Review unhelpful to community
I was appalled at the review of Senor Manuel's in the May 24 Gazette. We have been driving across town for the last 48 years to enjoy their delicious chili rellenos, margaritas and chips and salsa (which is nicely spicy but not too hot).
Your reviewer complained about everything except the service. What really pushed me over the edge was when she complained that the food was hot when it arrived from the kitchen and she had to wait for it to cool. She prefers a restaurant where the food sits around getting cold before it is served?
It seems to me that if your reviewer doesn't like a restaurant, she should just ignore it. What is helpful to your readers is to read a review of a good restaurant we haven't discovered, with information about items on the menu that are particularly delicious. It isn't helpful to the community to try to put a long-time, family-owned restaurant out of business with a nasty review.
Tucker Hart Adams
Review was a one-sided attack
Re: Robin Intemann's disgraceful review of Senor Manuel (Go!, May 24). Beyond noting the friendliness of the staff, the only valid point in the entire piece was in the final sentence, where it was noted that "Senor Manuel's clearly has a following." Well, it happens to be a huge following (just drive by on a Friday or Saturday evening), and I count myself among the loyal devotees.
I first enjoyed what I consider to be (by far) the best Mexican food in southern Colorado 32 years ago, and have probably eaten there about once a month since then. Having traveled to virtually every corner of Mexico, I know what authentic cuisine should taste like.
If Intemann wants Tex-Mex, go somewhere else. The entire review appeared to me to be biased, inaccurate (e.g., the chili verde is as good as it gets, with lots of pork!) and mean-spirited. I digest the Go! reviews every week, and I've never seen such a one-sided attack on a Colorado Springs institution.
Gary A. Morse
Reauthorize the farm bill
In May, the U.S. House of Representatives rejected the Agriculture and Nutrition Act of 2018, or "farm bill", to reauthorize farm programs and policy as well as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Several issues led to the bill's dramatic defeat on the House floor, including proposed cuts to SNAP benefits for approximately 2 million people over 10 years. Now, Congress must find a path forward to reauthorize the farm bill, which expires this fall.
About 11 million people with disabilities across the country, including 4,346 people in our state, rely on SNAP to survive. We know that all too often food insecurity and disability go together. Families that include people with disabilities are two to three times more likely to experience food insecurity than families that have no members with disabilities. They simply can't afford cuts to their SNAP benefits.
The Arc of Colorado calls on all of our representatives and senators to oppose cuts to basic food assistance, and instead work to develop a bipartisan proposal to reauthorize the farm bill that sustains and protects SNAP.
The Arc of Colorado, Denver
Lamborn unwilling to debate
It seems that-yet again-CO D5 congressional incumbent Doug Lamborn has declined to face his constituents - this time for the only scheduled Republican candidate debate before the June 26 primary (Joey Bunch, Colorado Politics, May 30). Bunch reports that there is nothing on his schedule for that week, which is reserved for "district work week," other than a fundraiser among the party faithful.
Declining to participate in civic conversations is a pattern, not an exception. Lamborn rarely accepts invitations to appear before his constituents. Write him a letter and ask for comment? Forget it, unless you want a bland "thank you for your interest" response.
Perhaps - as in previous primaries in which he was challenged - he is confident in his close relationships with the Republican establishment. Perhaps he is comfortable with the polling leads he maintains among that woefully small number of prospective voters who have an opinion and vote accordingly.
Whatever the rationale, declining to show up to debate challengers and provide serious responses to serious question from constituents is unacceptable as a "new normal" in our politics. As an unaffiliated voter, I have plenty of questions for him. But he needs to show up.
Our national politics have grown destructively polarized - there can be no real debate unless we can find a way to engage each other constructively about the issues that shape our lives and the future of this country.
And there can be no debate unless the incumbent for a national representative office is willing to show up.
Still ready for football games
For those of you who are so disgusted with the Broncos kneeling, there is a section in the paper for selling your tickets. Trust me when I say there are still plenty of us who would like to go.