April 13, 2004

Don't blame the EPA for big gas-price hikes

Regarding the News' April 8 editorial, "Higher gas prices, courtesy of the EPA," I have four points that should be considered:

Advertisement

First, the price of gasoline, compared to this time last year, is up by about 17 cents per gallon in Colorado, and all without any "assistance" by the Environmental Protection Agency. Might it be that reduction of production by OPEC is a bigger factor than EPA and local efforts for clean air?

Second, we got our prediction of 1 cent-per-gallon price increases (for a mandated switch to a less-polluting gasoline) from Department of Energy data collected in other cities.

Will this requirement raise the price by 5 cents, as a Colorado Petroleum Association official has warned? It didn't in Greensboro, Jacksonville, Miami, Nashville, Pittsburgh, Salt Lake City, Tampa or Tulsa. The average increase in wholesale price was eight-tenths of 1 cent. When we surveyed area refineries before this decision, this was about what they expected the increase to be. If the price of gas goes up more than that, you might want to ask the gasoline refiners, not the EPA, why the increase occurred.

Third, Denver has been excused from this requirement for a cleaner gasoline - which is being met by other cities in 18 states - for 12 years because Denver was not in violation of the ozone standard. But now we are.

The News supports trying to get dirty cars off the road. So do we, as well as a whole range of other clean-air measures. While we are trying to limit ozone in Denver, it makes no sense to continue an exemption from a requirement that most of the rest of the nation has been meeting for a dozen years.

Fourth, clean air is important for people's health; ozone increases respiratory problems and asthma. Dirty air can tarnish Colorado's image as a clean, scenic place to visit and that, in turn, can damage tourism and recreation. This requirement lasts for 16 weeks in the summer. If the average driver uses 20 gallons of gas a week, by our estimates it will cost him or her about $3.20. Even if the increase were to reach 5 cents per gallon, the cost would be an extra $16 for the year - about the cost of a large pizza.

Robert E. Roberts
Regional administrator, EPA
Denver

San Francisco offers good model for reform

News columnist Mike Littwin ("Politics 101: Why it's so hard to fire a cop," April 3) is right: "Firing Turney - the cop who fatally shot 15-year-old Paul Childs - would offend only the Denver cops." And given the current system of police discipline, that's enough to prevent him from being fired.

Officers like Turney tarnish the reputations of the majority of Denver police officers, who are decent people doing a good job. Yet the main police union, the Police Protective Association, which appears unable to comprehend the community's outrage over the Childs killing, argues that any punishment of Turney is too much. As the Rev. Reginald Holmes of the Greater Denver Ministerial Alliance has said, "Enough is enough."

A task force appointed by the mayor is currently looking at ways to achieve greater accountability of officers like Turney to the residents of Denver.

It can best achieve that by recommending an overhaul of the disciplinary process based on the San Francisco model of civilian oversight: Take the investigation of incidents like the Childs killing out of the police department itself (i.e., the Internal Affairs Bureau, which appears to conduct investigations as if the goal is not to reach the truth, but to exonerate the officer involved) and put it in an independent agency.

Take the authority to discipline officers, including dismissal, out of the current system and put it in the hands of an independent, civilian police commission, which would also have the power to hire and fire the police chief. A change of this order is necessary to restore community trust in the department.

Without it, many people in this city will feel compelled to join the alliance in its promise (again quoting Holmes) to "protest vigilantly and use whatever tactics of civil disobedience are at our disposal" until meaningful police accountability is achieved.

Mark Cohen
Denver

Inmate's plea to serve in war is oh, so noble

I read with great interest the March 29 letter by Robert Haygood, "Don't imprison him - send him to the war!" Haygood wrote, "I am soon to be sentenced to many years in a federal prison for being 'a felon in possession of a firearm.' Instead, send me to the war!"

Well, too bad Haygood is going to prison. Let me see . . .

He is a felon in possession of a firearm. That tells me that this is not his first run-in with the law. He had to have done something else to get that felon tag, right? And then, while in society, he figured he could flout the rules and carry a firearm. So now he's looking at a few more years.

Well, he should enjoy them. He deserves them. And no, he doesn't get to go off and fight in the war, a la The Dirty Dozen. He is not a budding war hero; he's a person who can't follow rules. The Army has no need or want for people who can't follow orders, which he has clearly demonstrated.

"I will volunteer for the duration of the time the U.S. is involved in the war, or until I die," Haygood goes on to write. "If I'm still alive when the war ends, I'll serve out my prison sentence." Very noble. But why didn't he volunteer prior to his arrest? Hmmm . . . maybe he isn't the hero he sets yourself up to be. Maybe we don't need him in society at all. Very nice of him to agree to serve out the rest of his prison sentence.

Hey, here's an idea: Why doesn't he just serve out his complete sentence, and then when released, go away to some foreign country and fight in whatever war is going on there then. I don't think that there has been a war-free time in the last 200 years, so finding a war won't be a problem. Good luck, Mr. Hero.

Martin Winstead
Aurora

Ustinov a staunch supporter of world law

In addition to his worldwide renown as actor, director and author, Sir Peter Ustinov ("Dear me, Peter Ustinov is dead," March 30) was for many years the active president of the World Federalist Movement advocating world peace through world law.

Bill Pace, formerly of Denver, the executive director of WFM and our representative at the United Nations, had worked closely with Sir Peter seeking to strengthen the U.N. to settle disputes through the International Criminal Court. Probably more than any other person, Pace helped create the ICC which was ratified in July.

My own most recent contact with Ustinov and Pace was two years ago at the WFM World Conference in London where both spoke to the hundreds of us delegates. Despite his poor health and confinement to a wheelchair, Ustinov was as upbeat and humorous as ever.

It was further my rare privilege to be among a smaller group in the home of a London federalist. Ustinov had to be carried upstairs in his wheelchair - no small task since the famous actor was somewhat overweight. But he was as warm and cordial as always, and kept us in stitches with his humor as he encouraged us to continue our uphill efforts to achieve a world where international disputes will be settled by world courts of law rather than by wars and violence.

He was indeed a most remarkable person and the world peace movement has suffered a serious loss with his passing.

Ray E. Short
Lafayette

Ivins successfully twists and misleads

I suppose my personal choice of a conservative political agenda and lifestyle creates a natural bias against the liberal editorialist and letter writers, but for the life of me, I can't imagine why extreme left-leaning people like syndicated columnist Molly Ivins absolutely refuse to read an entire paragraph much less an article or speech by a political adversary before commenting on them. Ivins invariably misquotes President Bush and his staff every time she writes about the president.

I am, of course, speaking "tongue in cheek" when I say Ivins refuses to read the complete paragraph or article. She probably does read it all. However, like a skilled surgeon, she cuts, slices and patches the comments until it becomes what Ivins wants it to be and not at all what was actually said.

This practice accomplishes exactly what she intends. It misinforms and misleads many people, people such as letter writer Kathy B. Krassa ("Latest Bush ad all lies . . . with escape hatch," March 17). I have no idea whether Krassa's thoughts and comments were inspired by Ivins or not, but I would like to have either of them show me exactly where president Bush lied to them. I'm betting they can't do it.

Arlon J. Graves
Thornton

As speech shows, Bush very much a liar

In a speech in the Rose Garden on Sept. 26, 2002, President Bush uttered a paragraph with the following topic and concluding sentences: "The danger to our country is grave. . . . According to the British government, the Iraqi regime could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order were given."

Bush was referring to a British intelligence dossier which states "(Iraq has) military plans for the use of chemical and biological weapons, including against its own Shia population; some of these weapons are deployable within 45 minutes of an order to use them. . . ."

While the intelligence indicates a threat against Iraqis, it does not in any way indicate a threat against the American mainland.

It is a fact that to be appointed speechwriter for the president of the United States, one must be proficient at structuring paragraphs.

It may also be concluded that the intent of the writer, and the speaker, was to mislead and to manipulate the fears of the American public in order to win political support for war.

Bush is indeed a liar, and Mike Rosen is either a dupe or liar himself ("President Bush is no liar," April 2).

Sean Shealy
Littleton

Gays already have the right to marry

Gays already have the right to marry.

The social concept of marriage is a special dependent relationship between a man and a woman (look it up).

Gay citizens have the right to marry; we all have this right. It is ridiculous to spin gay unions as a rights issue, a discrimination issue.

The first step on the gay activists' agenda was to redefine tolerance from a concept of mutual respect (again, look it up) to a concept of acceptance of the gay lifestyle as a moral and social good, an "acceptable alternative."

If you don't value this relative truth, you're an intolerant bigot. Nonsense.

Next on their agenda: redefine the concept of marriage. Sorry, this social concept has been well defined for centuries of human history. It is not within government's purview to change it. Gays can only call their dependent relationships something else.

James D. Brom
Castle Rock

Attend caucus today

As lives are sacrificed in Iraq for the basic human right to self-government, will you sacrifice one hour to attend your neighborhood caucus today?

Because of poor political leadership, in recent years only 8 percent of the people in Colorado have known about our wonderful caucus-assembly system for nominating the primary ballot that came out of the Teddy Roosevelt reforms of 1912.

Do you value the Colorado caucus-assembly system? Do you realize it is the full flowering of what was started in 1776? Attend your caucus today!

John Wren
Denver

Copyright 2004, Rocky Mountain News. All Rights Reserved.