Rating the quarterback’s detractors
Re: “NFL: 11 teams signed up for Kaepernick workout,” Nov. 15 news story
The Houston general manager’s right, under our democracy, to protest the grotesque Beijing incursion into what has been a relatively politically free and open Hong Kong. That shows moral courage. Indeed, many were quick to defend the constitutionally protected freedom of speech and right to protest of the Houston GM.
Now, were black men being shot and killed by the constabulary in the United States and in some instances with impunity? Why is Colin Kaepernick not granted the same indulgence of his right to protest under our free and open political system? Do our anthem and flag only represent that which is good and great about America? Was the Boston Tea Party, the Civil Rights Movement, the Vietnam War protests, the women’s rights protests, the LGBTQ movement, et al. not worthy of constitutional protection?
The NFL needs to stand up to the fan-based bullies who wish to deny Kaepernick the right to earn a living for exercising his constitutionally protected right to protest. Of course you are also free to burn his jersey and boycott the Denver Broncos in protest, but let the man earn a living. He’s lost millions for his conscientious action. I am a veteran of the United States Army, and I never once thought he was protesting against me. I am also an American of African descent, and if not for the attention brought to the now waning occurrence of police shootings by Kaepernick’s protest, I could have been next.
Bill Starks, Arvada
Colin Kaepernick supporters seem to believe potential employers are in the professional football business. They’re not.
National Football League owners are in the entertainment business, working to put paying customers in the stands, sell team merchandise and keep eyes glued to sponsored broadcasts. If Kaepernick can use on-field talents to overcome his personal politics, thereby helping a team build its brand and increase its fan base, he will find an NFL job. If not, teams may be excused for taking a pass.
Walt Barnhart, Littleton
So Myles Garrett won’t play for a few games for hitting an opponent in the head with a helmet, while Colin Kaepernick is blackballed for three years for expressing a personal belief? Oh, please.
Janet Walmer, Lakewood
Re: “Ready for a Kaepernick jersey,” Nov. 15 letter to the editor
If the gentleman wants to live in a country where no dissent is allowed, I would suggest he move to Russia. There he can burn all the jerseys he wants, as long as they don’t have Putin’s name on them.
Barbara Brayton, Denver
Can, should population growth be curbed?
Re: “Golden resident: Let’s cap growth,” Nov. 17 news story
In the article, Drew Hamrick of the Apartment Association of Denver states that, “If you want to cut housing supply, that means you’re increasing the price.” I disagree. This is only true if you limit new housing while continuing to entice new businesses to bring new jobs. More jobs create population growth, and population growth creates unaffordable housing even without housing limits. Why? Because as population density increases, the per capita cost of city services increases. The claim that cities die if they stop growing is false. There is an optimal size for cities, beyond which living costs get worse no matter how you plan the growth. The problems aren’t fixed by “smart growth,” “controlled growth” or “planned growth,” because the problem isn’t how you grow; the problem is absolute size.
If increasing the tax base by encouraging business and population growth were beneficial, then inner-city schools in large metropolises would be the best schools in the country; they aren’t. Cost and quality of life would be better the bigger the city; it isn’t.
Another alternative is to plan for a stable economy in equilibrium with a stable population. All over America, especially in the heartland, there are towns with no population growth, whose stable economies are doing just fine. Some of these cities have been around for more than 100 years, offering a lower cost of living and a higher quality of life than any large city.
Richard Watkins, Longmont
Daniel Hayes is at best misguided and, at worst, he has ulterior motives: i.e. he is a landlord seeking to create an artificial shortage to drive up rents.
Regardless of what his motives are, his proposed 2020 ballot initiative will not stop people from coming here. Instead, it will simply exacerbate the Front Range’s existing affordability problem.
If you care about affordability and do not want the Front Range to end up like the San Francisco Bay Area, this measure must be defeated.
Louis Lieb, Golden
Impeachment testimony convincing enough
It seems to me that many Americans have forgotten how unique free and open elections are in our world. Having the privilege of electing our leaders should never be taken for granted; it is a sacred process that our nation earned through the blood of revolution. Unfortunately, conservatives are standing by while our president is undermining one of the most important parts of being an American.
The Ukraine phone call and the details emerging behind it should be disturbing to anyone who believes in democracy. Having foreign nations meddle in our elections is bad enough, but watching the president invite them to do so is completely over the line. These actions do not represent the ideals of the Republican Party that I once helped lead.
I call on GOP leadership in Congress, including Sen. Cory Gardner, when the inquiry reaches the Senate, to cast aside partisanship and do their sacred duty under the Constitution. Follow the impeachment process, focus on the facts, listen carefully to the actual evidence and consider the sources, and hold the president accountable. It is your responsibility under the rule of law, America will be watching as the hearings continue, and your participation matters — not just for this minute in Washington but for history. And so that children can know they can look to elected leaders for integrity, even in tough times.
Mary Smith, Denver
Editor’s note: Smith is the former chair of the Denver GOP.
From where I stand, this evidence is beyond a reasonable doubt:
1. Russia, not Ukraine, interfered in our 2016 election; no “hoax.”
2. President Trump engineered withholding of needed/appropriated military aid for ally Ukraine, in its struggle against Russia, but asked the “favor” from its newly elected president: announcing Ukraine investigation of the Bidens, Burisma and the 2016 election. Rudy Giuliani, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Secretary of Energy Rick Perry and acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney were all “in the loop.”
3. The intent: “smear” possible opponent Joe Biden.
4. Trump and his supporters have smeared professional, apolitical career foreign service officials; GOP deflects by trotting out debunked conspiracy theories.
5. The president has obstructed justice by directing administration officials not to honor lawful House subpoenas.
6. Federal Election Commission head Ellen Weintraub cited the statute, which makes it illegal to solicit foreign assistance/intelligence on political opponents.
Can we consider a bipartisan censure of the president? Draw a line that states what was done is unacceptable, to include an admission of guilt, honor all legally issued subpoenas from the House to continue fact-finding. That allows the voters to decide, but it requires Trump and Republicans to admit the actions taken were wrong. Failing that, stay tuned for impeachment by the House and a trial in the Senate in early 2020. Putin has to be celebrating; mission accomplished.
John W. Thomas, Fort Collins
Gun law loophole
Re: “High-capacity magazines are still sold in Colorado,” Nov. 17 news story
It’s not surprising that Coloradans are exploiting a loophole in Colorado’s ban on high-capacity firearm magazines. Whenever a large segment of the population, even if it’s a minority, adamantly opposes a law, it’s nearly impossible to enforce.
Motivated people will find loopholes in the law or they’ll just ignore it. Some police will turn a blind eye because they believe the law is unworkable, or violates the Constitution, or because they have better things to do with their limited resources. Juries might nullify the law by refusing to convict regardless of the evidence, because they believe the law is wrong.
High-capacity magazines can even be made at home. It isn’t rocket science.
Punishing the innocent by violating their rights will not reduce gun violence. Too, we’re not going to comply. Not ever. So, repeal it. End this “feel-good” exercise in political correctness.
Chuck Wright, Westminster
To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.
