Better dead than Ted: I just wanted to thank Patricia Calhoun for not pulling any punches in "Ted Alert!," her column in the November 20 issue. This whole thing has been driving me nuts, and I don't even live in Denver. When I heard about all the news stations showing up to be shown the plane and ending up waiting for hours, it was just too much on top of too much. The phonies! The manipulators! This is the most asinine campaign I've ever heard of, and clearly the most abusive case of anthropomorphizing it's ever been my displeasure to witness.
via the Internet
It won't fly: You know you live in Den when United Airlines thinks it can convince all us dumb residents that 1) Ted is a good name for an economy airline, and 2) Ted is going to be an economy airline even though it's spending a fortune on a stupid ad campaign.
Ted Kaczynski looks like a marketing genius compared with these people. Thanks for the laughs.
I drink, therefore I am: Regarding Julie Dunn's "Party Patrol," in the November 20 issue:
DU house parties aren't a problem, the people who complain about them are. They knew they were moving into a college neighborhood; if they want quiet, they should move to the suburbs. Is it really that big a deal for a student house to have a party once every ten weeks? And if it is, instead of calling the cops, maybe the neighbors should go to the students and ask them to keep it down.
You should take a poll of all the people who complained about these parties, see how many of them went to college, see how many of them partied at houses or drank underage in college. This is an educated area, and you will find there are many hypocrites. All the university has done is make it more dangerous to drink -- a college right -- by forcing students off to downtown bars and far-away house parties.
This new DU liquor license is a joke -- a way to pry more money away from students and parents. The reason DU's getting the license is because they weren't selling any 3.2 beer. And why should students buy it? It's more expensive than at liquor stores or local bars, and it isn't even real beer. DU's solution to this whole problem is to put overpriced beer and a few pre-mixed drinks in a campus hangout that generally brings in only freshmen.
Until DU starts listening to its students and taking action on behalf of its students, students will continue to throw house parties and drink and drive to bars located throughout the city, putting more people at risk.
Wild in the streets: I had statistics in college: probabilities, ratios, etc. In no way do I declare myself a statistician, but I would bet my last dollar that the probability of DU students getting DUIs is going to increase. The increase may not be apparent next semester, or even in the entire upcoming year, but it sounds to be inevitable. The new approach to campus parties being taken by DU officials is not going to result in anything but a reduction of noise on campus and an extended voyage for students to take en route to the bottle (or, more likely, the keg). The parties will not vanish; they'll just expand to the outer boundaries of DU campus control. Look out, surrounding areas!
If Mr. Krauss is going to require students to write letters to neighbors "victimized by noise," I think it is only fair that he require the neighbors to write a letter to the "victimized by selfishness" parents when their son or daughter gets a DUI (or worse). A noisy, obnoxious, drunk, slobbering student is better than a dead one!
Guv and marriage: Regarding Michael Roberts's "Vision Quest," his Message in the November 13 issue:
For six years I've read both Westword and Michael Roberts's columns. For six years I have found both to be indispensible and occasionally disappointing. Which brings me to my point. Michael's words regarding KNRC radio and Enid Goldstein don't bring forth the warm and fuzzy feelings that he does with his poisonous discourse inspired by the anti-Dixie Chick stations down the dial.
This is clear: Enid, I believe prompted by various media watchers, simply queried (after the never-ending investigative reports frequently targeting blue-collar, minority government workers) as to why the local media seem to have a hands-off approach to covering King Bill. (Does this man get any media scrutiny?) Compare and contrast the treatment of Governor National Review with that of Wellington Webb, and even a neutral but perceptive observer would ask, "Uh, something doesn't seem right here, does it?" No, it doesn't. It appears to me, Enid and many others that local media outlets are patting themselves on their respective backs for not being interested in asking Mister Bill certain questions. Oh, no? Oh, yes. Otherwise, why doesn't someone in the media (the next time Owens deems it worthy of a Q&A) simply ask the man if adultery is involved in his separation?