Letters to the Editor

The chances of a successful wartime launch were slim to none. One of the nice features of this missile was the liquid-oxygen loading system. When it failed, it could fill the silo one-third full of liquid oxygen! What fun!

The five-megaton thermonuclear warheads were assembled and stored at the nuclear-weapons assembly area on Lowry, where I worked, right across the street from Windsor Gardens on Alameda Avenue. We had twenty warheads -- eighteen for the birds and two in reserve. Only during the Cuban Missile Crisis were all eighteen missiles armed. We would take the warheads out to the missile sites on trailers pulled by five-ton Ford trucks. Right down Sixth Avenue! In case people were wondering what was under that tarp, the Air Force thoughtfully stenciled big radiation symbols on all four sides. To remove all doubt, the trailer was placarded with "Explosives" signs that we removed on the return trip. Nuclear-weapons mishaps are called "broken arrows"; we never had one in Denver.

The greatest danger in exploring the old sites is getting injured in a fall and/or lighting failure. Thrill-seekers will need a main high-power light and two reliable back-ups. For those unfamiliar with the underground layout, it's very easy to become lost and disoriented. Always leave someone topside just in case.

Robert Seeber
Lakewood

Up from the underground: Loved the "Search Party" article. It was great!

Mark McGrath
via the Internet

Shelter from the norm: Regarding Julie Jargon's "No-Kill Bill," in the November 13 issue:

It's good to hear about the new Denver Shelter Alliance and its focus on the "no-kill" shelter designation. According to Ms. Jargon, "While shelters in other cities tend to fight like cats and dogs, the ones in Denver have a long history of collaboration." This has not been my experience, nor does it sound like it's been the experience of the wonderful Best Friends Sanctuary in Utah.

It is important to consider and question the objection of the Alliance's first project. As Jargon so clearly states, "In the dog-eat-dog world of fundraising, semantics can be critical." And Mr. Rhode, of the badly named Dumb Friends League, agrees that semantics can be misleading: "No one can say they'll never euthanize an adoptable animal without limiting the number of animals they can take in."

As a supporter and former volunteer of MaxFund (and current volunteer at two other shelters), I can attest to the truth of both statements. MaxFund does stress its no-kill status -- heavily -- as a fundraising policy, and it works! But MaxFund has very limited space and can take in only a small percentage of the animals it gets calls to rescue. Also, what is not mentioned to contributors is that some dogs (and cats) can be warehoused for months, and even years, in small wire cages with cement floors, getting little exercise and even less socialization.

I would like to suggest that the Alliance reconsider its designations. "Open Admission" is also misleading, because it does not tell the full story. Rather, it should become "Open Admissions/Adoptable Animals." And the other designation, for MaxFund and the Animal Rescue and Adoption Society (two shelters that do not euthanize except for humane reasons) should become "No-Kill/Limited Admissions."

I hope everyone can resolve this issue soon so that they can get back to better care for all shelter animals and an end to needless euthanasia. The work should be to make Denver shelters equal to any in the country, and there's a way to go before that happens.

Name withheld on request

Totally tubular: Kenny Be's November 20 Worst-Case Scenario, "Crazy Bill's Mouse Factory," was great! The illustration of milking tubes attached to each male mouse's member was one of his best (not to mention most disturbing) ever. Nicely done!

Tom Beckett
Denver

Be's the best: I want to express my continued years of enjoyment of Westword. I especially enjoy Kenny Be and the other cartoons.

Brian Foote
via the Internet

Strip stake: Regarding Debbie Dayton's letter on Sheridan strip clubs in the November 13 issue:

She says, "Employment at these clubs keeps many families from becoming hungry and homeless." So these families to which she refers contain breadwinners who would be unable to find any work elsewhere? That's hard to believe. Debbie is kidding herself to think that it is possible to have self-esteem while selling one's body as a sex object. People who have self-esteem do not degrade themselves.

People shouldn't have kids they can't afford to support. Anybody can pop out a kid. But a responsible and caring person makes sure they can take proper care of a child before they have one.

Anybody who has a child has a moral obligation to put that child's interests first. Imagine the embarrassment and humiliation of coming into this world and finding out you had a stripper or a prostitute for a mother. You would be coming up in an unsavory environment not of your choosing. It would be hard to overcome this and make a decent life for yourself if you wanted to. Your options would be quite limited, and you would be handicapped from the start. It isn't fair or right to do this to an innocent child. If a person doesn't feel a moral obligation to put their child's interests first, then they shouldn't have a child.