Don't judge movie by one article
In response to Eugene Redhawk's letter to the editor:
I agree the article that The Gazette printed about 'The Lone Ranger ' movie as to how Johnny Depp portrays Tonto was filled with ignorance. It appalled me also, due to the fact the article did not tell much about the movie really, it was an opinion from one person.
If you research more about this movie, the leaders of the Navajo Nation actually came to visit and bless the set. During the filming, Johnny was adopted by the Comanche in a small ceremony. This and other facts about this film are some of the reasons you might want to see the movie. Johnny and the filmmakers from what I have read, (May/June issue of Cowboys & Indians), were very careful about how they filmed around the American treasures and not hurt the land. It is sad that you take one article in a newspaper and make a judgment. Before we judge anything and anyone you need to look at more than just one opinion. The article was a take on the movie from a viewpoint. Like I said I agree with you on the article, it was not a good portrayal of the movie and the portrayal of Tonto. I am proud to be of great Indian heritage and will be watching this movie.
Shell Paap, Colorado Springs
Should all go green together
It is hard to imagine that the SB252 is as harmless as proponents suggest, when they exclude municipality-owned utility companies from the mandate.
If finding green energy sources is good for rural co-ops and won't exponentially raise our rates as suggested by Laura Long on Sunday, April 28, why not apply the mandate to all utility companies?
If we go green, we should all go green together.
Natalie Gowen, Falcon
A bill containing too many defects
It's probably just business as usual when the controlling political party in Colorado introduces and expects passage of a 128-page bill released frighteningly late in the session after months of secret drafting. Might citizens be shocked and dismayed to learn that this bill makes dramatic irreversible changes to the way we elect our officials? Will we be surprised to hear that a secretive professional association of county election officials is a primary supporter of the bill? Will citizens blindly believe the reassuring promotion of the ACLU, Common Cause, America Votes and League of Women Voters? Should citizens trust that these lobbying organizations have fully vetted HB13-1303 and will protect citizens from injurious side effects?
Many people in Colorado will naturally trust these nonprofits to give responsible advice in the 'public interest. ' Others will trust the incessantly self-servingly reassuring county clerks, two thirds of whom are Republicans. Some will trust the Democratic Party leadership. I'm genuinely sorry to admit it would be a mistake to trust any of them just as it would be a mistake to blindly trust the result of an election.
As an experienced Democratic Party activist, I find myself blowing the whistle on an undemocratic process rushing passage of a bill containing too many defects. The Democratic legislative pressure to see the bill enacted has overwhelmed patient consideration of merit or public benefit.
Election integrity comes from an opportunity and reality of citizens independently verifying the accuracy of elections - eligibility, reports, recounts etc. Colorado's Democrats and election officials have teamed up to separate citizens from their election process and aggregate power in the hands of election officials whom we are apparently expected to trust.
I'm depending on a governor's nonpartisan veto.
Harvie Branscomb, Carbondale
Dionne's attempts always entertaining
You've gotta hand it to E.J. Dionne; his attempts to turn the sows ears of increased firearm regulations into silk purses of legislation are always entertaining, if inherently misguided.
Although proposals for more in-depth (i.e. intrusive) background checks were defeated in the Senate, he'd have us believe that legislative victory can still be attained, in spite of the efforts of the 'coalition of the fearful ' (the GOP) to undermine the process through filibuster (conveniently omitting the fact that the Dems have routinely employed the same tactic regarding policies they disagree with).
Since this discussion revolves around the Sandy Hook massacre, one must ask: Would increased background checks have prevented the carnage? No; the weapons used were purchased by the shooter's mother through proper, legal means.
What purpose then would more expansive checks serve, except to expand the government's length and breadth? As a general societal rule, fewer laws are preferable to more, unless those with superior intellect propose them, and thankfully, Dionne and his liberal brethren are diligent in their efforts to save us from ourselves.
Jeff Faltz, Colorado Springs