I have agreed with The Gazette about many subjects, including the proper balance between security and civil liberties, immigration reform, and even the course of our war in Iraq.
   But I must respectfully reject the accusation in a long-winded and overheated editorial of July 8 that my recent letter to the Bureau of Reclamation about its study of the Southern Delivery System (SDS) amounted to favoring Pueblo at the expense of Colorado Springs because Colorado Springs "mostly votes Republican."
   Serving on the Armed Services Committee and as Chairman of the Science Committee's Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee, I have worked to support the military and aerospace community in Colorado Springs. Suggesting I don't care about the "economic welfare" of Colorado is offensive and ignores my record of active leadership on behalf of Fort Carson, Schriever and Peterson Air Force bases, NORAD and the Air Force Academy.
   Gazette readers deserve a more accurate explanation of my letter to Reclamation.
   I urged Reclamation to proceed deliberately so that public comments and concerns can be seriously considered, a request I think is entirely appropriate because Reclamation has often been tonedeaf to the concerns of small towns and rural areas. The Gazette attacked this as trying to stop SDS altogether, and implied I was acting on behalf of my "powerful friend" Bob Rawlings, publisher of the Pueblo Chieftain.
   But nowhere did a 1,196-word editorial mention my clearly-stated rationale, namely, to promote cooperation and reduce the chance of time-consuming and expensive litigation.
   I do regard Rawlings as a friend, but I neither discussed my letter with him nor did I request that his comments be given special weight. On the contrary, I urged that all comments and criticisms of the project be fully and carefully addressed, citing his detailed submission as an example. The variety and extent of such comments was reported by the Gazette itself in a July 6 story headlined "400 comments are full of sharp criticism for proposed pipeline."
   The Gazette accused me of hypocrisy because my letter mentioned "implications" the SDS analysis might have for legislation Sen. Ken Salazar and I have introduced authorizing a study of the feasibility of a water storage facility on Fountain Creek. Our bills do expressly say the study is to be done without regard to SDS and other projects, but that doesn't mean Reclamation's SDS analysis could not have negative impacts on the Fountain Creek study. If Reclamation mishandles the analysis or allows its bureaucratic timetable to impede a collaborative resolution, the result could be poisoned regional relations and costly litigation - things that obviously could disrupt passage of the Fountain Creek bill.
   Finally, The Gazette claimed my actions were done for purely partisan reasons. But whatever reason The Gazette may have to pin a partisan label on me, water should not be one. In Colorado, water is not a partisan issue. Coloradans need clean and accessible water and debates about water reflect geography, not party affiliations.
   The most serious conflicts focus on urban growth and rural survival - and cities like Denver, Aurora, and Colorado Springs need to recognize that the stakes are especially high for smaller, rural communities. While cities have armies of water lawyers and engineers, small communities often feel that in a water struggle they only bring knives to a gunfight.
   I'm not saying growing cities like Colorado Springs should abandon their legal rights to water. I would never advocate that. But I believe thoughtful and creative collaboration should be given every chance before there is resort to the courts.
   From communication between my office and staff of Colorado Springs Utilities, I know the city's engineers and water experts are thoughtful and care about these issues. And sensitivity about the survival of rural communities is important to urban voters (in both parties), as shown by their rejection of the infamous AWDI proposal and Referendum A.
   So, I'd like to see Reclamation encourage discussions and negotiations rather than allow a rigid timetable for a final EIS to drive litigation. That strikes me as common sense. It also has nothing to do with a "Red" Colorado Springs or a "Blue" Pueblo.
   And by the way, I think my "powerful friend" is a registered Republican. 

<i>Udall represents Colorado's 2nd District in the U.S. House of Representatives and is the Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate.</i>

Why has President Bush agreed to reduce our emissions by only 50 percent by 2050? I've spent the past three years researching what the average citizen needs to know about the energy situation, and what can be done about it.

My research shows there are four main areas that can be improved upon to reduce emissions, and by my calculations, it can be done much more quickly than 50 percent by 2020. Here's how:

Let's say consumers focus on reducing their energy consumption.

That means both businesses and households turnoff lights when they're not in use, buy energy efficient bulbs, turn thermostats up or down to minimize energy use, etc. It might mean taking baths and showers less often, cutting lawns less often.

However it's achieved, though, every household and business would set a goal of reducing its energy consumption by 20 percent.

Secondarily, let's say consumers focus on reducing their emissions. That means buying products that have lower emissions, such as electric lawn mowers, solar energy products, low-emissions cars, alternative fuels, etc. Let's give them a goal of 20 percent reduction in emissions.

Now consider the energy suppliers. Let's look at their emissions. We'll give all energy suppliers the goal of reducing emissions by 20 percent through the use of clean energy. Austin Energy has recently raised its goal from 20 percent to 30 percent clean energy by 2020 - much sooner than 2050.

The remaining component is reducing the amount of energy that energy suppliers must produce to meet the demand. This means improving efficiency and reducing waste. Energy is wasted if it is produced but not used. This is where the global grids, smart grids and energy storage come into play. We'll set a goal of 20 percent for energy suppliers to increase efficiency.

If we reduce each of these four components by just 20 percent, that means we could cut emissions by more than half. To understand this, consider this example. Say you go to a store where they have 100 marbles. You buy 80 percent of them. That's 80 marbles.

When you get them home, you notice that 20 percent of them are flawed in some way so you keep only 80 percent of them. That means 64 are good.

Now let's say 20 percent of the remaining marbles are an unappealing color, and you decide not to use them. So you use 80 percent of the 64 marbles, which is 51.

But then you discover the box you want to store them in can hold only 80 percent of the remaining marbles, leaving you with 41.

In the same way, if we combine these four areas of improvement (80 percent of the current consumer energy usage x 80 percent of the emissions coming from the products that consumers use x 80 percent of the emissions as compared to the emissions from current energy production sources x 80 percent due to efficiency gains in production, storage and distribution) we can get to 41 percent of the emissions we're currently producing.

Stated differently, these improvements would reduce emissions by almost 60 percent, or more than half of what we would otherwise produce.

It doesn't need to take 42 years to accomplish this. In fact, we might be surprised at how quickly we can succeed.

-

Meredith is founder and co-owner of HumanExcel, a corporate educational firm based in Austin, Texas. An engineer with expertise in business process improvement, she helps organizations reduce wastes, improve efficiencies and save energy. For more information visit www.HumanExcel.com.

   When I met Jeff Crank, he was 23 years old and applying for a job in my Washington office. A congressman receives tons of applications, but Crank's leaped off the stack.

   A couple years before, I had seen him on national news confronting a group of radical students, grabbing their burning American flag, and blowing out the flame. I felt certain that this young man would grow into a conservative leader, and I was pleased to think people would associate his name with my office.

   It's almost 19 years later, and I am happy to have the opportunity to endorse Jeff Crank to represent the 5th Congressional District in Congress.

   The eight years he spent in my offce bore out my initial impressions: he was smart, persuasive, bold, principled and energetic. In short, Crank proved to be that rare man capable of changing Washington for the better.

   I have no doubt that Crank will cast the right votes. He was a conservative patriot when he was a college student, and that hasn't has changed.

   But just as importantly, he possesses the strength of character that will allow him to stand up to party bosses when they're not acting like real conservatives - the strength of character capable of shaking up Washington from the inside.

   Crank has concrete plans for ending the abuse of mass franked mailers, joining John McCain in his war on earmarks, cutting federal spending by 20 percent over the course of the next 10 years, and placing an expiration date on every federal program.

   These are exactly the kinds of courageous stands I expected from that young man I had watched protecting the American flag.

   It's also worth noting that neither of Crank's opponents is promising these bold, conservative stands.

   Crank is the only candidate to sign a pledge placing a self-imposed moratorium on earmarks, and he's also promised never to exploit the congressional franking privilege to send out mass, unsolicited, selfpromoting campaign ads on the taxpayer dime.

   Conservative think tanks rate congressmen on their voting records and proposed legislation. But certain practices, like the abuse of mass frank mailers, fall under the radar.

   Crank has committed himself to taking conservative positions, both when conservative groups are looking and when they are not.

   When it comes to legislative experience, Crank is better prepared to run a congressional offce than I was when I entered Congress, even though I had served 10 years in the state Legislature.

   Crank worked for eight years in Washington, DC and rose to the position of administrative director, running my Washington office.

   In addition, he served as the key liaison to the Armed Services Committee and stood with me and the community in our battle to save Fort Carson from closure. Colorado Springs military installations are more secure today because of Crank's service in Washington.

   I seldom endorse candidates, but I make an exception for Jeff Crank.

   The 5th Congressional District is one of the most conservative in the country, and its congressman should be one of the country's most notable conservatives. I have known Jeff all his adult life, and in my heart of hearts I know, and have always known, that he will rise to the occasion. 

Hefley represented the 5th Congressional District in the U.S. House of Representatives for 20 years.

   Rush Limbaugh often says the media have a template through which they construct their stories on subjects like Christianity and conservatism. It is hard to argue with him after reading The Gazette's front-page piece documenting the supposed death throes of evangelicalism ("Evangelism may be losing its sway," June 29).

   The template at work here was built after the 2006 midterm elections, which did not turn out well for Republicans, and goes roughly like this: Socially conservative Christians are out of touch with today's young believers, leaving men like Dr. James Dobson irrelevant as a "fresh" crop of evangelical leaders takes center stage with issues other than abortion and the protection of marriage at the top of their agendas.

   One problem, though. The facts don't fit the template.

   Take the notion that Dobson is a Republican puppet. The truth? Until his recent comments about Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama's views on the Bible and the role of faith in the public square, Dobson had not publicly expressed his concern about the Illinois senator. He had, however, criticized Sen. John McCain and congressional big spenders in both parties. During the presidential primaries, in statements that got wide media coverage, he explained he could not support then-candidates Rudy Giuliani or Fred Thompson, either, while detailing his problems with McCain's record - support of embryonic stem-cell research and failure to back a federal marriage amendment among them.

   In fact, one could argue Dobson's remarks about Obama grabbed so many national headlines because it was the first time in more than a year and a half he expressed his disagreements with a presidential candidate who didn't sit on the GOP side of the aisle.

   And what of the substance of Dobson's comments about Obama's views on religion? Another telltale sign of the conservative-evangelicals-as-dinosaurs story template is that it often allows for only a drive-by characterization of what people like Dobson say.

   The Gazette offered just five words - placed in unfortunately little context from Dobson's reaction to the 2006 speech Obama gave about the intersection of faith and politics. But there was deeper cause for his alarm: Obama proclaimed that "the religiously motivated" must "translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific values" when advocating policy positions. To oppose abortion, he maintained, one must "explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to all faiths, including those with no faith at all."

   Dobson disagrees vehemently - and he's not alone. Pat Buchanan, who has had numerous policy disagreements with Dobson through the years, dismissed Obama's grasp of Scripture and its role in policymaking as "kumbaya Christianity." Dr. Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, wrote when the speech was delivered that the senator was embracing "secularism with a smile."

   "He seems to believe in the myth of a universal reason and rationality that will be compelling to all persons of all faiths, including those of no faith at all," Mohler noted. "Such principles do not exist in any specific form usable for the making of public policy on, for example, matters of life and death like abortion and human embryo research."

   It's always hard to disprove a negative, but the Religious-Right-era-is-over template has one fatal flaw: This is the third time in just the past 20 years that the evangelical movement's death has been predicted.

   The first was 1988, when Pat Robertson lost his bid for the presidency; then came the late 1990s, when the Christian Coalition all but collapsed after Ralph Reed's departure. In both instances, as our continuing presence proves, the predictions proved profoundly inaccurate.

   Evangelicalism has never been about "sway," as The Gazette headline put it. It's been about biblical principles and truth. And with men like Focus on the Family President Jim Daly and Family Research Council President Tony Perkins, both in their 40s, reaching for the baton being passed to them by Dobson and others of his generation, those principles and that truth are in good hands for years to come. 

Minnery is senior vice president of government and public policy for Focus on the Family Action.

The Limited Government Forum has a dream for Colorado Springs we would like to share in response to the editorial and news story promoting the visioning project called Dream City 2020. It's a vision of a great American city that, through a conscious choice to blaze a new and different path, steers clear of the big government pitfalls that plague so many other large American cities.

The city today teeters on a tipping point. We can trudge along the well-worn ruts carved by other cities, embracing everexpanding bureaucracy, central planning and the creation of a burdensome tax and regulatory climate. Or we can create what will be known as the "Colorado Springs Model," premised on the idea that greatness, economic vitality and opportunity don't come through government, but by reducing government's influence and unleashing the freedom, creativity and civic-mindedness of average people.

TWe already have the solid foundations for such a city now, thanks to the budget discipline required by self-reliant citizens who expect local government to stick to the basics. All that's needed is that we preserve and enhance the things that already make Colorado Springs such a great place to live.

The Colorado Springs Model calls for modest, efficient and innovative government, whose activities are supplanted by highly effective private institutions, including charities, nonprofit organizations and the business community. We in Colorado Springs will look first to the private sector to deal with most problems, by working consciously toward a renewal of what once was called civil society. Most of the pieces of this mosaic already exist; we're blessed with many good philanthropic organizations and a strong spirit of volunteerism. Now we must fit all the pieces together in a way that makes the whole stronger than its parts.

As our civic institutions become more effective and residents take personal and collective responsibility for addressing these issues, government will become the problem-solver of last resort.

By 2020, Colorado Springs will have pared local government down by outsourcing inherently nongovernmental functions. City Council members won't have to oversee far-flung enterprises that are better managed by private sector professionals. Proceeds from the sale of enterprises, prudently re-invested, will put the city on a sound financial footing, help improve its infrastructure and mute the constant calls for higher taxes.

Colorado Springs in 2020 will boast a business and regulatory climate that doesn't depend on bribing companies to come or to stay, but creates the ideal conditions for the entrepreneurial spirit to flourish, building its economy from the ground up. Lower taxes, less regulation, a much-improved public school system and modernized infrastructure will produce an opportunity-oriented atmosphere. That, combined with many natural and recreational amenities, will make the city a desirable place to start or relocate a business.

We'll opt-out of the bidding wars other communities engage in, welcoming outside companies but concentrating on growing and strengthening businesses already here. We'll politely tell outside corporations that we would love to have them move here but that part of being a good corporate citizen in Colorado Springs means paying your own way.

Rather than embracing "smart growth" strategies that tend to drive affordable housing out and the cost of living up, Colorado Springs will be a city where the American dream remains within reach of average people. There's a place for reasonable planning. But we won't hand professional planners and anti-development activists the power to tell our residents how and where they should live. We'll put the emphasis on opportunity and affordability, rather than regimentation; on personal creativity and consumer choice, rather than command and control. This will make us a magnet for people and companies that share these values.

We'll build the Colorado Springs Model by treating all our local institutions - city and county government, the charitable sector, public school districts, UCCS and PPPC - as incubators for new ideas, fostering a city-wide enthusiasm for embracing new paradigms. Rather than thinking of this as an anti-government agenda, we think of it as a pro-people, pro-opportunity, pro-self reliance agenda. Government will always have its place. But confining it to its core functions will leave more money and control in the hands of average people, which they can use to support their families, build businesses, contribute to the causes and charities that strengthen civil society.

Our dream is that Colorado Springs in 2020 serves as a national model for the truly voluntary, truly entrepreneurial city. We invite those who share this vision, and those who aren't sure, as well as those who oppose it, to join us in an open-minded discussion about the possibilities. It's not enough to dream about the Colorado Springs Model. We must build it methodically, step by step, through the choices we make moving forward.

-

Paige is executive director of The Limited Government Forum. Write him at Sean@limitedgovforum.org.

   Today we celebrate our declaration of independence as a sovereign country, fought for and defended over the past 232 years with the blood of patriots. We celebrate personal freedoms and liberty of which much of the world can only dream. History has shown and will show again that the United States of America is not only great for her wealth, and her global power, she is great because of the resolve, ingenuity, generosity and strength of her citizens. We must pass on this proud heritage to our children if we expect them to pass on freedom and liberty to the generations yet to come.

   Every generation has been tested - from our own revolution to today's battle against radical Islam - and every generation has had to guard and protect our individual liberties and make sacrifices. Our generation is no different.

   I had the great privilege to serve our country in uniform for 31 years. The first half of my career was focused on the threat from totalitarian communist states. The threat was clear and well defined. The contrast was never clearer than in Berlin where a wall divided East and West.

   But now we face a different set of threats, not so clear and well defined. I spent the second half of my career focused on a determined enemy who would like to see their version of Islam dominate the world. They are supremely dedicated to their cause. They will not be defeated easily.

   Our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines in Iraq and Afghanistan continue to pay a high price as they fight to spread liberty and make our lives here at home secure. Like our Founding Fathers, the people of Iraq and Afghanistan are engaged in a struggle against tyranny. With the help of America's finest men and women, the Iraqis and Afghanis will earn their freedom, and we will sustain ours.

   From food to fuel, the cost of living is on the rise. The average family is making cutbacks in order to manage their budgets and pay the bills. There is some anxiety concerning the course our nation is on, and speculation fills the airwaves as the media reports stories that feed the frenzy rather than aid in finding a solution. We can no longer rest our heads on a pillow of credit, but instead must rise up to a responsible economic position and spend no more than what we earn. We must explore energy alternatives and increase domestic production of oil in order to loosen the grip of foreign influence on our economy. We must rely on the genius of the free market and release the creative power of the American people.

   From our president to our congressional representatives, we need capable leaders who understand the situation and have real solutions that will help move our nation forward. During this critical time in our nation's history we cannot be hindered by incompetence or mediocrity, and as Americans we have the right to expect only the best from our elected officials. We need experts and leaders from every profession to step up and represent the citizens of the United States. We need doctors, engineers, executives, scientists, teachers and others to lend their knowledge. Even more importantly we need representatives who have worn the uniform of our nation, people who understand national security and have experience in international affairs. It is a crisis that during this time of war fewer than 20 percent of our congressional representatives have any military experience.

   We are in need of representatives who understand war and the volatile situation in the Middle East, representatives who also know how to work within the structures of the Washington establishment to take care of the needs of our veterans. Most importantly, our representatives should be prepared for every possible situation and must be ready to lead on day one. It is my passion to serve and I would be honored to represent you in Congress.

   This Fourth of July is an opportunity for us to celebrate our liberty and to give thanks for the sacrifices that have been made on its behalf. Let us rededicate ourselves to the principles that made our country free and strong. We owe it to those who will follow. 

Retired major general Rayburn is a Republican candidate for the 5th Congressional District of Colorado.

   The City Council opposes tax relief. Surprise, surprise.

   What is shocking, even scary, is their incompetence with basic numbers. They can't add. No wonder they always claim a fiscal crisis, year after year.

   They hysterically attacked both reform petitions, for which we filed 50 percent more signatures than required. They proved yet again they will say and do anything to deceive citizens into voting against any modest proposal for fiscal discipline.

   EXAMPLE 1: Apart from the overtly illegal stormwater tax ended by these petitions, the city collects a secret tax of $27 million on our utility bills. Our petition phases out that hidden tax in 10 equal yearly steps. That saves us $2.7 million in 2009, $5.4 million in 2010, $8.1 million in 2011, etc. All savings go to utility customer accounts in equal dollar amounts. Compare that gradual approach to current scheming for a $72 million instant tax increase.

   The city said the "cut" is $35 million, because they added $8 million that cityowned enterprises now pay the city for lawyers, accountants, and other overhead. Wrong! As payments phase out, city services to enterprises will also. The net loss to the city is not $8 million, but zero. An $8 million "mistake."

   EXAMPLE 2: Even if we accept their crazy, inflated $35 million figure, the city said the first of 10 equal cuts would be $3.5 million, but the 10th year loss is $40.5 million. Wrong again. The petition requires all 10 steps be equal, and 10 x 3.5 equals 35, not 40.5. Their $5.5 million "mistake" in multiplication gets them an "F" in third-grade math. CSAP tests, anyone?

   EXAMPLE 3: When you add their (false) cumulative figures of $3.5 million in 2009, $7 million in 2010, $10.5 million in 2011, etc., the 10-year total is $192.5 million. The city claimed $212 million, another $19.5 million "mistake." Remember, the real numbers are an added $2.7 million yearly for a total utility customer savings of $148.5 million spread over 10 years. The council's bogus $212 million figure is another $63.5 million "mistake."

   That $148.5 million still sounds like a lot of money, but put it in perspective. City budgets historically grow over 5 percent. This year's is $360 million, up $12 million from 2007. Apply only this year's 3.44 percent increase, compounded over the next 10 years. The 10th year budget would be $505 million, not this year's $360 million. Over 10 years, the $148.5 million total savings is only 3.4 percent of total city revenue of $4.36 billion. Yet they dare say this 3.4 percent tax cut phased in over 10 years is "crushing!"

   Remember, their revenue still grows every year. We are only slowing the rate of increase temporarily. Also, their budget includes only part of city revenue, not tens of millions in yearly RTA taxes spent on city roads, nor their other tricks, like misuse of hospital and utility "enterprise" resources.

   They also claim spending $15 million yearly in stormwater taxes will solve the alleged $300 million-plus "backlog" (wish list) of drainage projects the council intentionally neglected for decades to justify this tax increase. Wrong again. If yearly construction costs rise only 5 percent, the city will make no progress. If they rise 6 percent, we fall behind. That doesn't count wasteful city enterprise overhead that does not fix one drainage channel.

   The only sensible solutions are to make drainage spending a true priority within the ever-growing city budget, and to sell off surplus city property. Putting back on the tax rolls assets like parking lots, shopping centers, golf courses, ice rinks, hospitals, tennis courts, utilities, etc. would pay for all needed drainage work, with many hundreds of millions left over.

   Their most absurd claim is that we must pay the stormwater tax to control water runoffi fffecting Pueblo. Why? So Pueblo will feel better about our taking water from the reservoir to pipe up here. Utility rates now pay for new water lines, and higher water rates are coming. Why? Subsidizing new subdivisions adds to profits of the land speculators and developers who own the City Council (and oppose me). Is that how you want your taxes wasted?

   Disgusted by the council's bogus figures? By their ordering the city manager to invent gloom-and-doom "scenarios" to scare voters? By their threats of floods, death, and seizure of your home, just to keep their stupid rain tax? Then visit www.CityReforms.com to learn more, and volunteer to help pass the two city tax relief petitions. You owe it to your family, your finances, and your future. 

Bruce is the state representative from House District 15 and the author of the two reform petitions. Contact him at taxcutter@msn.com.

 The brochure on the nightstand says "Pride Pages." It's a directory of lesbian and gay friendly businesses, a hundred pages thick, every one full color and glossy. Clearly I'm not in Colorado Springs any more.

    In fact, I'm on Cape Cod, staying at a charming seaside motel with my family for my stepsister's wedding. Provincetown, on the far north shore, is a well-known gay enclave. I suspect, however, that all the quaint New England fishing villages we drove through, with their Cape Cod homes (go figure) and their whitewashed church steeples, are far more accepting and welcoming of their gay and lesbian residents than we are.

    In fact, leafing through the brochure gives the impression of even more.

    Pride Pages are "specifically targeted to the LGBT market and will draw loyal customers to you." It exhorts everyone to "join the Cape Cod business community in presenting our best to residents and visitors who are LGBT and looking for gay friendly businesses."

    Not only are the authors actively courting the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered market, but they assume any savvy business advertiser knows what LGBT stands for. Out here in prim, proper and presumably Puritan New England, it's a telling admission. It shows just how different Colorado Springs is.

    I love the sheer normalcy of it all. Nobody thinks it's a big deal to have a big stack of "Pride Pages" in the lobby of a family-oriented hotel, right next to the local paper and brochures for garden tours.
    And you know what? They're right. It's not a big deal. Or at least, it shouldn't be.

    Tony, who served us a flamboyant and fabulous New England breakfast at the local restaurant down the street, is flamboyant and fabulous himself. He's majoring in vocal performance and business, wears earrings, and for that matter is a darn good waiter. He serves burly Massachusetts plumbers with thick southie accents and Ivy League coeds off for the summer, all with aplomb and panache. None of them notice or care. Why should they? He is who he is. 

    Why is it exactly that homosexuality is such a hot button back home?

    Blame can't be laid solely at the door of religion. My copy of "Pride Pages" lists 10 religious organizations as supporters, nine of whom are Christian churches. All of them read the same Bible as their more fundamentalist colleagues out West. Clearly there must be something else going on.

    Some of my readers have told me that homosexuality is "harmful to an orderly society." But phrasing their objections in such impersonal terms ignores the painful reality of how anti-gay laws and social sanctions translate into the disruptive reality of people's lives. 

    Consider, for example, the wedding that brought me out to the Cape. My stepsister's best friend happens to be male, her "Dude of Honor." (I've always liked Rachel's sense of humor). Colin went to Johns Hopkins medical school, and is now completing a fellowship in pediatric emergency room medicine. He is also gay.

    How exactly is permitting him to hold hands with another man in public "harmful to an orderly society?" What business is it of anyone's whom he is intimate with? How is it that there is anyone on earth, let alone so many I know, who wouldn't let him babysit their kids? He's a pediatric ER doctor, for crying out loud. What more could you want in a sitter?

    I recognize that religious freedom is an essential part of personal freedom. So I will always respect and defend the rights of fundamentalists to say that homosexuality is wrong, and to act on that belief in accordance with their consciences.

    That said, I can still regret that most openly gay men and women would not choose to live in Colorado Springs. The overwhelming evidence is that sexual orientation is part of a person's genetic makeup (and is therefore "natural"), that most thoughtful religious approaches interpret scriptural verses on homosexuality in their historical context, and that far from being apocalyptic or signifying the downfall of civilization, the degree to which human beings who experience same-sex attraction are accepted into society is evidence of how far civilization has progressed.

    Clearly, we have a long way to go.
    -
    Fagin, of Colorado Springs, is a senior fellow at the
Independence Institute. His column appears on alternate Thursdays. Readers can e-mail him at
    barry@faginfamily.net.

   Finals week is over; summer is here. And thanks to misguided politicians, Colorado teens are more likely to be sitting in front of the TV than waiting tables or scooping ice cream. This year, it's harder than ever for teens to find a summer job. Researchers at Northeastern University described summer 2007 as "the worst in post-World War II history" for teen summer employment, and those same researchers say that 2008 is poised to be "even worse."
   According to their data, only about one-third of Americans 16-19 years old will have a job this summer, and vulnerable low-income and minority teens are going to fare even worse.
   The percentage of teens classified as "unemployed" - those who are actively seeking a job but can't get one - is more than three times higher than the national unemployment rate, according to the most recent Department of Labor statistics. One of the prime reasons for this drastic employment drought is the mandated wage hikes policy makers have forced down the throats of local businesses. Economic research has shown time and again that increasing the minimum wage destroys jobs for lowskilled workers while doing little to address poverty.
   According to economist David Neumark of the University of California at Irvine, for every 10 percent increase in the minimum wage, employment for high school dropouts and young black adults and teenagers falls by 8.5 percent. In the past two and a half years, the Colorado minimum wage has increased by more than three times that amount.
   "Employers are being cautious about their hiring needs and may be more selective in who they hire - so teens will need to ensure they make the right first impression," according to a spokeswoman for the Pikes Peak Workforce Center. The director of operations at Seven Falls, a popular tourist attraction that makes seasonal hires, said that as a result of the minimum wage increase they have put a "tighter rein on payroll."
   The classic summer jobs - cashier, waiter, grocery clerk - can help an employer with increased service or make up for full-time employees who take vacations. When the minimum wage gets boosted, however, employers cut down on hiring teens who typically fill lower-priority slots. Most of the work still gets done, but customers may get stuck standing in longer lines, and teens suffer because they've been priced out of work.
   Research from the University of Georgia, the University of Connecticut and Cornell University indicates that increasing the minimum wage causes four times more job loss for employees without a high school diploma than it does for the general population.    Minimum wage hikes don't effectively target the people typically portrayed as the key beneficiaries - low-income adults raising kids. According to U.S. Census Bureau data, just 14 percent of those who benefited from the most recent federal minimum wage hike are sole earners in families with children.
   A summer job for a teen is much more than a paycheck. It's a chance to gain important skills, increase one's value to future employers, and learn what it's like to have a job! But ill-advised policy-makers are blinded by the basement salary figure instead of looking at the big picture.
   Mandated wage hikes have negative consequences that too many politicians are ignoring. Hopefully, some of them will discover the truth when they return home this summer to find their teenage children languishing on the couch.
   <i>Eastlick is the senior economic analyst at the Employment Policies Institute, a nonprofit research organization dedicated to studying public policy issues surrounding entry-level employment.</i>

   In comparison to other wartime commemorations, the media generally ignores an air campaign that resulted in one of America's finest victories and without the use of deadly bombs: The 1948 Berlin Airlift.

   It all began when the Western allies approved the deutsche mark as the postwar German currency on June 20, 1948. The Soviets responded by cutting all land and waterways between the Western occupation zones and West Berlin three days later.

   As predicted by U.S. commanders and Berlin Mayor Ernst Reuter, the German city of 2 million had suddenly become an island in a sea of communism. To survive the Russian blockade, Berlin needed 3,440 tons of provisions per day - but merely 36 days of food and 45 days of coal supplies were on hand in the city. Considering a short-fused shooting war unacceptable and unwinnable at the time, America and the Western allies responded with a strategic and logistical masterpiece. With roads and waterways severed, Berlin's inhabitants would receive their lifeblood from the air.

   On June 30, the first C-54 transport aircraft landed at Berlin-Tempelhof with 10 tons of supplies. Despite technical difficulties and unpredictable weather, the supply rate reached 2,000 tons per day in mid-July. In September 1948 it was up to 7,000 tons per day while the following April the determined airlift warriors flew in 13,000 tons of supplies with one aircraft touching down every 63 seconds.

   The Russians were stunned - and decided to back down!

   The frontline heroes of the airlift were ordinary Americans supported by courageous British and French flight crews. They flew nonstop, under the most challenging weather conditions, often with shifting cargo in the bellies of their grossly overloaded transports. The unsung heroes - mechanics, refueling and loading teams - worked 24/7 to keep the air armada flying.

   For Berliners, the constant roar of aircraft engines was initially a reminder of the bombing raids of '44 and '45, but this time, the bombers didn't come to kill but flew to keep them alive! For many others, the airlift became a team effort that fostered unthinkable friendships. My father, a former German tank commander, then age 22, still remembers his part in the "Berlin Air Bridge." For him, it was as significant as any of the many combat operations he had participated in, for it gave new purpose to many of his generation's war veterans. With many other undernourished former Wehrmacht soldiers he had joined the American effort as a company commander of a newly created uniformed Labor Service Company with the task to load the Berlinbound air transports around the clock.

   As my father and his German military veterans loaded and helped maintain the planes, the American crews would initially walk around the aircraft and suspiciously glance at their former enemies. After a while, short conversations ensued and cigarettes were passed out. Then one day, one of the crewmen remarked: "You Krauts soldiers are some tough SOBs - together the commies can't beat us!" The ice was broken. On one official occasion even Gens. Lucius Clay and James Doolittle came to thank the former German Wehrmacht soldiers for their 24-hour-a-day team effort.

   For almost 11 months, Americans and Germans loaded aircraft and flew food and dairy products by day, coal, wood and other supplies by night. As in any operation, there were casualties. When a plane didn't return, the Germans of the Labor Service unit mourned as if they had lost their own in battle. Former enemies had begun to accept an odd alliance for the preservation of a common ideal - victory over oppression.

   The men who flew the "Raisin Bombers" and those who supported the lifeline to Berlin will soon no longer be with us but their accomplishments live on in the hearts and minds of those who experienced their courage and determination. Many gray-haired Berliners still remember the planes, the candy parachutes and the confident Americans who inspired a new German generation under the umbrella of democracy.

   Like the Civil War had brought America together, World War II and the Berlin Airlift united the Western world under U.S. leadership. In 1948, old and emerging friends conquered the moral high ground, defeated communism and began rebuilding Europe from the ashes of a devastating war.

   As modern Westerners, we have an obligation to those who built friendship from the rubble of war by working for a better and more peaceful world for our children. The Berlin Airlift reminds us that sometimes winning peace doesn't require bombs and rockets but moral strength and good will.

   Zimmermann, of Colorado Springs, is a retired lieutenant colonel, a former U.S. Army tank battalion commander and decorated Desert Storm veteran. He writes and speaks on diverse military topics. His e-mail is r6zimm@earthlink.net.

   The gut wrenching frustration of the Blackwood family fills us, and all families on The Resource Exchange wait list, with a deep sense of compassion, outrage and frustration for their experience. We identify with the turmoil and anguish of being unable to access services critical to the well being of our children. And what a lot of company we have - the TRE wait list (El Paso, Park and Teller Counties) is 1,555 adults.

   The drama is not TRE's fault. TRE is not responsible for the lack of services because it is staggeringly underfunded by the state of Colorado. At the same time Colorado underfunds TRE, the state also mandates the agency to perform significant amounts of unfunded work. TRE, the only lifeline for many of us, does an excellent and even heroic job on behalf of its families.

   Colorado ranks a sad 46th out of 50 states (and the District of Columbia) in its funding support of people with developmental disabilities. El Paso County is the largest county in Colorado. Yet, funding for people with developmental disabilities in our Pikes Peak region is the second lowest (per capita) in the state.

   TRE receives Family Support funds from the state to serve 148 families, yet stretches these limited funds to serve more than 1,100 people. The Blackwood family, like so many other families, suffered not because TRE mismanaged funds, but because the funds are simply not provided by the state. Inadequate state funding pushes families into a special wait-list purgatory.

   To be imbued with a compelling sense of urgency on behalf of your child, and to see nothing happen because TRE funding is nonexistent, (the case for most families on the waiting list) is almost beyond endurance. Imagine being trapped on shore while watching your child struggle in deep water, going down. You can see lifeboats and willing, able swimmers also watching from shore.

Yet, no one moves.

   I suspect the experience is even more intense for families in which adult children with developmental disabilities live with aging parents or caregivers. The numbers are staggering - statewide, 9,000 people with developmental disabilities live with parents or caregivers who are over 60. In the Pikes Peak region the number is estimated to be about 1,100. I am soon to be 60, and my husband is 71. The need to situate our radiant, 29-yearold autistic son in the community is critical and urgent, while we are still alive, bright and not yet addled. We lose precious time on the wait list. The last estimate we were given (by a different agency than TRE) was at least seven to 10 years. We don't ask for estimates anymore.

   Most of us are unsettled by a sense that there is no end in sight to the wait list. The wait list will outlive us, until and unless the funding base in Colorado, and in El Paso County in particular, changes.

   "Bailout" is not an appropriate term to describe funding provided to TRE to survive the next fiscal year. "Back pay" is a more accurate description. The recent funding might be considered a partial back payment for work which has already been performed by TRE but for which no payment was ever received.

   The recent article made reference to Medicaid sources of services and funding. Navigating this maze of services, we discover that not a single source, but many different sources of Medicaid funds exist. The funds TRE receives come from specific Medicaid sources, and are not the same as the Medicaid sources which some particular service providers can access. Lots of our people with developmental disabilities are often not Medicaid eligible for specifically needed services and Medicaid funding sources.

   We are all working toward the time when Colorado comes forward with the funding needed to end the waiting list, and all of the drama which accompanies our inability to access critical services for our children.

   We are strengthened by the accepting, trusting, admiring eyes of our children as they look at us, often joyful, occasionally troubled, usually resilient, always brave. Gifted by our children's courage and authenticity, we are uplifted and inspired together to press on with all we've got, and work toward a world which will eventually provide opportunity, respect and acceptance for all its citizens.

<i>Lucas, of Colorado Springs, has an autistic son who is one of more than 1,500 adults in the Pikes Peak region on The Resource Exchange's waiting list.</i>