In defense: Why are we questioning military service of candidates?
Re: “Critics are pouncing on Walz’s military record,” Aug. 26 news story
Master Sergeant (retired) Tim Walz served in the Army National Guard for 24 years, period. To make less of that is disingenuous and disrespectful! I left the Army as a private first class (E-3) but my discharge form listed my permanent rank as private (E-2). Nobody cares! For me, the three years, one month, and one day I served on active duty was the measure of service that mattered.
Tim Walz and JD Vance served honorably; end of discussion.
Visit Fort Logan National Cemetery and you will find privates buried next to senior officers.
Harry Puncec, Lakewood
I just want to make sure I understand this. Tim Walz served honorably for 24 years in the Minnesota National Guard. The Army gave him the title of Command Sergeant Major while he was still in the National Guard and it served their purposes. But when he retired in 2005, almost four years after 9/11 and after 24 years of service, they pulled that rank because he had not finished all his coursework. Now past military guys who didn’t like him are acting like this is the end all be all, yet they are writing checks to a draft dodger who used his wealth to avoid serving. Did I get all that? Could there be more hypocrisy in one article? I don’t think so, but there’s still plenty of time for people with no shame to outdo themselves.
Sarah Jimenez, Colorado Springs
How did a story, which was basically a slander piece about Tim Walz’s military record that was orchestrated by the same people who led the Swift Boat attacks on John Kerry, land on the front page of The Denver Post? The Denver Post owes those of us who expect honest journalism from their newspaper an apology for publishing this story on the front page. Are you also going to publish a story on the front page of all the veterans who stand behind and defend Tim Walz’s record?
Edward Dranginis, Centennial
The tempest in a teapot over Tim Walz’s army rank is being stirred by a draft dodger (Donald Trump) and JD Vance, who rode a desk in Iraq for six months and rose to the rank of corporal after four years in the Marines.
In the military, officers and senior enlisted men often serve above their permanent rank. Most notably, George Armstrong Custer was a brevet (acting) major general in the Civil War and reverted to captain after the war before eventually being promoted to lieutenant colonel.
Walz wore the chevrons and performed the duties of a command sergeant major and is entitled to refer to himself as such.
Bill Powell, Wheat Ridge
Big cat hunting as wildlife management
Re: “Trophy Hunting Ban: Vote “yes” to save mountain lions, lynx and bobcats,” Aug. 25 commentary
The commentary is misleading. The number of lions, bobcats and lynx in Colorado is increasing and neither the lion nor bobcat are on the endangered species list. In fact, their numbers are increasing.
“There is a time to sow and a time to harvest.” Neither lions nor bobcats have any effective enemy to control their number except man, and man is the manager of all wildlife in Colorado. A fact. Like it or not. It is our responsibility to manage wildlife in a way that resembles balance.
If the yes vote passes in November, and it probably will, there will be no effective regulation or control over the increasing slaughter of deer, elk, and antelope. Lions and bobcats are relentless predators that kill without reason or need.
The one thing deer and elk don’t need is more predators. They are currently victims of wolves, bears, lions, bobcats, coyotes, winters, and people.
The proposed amendment seeks a ruthless and continuing worsening open season on deer, elk and antelope.
Paul Bonnifield, Yampa
I have lived in Colorado for 52 years, and I hold a graduate degree in Environmental Studies with a focus on biological conservation. Trophy hunting of our Colorado mountain lions is masquerading as conservation.
Science shows mountain lions manage their own populations. They don’t need to be chased down with packs of radio-collared dogs until fatigued and then shot. About 50% of mountain lions killed last season were females. Inevitably, kittens were orphaned and left to die painfully by starvation and exposure.
Mountain lion trophy hunting for heads and hides is scientifically unnecessary, plainly wrong, and outright cruel.
The assault on our Colorado wild cats doesn’t stop there. Our bobcats are indiscriminately trapped, bludgeoned or strangled, and then skinned and sold to markets outside the USA for profit.
I am one volunteer among hundreds of volunteers within the Cats Aren’t Trophies coalition from every corner of Colorado who are working to protect our Colorado wild cats. My vote this fall will be a resounding “Yes” to stop unnecessary, cruel hunting and trapping of our treasured Colorado wild cats for their heads, hides, and beautiful furs.
Lynn Ackerman, Highlands Ranch
Carbon fees could offset insurance costs
Re: “How new report will impact your insurance cost,” Aug. 25 news story
I read with interest the Post’s Sunday report on an insurance industry analysis concluding that $141 billion worth of housing in Colorado is at risk of destruction by wildfire and the impact that risk has on the homeowner’s insurance rates we pay. As the article made clear, all Colorado residents share this expense through higher housing costs.
Culprits behind the nearly 20% increase in premiums over two years include the increasingly erratic weather patterns that foster the wildfires destroying our homes.
A more complete perspective would take into account what is driving this: greenhouse gas emissions that cause those destructive changes in our climate.
Why do we as a country allow the fossil fuel industry and other polluters to inflict these costs on American families with impunity? Wouldn’t it be more rational for those industries who profit from this destruction to bear at least some of the cost through a carbon fee, the proceeds of which could be distributed to households who are now, in effect, subsidizing polluting activities through higher housing costs?
A bill introduced in Congress last year, HR 5744, would put a fee on fossil fuels, starting low and increasing each year. The proceeds would be paid to households in a monthly carbon cash-back payment. This would establish a market-based incentive to reduce and one day eliminate greenhouse gas emissions and redirect the costs of pollution back on those who are causing it – not on American households.
Luke Clarke, Golden
Distrustful of DPS spending plans
Re: “5 reasons to vote yes on the $1 billion DPS bond issue,” Aug. 25 editorial
Denver voters should vote “no” on the upcoming $1 billion bond issue. As a retired teacher, I always vote against more money for school bureaucracies.
The Sunday editorial presents a false picture of the Denver Public Schools and its financial needs.
An unexamined assumption exists “Oh, the money is for the kids, and that’s a good thing. What could go wrong? Let’s give “the schools” what they ask for.”
No, no, no!
Much of the money isn’t used for the kids, teachers, or classrooms.
The money often is misspent and unaccounted for. Instead of going to where it is needed — actual classroom instruction, the money is siphoned off for useless studies and consultants, and on redundant, ineffective and overpaid administrators.
The job of most central and on-site administrators is twofold: one) to polish a chair with their bottoms and 2) to move paper or digital information from tray one to tray two.
DPS doesn’t know how to spend the money it already has; why should it be entrusted with more? Who are public school administrations accountable to? Where is the oversight? Who is the Department of Education accountable to? Until DPS shows it can spend money wisely, they should be given no more money to misspend.
When are schools going to focus on fulfilling basic purposes, such as instruction in civics and critical thinking? No student should be allowed to graduate from middle school until they clearly demonstrate two skills: 1) they can evaluate information and think and choose for themselves, and 2) they know how to be a responsible citizen contributing to the greater good.
Bill Allegar, Denver
Some businesses find push for equity too costly to bottom line
Re: “Bad for business — Restarauters are looking outside Colorado for their next opportunities. I’m not surprised.” Aug. 25 commentary
I find it interesting but not at all surprising that Walter Isenberg puts no onus on himself. He, like the many others he mentions in his editorial, all profited off a cheap Denver. I don’t think they get the right to play victim now as their share of the pie has gotten smaller as others have fought for an equitable Denver. That’s not to say the city’s vision has perhaps gotten too broad.
The continued push through sales taxes — especially when many projects are overfunded, underutilized, and lack proper organization and structure — is a major concern, and in the process, failing the pursuit of an equitable Denver. Small businesses play a major part in this equity equation! But to these players who like to pretend they are small businesses when they’re in victim mode but in reality are multi-location restaurant groups who have all made millions, profiting off of this changed city they pushed for (and in the process diluted). To them I say, “good riddance!”
Neil Robertson, Denver
Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.
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.