be developed energy.
      Acting on all of those resolutions had simply worn her out.
      I’m voting for Musgrave.
P.

Saturday, August 02, 2008

Letter published in
The Denver Post
8-02-08

BEWARE OF THE EFFECTS
OF A FEDERAL SHIELD LAW

     Your 7-26-08 editorial “Federal shield law necessary” wrongly promotes the idea that all newspapers deserve special protection when choosing which government secrets to keep or print. Too many indulge in biased politics to be trusted, e.g., The New York Times, The Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times.
     As a longtime newsperson I say, beware of a Beltway shield law -- for whatever privilege Congress bestows, it can license, regulate, tweak, or use as a weapon. Requesting a federal shield law to protect a reportorial practice that the watchdogs themselves are no longer willing to defend on principle (by going to jail if necessary) does not speak well of a fearless free press, and it sends the wrong message to the public.
     The First Amendment specifically protects the press from government interference. The legal profession received no similar mention in the Constitution, yet lawyers are free to enjoy attorney-client secrecy as they go about their work — but not reporters?
     Colorado has a fairly good shield law, but unlike the First Amendment, it must include caveats, one of which is that a newsperson does not have to disclose a source “unless the information cannot reasonably be obtained by any other means.” New York Times reporter Judith Miller of Libby-trial fame arguably could not have been saved from jail under Colorado’s shield law either.
P.

Letter published in
Longmont Times-Call, 8-1-08

MALL NEEDS GROCER,
GROCER NEEDS MALL

        With all due respect to those in the public and private sectors who deal closely with Longmont’s planning and economic development, it seems to me that two headlines on the front page of the 7-24-08 Times-Call reflect a possibly missed opportunity. One announced the “complicated” mall plan being put on hold; the other, “Natural grocer eyeing Hover.” Why can’t they get together?
       From a planning standpoint, the mall needs a natural foods outlet to attract shoppers, and the grocer needs the mall traffic. It looks like a winner—for the grocer, the mall owner, and the city treasury.
      Of course, the grocer is free to settle on the announced Hover site. But a far-better accommodation of vehicular traffic than what is currently available along there will have to be made because of the poor access to and from Hover Street. Mitigate traffic, join the mall lineup.
       Also, I wish whoever is riding the TIF horse around town would dismount and send that critter out to pasture because Tax Increment Financing—although legal—is unfair to the taxpayers. A legacy of LBJ’s “Great Society,” TIF allows public money (taxes) to be diverted to help pay for privately owned urban renewal projects.
      Talk of using TIF to help pay for renovating the mall has calmed a bit, but I see where the Longmont Downtown Development Authority is now toying with the idea of using Tax Increment Financing to start a façade improvement program. Naturally, the same question regarding TIF arises: who makes up for the tax money that will be diverted from the city of Longmont into this program until it is finished? In times of budget shortfall, the city may have trouble replacing diverted TIF revenues and the choices are limited: increase other fees and-or taxes, cut programs, or both.
P.

About Me

My photo
Retired in 1998 after a 50-year career of editing and publishing Colorado small-town weekly newspapers. He served as president of the Colorado Press Association in 1981 and was awarded an honorary lifetime membership.