An obligation to be responsible
I agree with the Pope that climate change is a moral issue with causes rooted in human activities and has a disproportionally negative effect on the poorer people of the world [Re: “In Case You Missed it; Pope Francis Takes on Satan,” 5/14/2015].
The Pope is telling us that humanity needs to take the issue of climate change seriously and that our relationship with the environment is symbiotic. The upcoming EPA Clean Power Plan can help us achieve a healthier relationship with the environment by reducing the contribution of our electricity system to global warming. Such a plan falls in line with the Pope’s moral desire to protect the planet we all share and the people we share it with. As residents of this planet we may justly consume resources, but we have the obligation to be responsible caretakers and to not abuse our position as the dominant species on the planet.
Kelley Schweissing /Grand Junction
One of us is stupid, Jared
I would hope that any response to the commentary by Mr. Polis points out the absurdity of his last paragraph where he makes the assertion that there is a difference between the values of Mr. Obama and big corporations over the TPP. Big corporations wrote the TPP. Is he stupid or does he think I am? I truly don’t know.
Jim Wilkinson/Boulder
Who’s obfuscating, Congressman Polis?
I’m responding to Congressman Jared Polis’ guest commentary last week [Re: “Polis Responds to His Critics on Trade Authority,” 6/18/2015].
Polis blames critics for obfuscation and factual inaccuracy. Then he blames these critics for weakening “the very transparency regarding trade negotiations that is already lacking and detracts from an important and legitimate policy debate.” Polis really turns reality on its head here: now the critics of this secret pro-corporate anti-democratic trade pact are responsible for the fact that Obama refuses to make this text available to the American people. Talk about Orwellian language.
The reality is that the purpose of the critics is to open the debate and to inform the American people about some of the very damaging aspects of the TPP to our democracy, environment and economy. Americans know a lot more about the TPP than they would have if these critics, including WikiLeaks, Public Citizen, the Sierra Club, all national labor unions, Food and Water Watch, 350.org, the Rocky Mountain Peace and Justice Center and the Boulder Weekly, among thousands of other organizations, hadn’t brought the atrocious TPP to the attention of the American people and Coloradans.
Polis claims that Fast Track and Smart Track are a different animal. Regardless of some cosmetic differences, Smart Track continues the Fast Track process of delegating away Congress’ constitutional trade authority to the president. This is the fundamental purpose of Fast Track and it remains the purpose of Smart Track.
If Smart Track is passed, Congress will not be able to make any changes or amendments to the TPP or to any trade agreement that comes under it. Congress can only vote up or down on the agreement. Smart Track would allow the president to determine an agreement’s contents through the negotiating process, and then sign and enter into an agreement before Congress voted to approve the agreement. Smart Track would authorize the President to write legislation containing any terms he decided are “necessary and appropriate” to implement the pact. Congress and state governments would have to rewrite their laws to comply with the trade agreement. Smart Track is a massive assault on democracy.
Polis has claimed over and over again that he will not support a trade agreement that undermines our national sovereignty or weakens our laws. But that is exact what the the investor-state mechanism (ISDS) in TPP, will do. As Ron Forthofer wrote recently: “Under ISDS, if a foreign investor thinks that a government’s policy reduces his profits or expected future profits, ISDS allows the foreign investor to bring that nation before a hearing of an unelected tribunal of trade lawyers outside the usual judicial system. Public interests take a back seat to trade considerations in these deliberations. In addition, the state has no corresponding right to bring an original claim against the foreign investor.” Polis knows this very well, and continues to claim, despite the evidence, that somehow this will not affect our sovereign right to govern ourselves. Talk about obfuscation and factual inaccuracy.
Polis asks, “Do you trust President Obama to negotiate a good trade agreement?” Why should I trust a man who negotiated a secret trade agreement with the help of 600 multinational corporations and refuses to let the American people know what’s in it? Why should I trust a man who is hell bent on grabbing Congress’ constitutional power over trade agreements and ramming them through Congress without any changes? Why should I trust a man who expanded the trillion dollar bail out of Wall Street banks, while throwing peanuts at Americans reeling from the economic crash these bankers created? Why should I trust a man who undermined the global carbon emissions reduction efforts at Copenhagen and has allowed the escalation of strip mining and hazardous offshore drilling projects? Why should I trust a man who disregarded key promises to unions for labor law reform? Why should I trust a man who has supported massive spying and collection of data on the American public? And let’s not forget his continuation of the torture program and indiscriminate killing of innocent people through bombing and drones strikes throughout the Middle East? There’s plenty of reasons not to trust Obama — this is just the tip of the iceberg.
Congressman Polis could learn a lot from his constituents about TPP and Fast Track — if he was listening. Instead he is listening to the corporateowned U.S. Trade Rep. and to a president who has sold out American working people and the environment over and over again.
Carolyn Bninski/Boulder
Protect American Businesses from TPP
I called my U.S. Congressional Representative Jared Polis yesterday, urging him to protect American businesses, consumers and democracy by voting against Trade Promotion Authority, commonly referred to as “fast track,” currently being debated in the U.S. House of Representatives. His staffer was polite and knew Mr. Polis’ position, and I quickly got a lengthy email response as well.
Unfortunately, all indications are that Rep. Polis is likely going to throw all of us under the bus in return for vague promises and pipe-dreams that are as old, and broken, as the tired songs of a bygone era.
Since NAFTA, we know what these “trade” deals do — they secure additional profits for some of the world’s most profitable corporations while destroying jobs, subverting democracy, and purloining the public purse. The current trade deal being promoted by Obama and the GOP alike is only different because it is much larger than NAFTA and we can no longer claim ignorance.
Currently, lawmakers are seeking to extract promises and kickbacks in return for their support of fast track authority. I have no doubt that Rep. Polis sincerely hopes that some of these will result in agreements that protect American consumers and American democracy. These promises have been made before. Ninety-two of them since NAFTA. Seventeen have been kept. None have offset the damage done to American workers or pocket books.
Representative Polis seems like a smart man. He should know better. Giving President Obama fast track authority is a little like selling the family farm in exchange for a vague promise that maybe someday in the future you may be able to return to pick an apple. Maybe. Never mind the “no trespassing” signs you were promised would not be there.”
David Sherman/Boulder
Aging in Boulder
Thank you, Dave Anderson, for writing about our aging society [Re: “Who Will Look After You Someday,” June 18,2015]. The points made about long-term care provision and homecare workers are entirely on target.
These workers need our support, certainly from those of us who are already over 65. But readers may come away with the impression that we can only cope with the Elder Boom by looking overseas. Actually, America has produced a remarkable “Village” concept to help people aging in place — and several Villages are up and running in Denver. For those needing more support, the Eden Alternative network is alive and well in Colorado and its innovative “Greenhouse” program is working not far from us in Loveland — another valuable alternative.
As the City of Boulder looks to its future, new options need to be considered for our aging population.
Harry R. Moody, retired Vice President, AARP Convenor, Boulder Positive Aging Group/Boulder
In praise of the City Manager
Boulder City Manager Jane Brautigam deserves credit for her swift and appropriate response to the Becky Boone/Code for America/Ignite Boulder/City staff-involvement controversy. The task of sorting out a sticky personnel/outside contractor issue such as this one is probably not the easiest or most pleasant of her many responsibilities. Hopefully her investigation will address a number of unanswered questions including: Why did Code for America target such a narrow range of “under-represented” Boulder residents? What, if any, definition of “under-represented” groups was outlined in the Code for America contract with the City and by whom? Is Code for America’s public/private partnership model with respect to fundraising an appropriate one for a City of Boulder contractor? The list of private donors on this Code for America contract with the City did not appear to include more than a small fraction of private — and in this case apparently moneyed — interest groups and individuals. As such, it was far from representative of every so-called “under-represented” demographic group in Boulder. Will the final Code for America work product(s) be truly inclusive of and usable by all Boulder residents? If not, what should be the City’s next steps to rectify the situation?
Cosima Krueger-Cunningham/ Boulder
Dear CWA Fans
Thank you to the 559 CWA supporters who responded to our post-conference survey! I want to share some of the more interesting, preliminary results of the survey:
* 90 percent of respondents had an “Excellent” or “Good” experience at CWA 2015, and ranked our Speakers, Panel Topics, and the physical Conference Program especially high;
* 20 percent of all attendees said they made a charitable contribution based on something they learned at CWA 2015, and respondents who rated their experience as “Excellent” were more likely to make a charitable contribution;
* 68 percent of CWA-goers said they went out to eat in Boulder (off campus) in conjunction with their CWA visit;
Also, 121 of you stated in the survey you would like to increase your engagement with CWA as a planning committee member, moderator, houser, or donor. If you are one of these people or if you would like to volunteer for CWA in the coming year, please respond to this email and let me know your specific area of interest in being a volunteer!
Finally, a somewhat lower level satisfaction was observed in the areas of Transportation/Parking (23 percent of you rated this as fair or poor) and Audience Q&A (25 percent of respondents rated this as fair or poor). Over the years we have implemented new ideas to address these concerns and in the coming year we will explore further solutions. In planning for CWA 2016, we would like to hear from you if you have ideas for ways to improve in these areas.
As a friendly reminder, CWA 2016 will take place from April 4-8, 2016. Many thanks for your support of the CWA.
John Griffin, Director, Conference on World Affairs
About that flag
I very honestly hate to hate, really, but the Confederate flag is one thing that truly disturbs me about my, your, our, the country. I become beyond irrational. Thank goodness the governor of South Carolina, Nikki Haley, was forced essentially to take that ugly, vicious (damn) flag down from the State capital of South Carolina
Amen…
Grant D. Cyrus/Boulder
We need your help
I am a young Boulder local whose kidneys failed eight years ago at age 14. I’m writing to ask for the support of the Boulder community in my work to bring greater awareness of kidney disease to our city, state and nation. After both my kidneys failed, I spent the next six months on dialysis waiting for a transplant, doing my best to keep up with school and my daily routine. I am happy to say that my kidney, affectionately known as Stan, has kept me in excellent health since then, and I now hope to help others facing similar challenges.
Today, over 26 million Americans have chronic kidney disease (CKD), but only 10 percent are aware of it. Medicare spends over $87 billion a year on CKD care, but most people wait years to receive a life-saving transplant. I was lucky — as a young, otherwise healthy patient, I received a transplant relatively quickly, reducing my healthcare costs and dramatically improving my quality of life. Work to improve early detection, slow progression and increase the number of transplants is a cost-effective strategy to lower health care costs. This is not only an economic no-brainer, but it also stands to improve the lives of millions of people.
Congress appropriates federal funding for CKD programs on an annual basis. Important work is being done at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK), and other organizations to advance kidney disease research. However, this work cannot continue without the support of our elected representatives.
I hope your readers will ask Senator Gardner and Congressman Polis to expand federal research to save money, kidneys and lives. They can add their voice to the cause by reaching out to their congressional representative at www.kidney.org/takeaction.
Please do not hesitate to contact me with additional questions. I am also trained to conduct Your Kidneys & You presentations, a program through the National Kidney Foundation that promotes awareness in the community by providing information about CKD and prevention strategies. If any local organizations are interested in organizing a presentation, they are welcome to contact me.
Haley Newkirk, Kidney Action Committee/Boulder
Right-sizing Boulder’s streets
Some people write they will be inconvenienced while driving on rightsized streets; others agree that the changes would be better for cyclists but worse for people who have to drive their cars. Still another person speaks of being tired of “feeling bullied by the board to get on a bicycle.”
There should be no contest between driver inconvenience and greater cyclist safety, which is what the new policies are intended to bring about. As is the case in other things, there is no absolute safety in cycling either, but good policies by authorities and sensible behavior by motorists and cyclists can get us closer.
In France and Germany, for example, motorists stop for pedestrians and cyclists at every crossing, on a dime, every time. No flashing lights are needed — the laws do the job. Here, traffic laws are often inadequate and poorly enforced, and motorists seem to have the bulk of the law on their side, which is evident in much of their behavior that is dangerous to cyclist safety rather than mere inconvenience.
Cyclist training and motorist retraining are not mentioned anywhere, probably because we do poorly with efforts to modify traffic behavior of motorists and cyclists. Some years ago Boulder did conduct training for cyclists, with apparently some good results through “Effective Cycling” classes; it’s not clear to me why they were discontinued as the need is still there. Free on-demand walk-in classes would demonstrate the City’s sincerity in promoting cycling, and good cycling skills and practices would improve rider safety and interaction with motorists.
Beginning cyclists should know that much more is involved in “effective” and safe urban cycling than mounting the bike and following the lines on the pavement, especially at driveways and intersections.
There also needs to be some retraining. Motorists should be made aware that cyclists have equal rights to the road (something even some in Boulder would deny.) They should use their turn signals well before turning — not one foot before or just as they are turning. They should not follow cyclists too closely and they must absolutely take greater care not to endanger cyclists by giving them more space before turning across the cyclist’s straight path, so as not to cut them off. Cyclists should give hand signals when turning. They would be smart using a rear view mirror and they would also be wise stopping at stop signs and signals.
Manfred Schwoch/Boulder
