By Alan Prendergast
By Michael Roberts
By Michael Roberts
By Amber Taufen
By Patricia Calhoun
By William Breathes
By Michael Roberts
By Melanie Asmar
Patricia Calhoun's column in the April 19 issue, "The Parent Trap," really aroused my ire. I am beginning to think Ms. Calhoun is an arch manipulator of public opinion and wondering if her articles are a form of perverse psychology. It appears that she is out of step with a good many of her readers.
For years now, we have had welfare and aid in every shape and form. We have sex education in the schools, and we have more copulating idiots or idiots copulating than we have ever had in our history. The taxpayers furnish these sex-educated idiots with free condoms and support their spawn when they refuse to use what is available to them. We pay them to go to programs to figure out what they want to do with their lives and then pay to train them. The fact is, they just want to copulate.
You don't seem to see the picture, Ms. Calhoun. The ants are getting tired of wiping the grasshopper's ass. If these grasshoppers want to fiddle and diddle, that's their right under the Constitution, but those of us who have accepted responsibility for our own actions do not owe them anything more than an equal opportunity to work their butts off as we have done and are doing.
Mankind is supposed to learn from experience. If you touch a hot stove, you may get burned. You learn not to touch hot stoves. When you do for others what they should be doing for themselves, you rob them of the opportunity to learn from experience and you create a society of parasites that is detrimental to the whole of society. It is time to stop the mollycoddling and let these people acquire some integrity in the school of hard knocks.
I rely on Westword to tell me what is really going on in this town. After reading Calhoun's "The Parent Trap," I called my legislator to complain about the hypocrisy of taking family-planning money away in order to spend it for lawyers. Then I learned that the Colorado House voted the bill down on Thursday. Calhoun's arguments must have helped them come to their senses. Thanks.
Pitch, Pitch, Pitch
Ms. Calhoun, I'm a fan--I always read you first when I pick up Westword, and I'm always disappointed if the issue lacks your column. I was especially appreciative of your efforts to inform us of the city's actions to withhold information about payments to the law firms it had retained to work on the SEC investigation of DIA bonds.
I am also an Amway distributor, and I am writing to ask you not to judge the Amway corporation or the approximately 1 million U.S. Amway distributors by the actions of Longmont coach David VanderMolen ("Coach Turns Into Pumpkinhead," April 12). One of the principles of the corporation is that it will offer its income-producing opportunity to anybody who wants it; no application or selection process exists. I admire this stance, and I also realize that it means we risk bad publicity if we bring folks of bad character into the fold.
One of the reasons I established my Amway business was simply the people I met when I was considering getting into it. The people I have met since have only reinforced my initial impression that these are people that I want to be around (I've never met VanderMolen). They, and the Amway corporation, constantly send the message that ethical practices and honesty in everything we do is the top priority. Compromising this ideal will lead to short-term gains at best, and it will certainly destroy any potential for long-term accomplishment. It is unfortunate that the Longmont coach's behavior appears to contradict this.
I am extremely proud of the products available through Amway distributors and the income potential that Amway offers to any motivated individual. I encourage you to withhold judgment on the Amway corporation and Amway distributors until you have collected more evidence and seen other perspectives. Thank you.
Regarding Ed Johnson's April 19 letter about Calhoun's recent article on Coach VanderMolen:
Why are lesbians always compared to heterosexual men? Are you saying the young girls dressing in front of (alleged) lesbians (who must certainly want all women--especially girl children!) is the same as making the young girls dress in front of heterosexual men? Ed, you're talking apples and oranges. I don't get the connection at all (maybe because there isn't one)...
Spread the Word
Regarding Richard Fleming's "Don't Spread on Me," in the April 19 issue:
This is another classic example of people being unable to accept the side effects of world population growth. Mom's apple pie is over, people--learn to accept it. It may seem preposterous to have decomposed waste only a half-mile from our homes, but it's happening everywhere, and it's not going to stop. For one thing, it's unfair of you to use the crutch that we're picking on Californians--we all come from California, Pennsylvania, Georgia, etc., and we all came here to live a better life. If your world revolves around that twenty square feet you call a backyard, that's your choice. Mine revolves around the entire earth. These things affect the entire globe, not just your precious lives. Your attorney said that if we dump the stuff in rural communities, at least it won't be in anyone's backyard. I find this a shallow statement. The difference is that rural people have bigger backyards--another choice. With generalizations like that, you'll never win in court. I suggest that you retain a professional. Oh, life's tough, isn't it?