Re: “A growing rage on our roads,” Nov. 26 editorial

The Denver Post editorial board mentions the major issue of road rage in Colorado. There are too many incidents where someone’s life is taken due to selfish driving choices. The article provides different solutions to improving this problem, including re-education and public messages on signs reminding drivers to be patient.

I agree with this article because, as a teen driver, I often get nervous that I will make a driving mistake and someone will yell at me or flip me off. Living in the Highlands Ranch community, I have noticed different electronic signs reminding drivers to be patient and avoid road rage. I believe the idea of implementing these signs across Colorado’s major roads and highways would be quite effective. First, it does not take long to read, and second, sometimes all an angry driver needs is a reminder that road rage and death threats are not the answer.

The other solution is to require education for adults to remind them of the rules of the road. This solution would hopefully remind the more experienced drivers that they need to be patient and not jump to extremes just because they’re upset. I feel both of the proposed solutions to improving the road rage in Colorado are helpful and will hopefully lower the number of people dying from upset drivers.

Kailee Larson, Castle Rock

Congress short on solutions

A little over a year ago, Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy addressed Congress on the need for continued support for Ukraine’s fight against Russia’s Vladimir Putin. At that time, I wondered what developments might occur if the U.S. and NATO blinked as time passed.

Putin’s hope that the West will grow weary of the war and have its attention diverted elsewhere seems to be coming true. Congress is providing the blink, and, in the meantime, the Middle East has erupted (again). Any guesses when the Pacific and Africa will boil over?

And why can’t our elected officials develop a workable immigration policy? There seems to be a need for workable entry controls and limits. There is a labor shortage that we just can’t seem to address. Is there anybody out there who can connect the dots and move forward without the “my way or the highway” attitude?

As far as the vote to expel George Santos, as well as for other national issues and policies, the lawmakers should always be voting their conscience rather than following the party line. If someone needs to be told how to vote, maybe they should not be holding a public service office.

Arthur David Hubbard, Dacono

I’m responding to Megan Schrader’s rant about Nathan Feldman’s lawsuit. As usual, Schrader wants to uphold the right to free speech — displaying the gay flag — but decry Mr. Feldman’s right to free speech — displaying the “straight” flag. Doesn’t the right to free speech apply to everyone, or does it apply only to those who share her viewpoint?

John Griggs, Evergreen

Editor’s note: To subscribe to The Denver Post’s Sound Off newsletter and read more rants from opinion page editor Megan Schrader visit denverpost.com/newsletter-signup/.

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

Re: “Denver Archdiocese issues a deeply flawed pastoral letter on cannabis,” Dec. 3 commentary

Most Reverend Samuel J. Aquila, archbishop of the Archdiocese of Denver, wrote a deeply researched, impeccably sourced pastoral letter expressing concerns about the well-documented risks and harms of marijuana commercialization.

Although the Archdiocese of Denver includes about 600,000 Catholics, The Denver Post did not cover this thoughtful letter in its news pages. The Post decided instead to publish a one-sided rebuttal from Ricardo Baca, who runs a company that promotes the marijuana industry. Unsurprisingly, Baca downplays the risks of marijuana and side-steps well-documented harms that the archbishop notes.

The archbishop’s letter accurately notes today’s marijuana products have become highly potent, with unprecedented levels of THC, the mind-alternating chemical. This, in turn, has led to well-documented increases in addiction and marijuana-induced psychosis and schizophrenia. The archbishop also references data showing that marijuana commercialization has driven dramatic increases in marijuana-related hospitalizations, and impaired driving and traffic fatalities. In each case, his claims are backed up by citations to highly credible research.

For a marijuana industry publicist, the archbishop’s pastoral letter was no doubt a buzzkill. Reasonable people can debate the costs and benefits of marijuana legalization. But why on earth would The Post provide a marijuana industry advocate a one-sided forum to take potshots at the archbishop’s thoughtful essay? This feeds the narrative that some media outlets don’t provide a balanced perspective on pressing issues.

Rachel O’Bryan, Denver

Editor’s note: O’Bryan is co-founder & strategic projects director of One Chance to Grow Up, a non-profit that works to protect children “from today’s marijuana through transparency, education, empowerment and policy.”

“Enough with the temper tantrum”

Re: “Colorado’s trolls are unhinged and also empowered,” Dec. 3 commentary

It seems like the United States has become a place where we extol the hissy fit.

Let’s start with freedom of speech. Does any mildly informed person believe that the Founding Fathers intended free speech to include trolling, death threats, smear campaigns, and out-and-out lies? Certainly, free speech has always meant that individuals and groups have the right to debate and promote ideas publically without repercussions from their local or national government or neighbors. In America, you can’t be imprisoned for disagreeing with the president or your school board and saying so. You have the right to criticize capitalism, socialism, affirmative action, white supremacy or whatever war we are now fighting. You have the right to attack ideas with information and other ideas. It is also your civic responsibility to understand that in a democracy, you don’t always get your way, but you have the right to keep pressing, albeit peacefully.

Secondly, when did we, as a populace, become so self-absorbed and immature that we think it is important for the whole world to know how angry we are? Certainly, peaceful protests, sit-ins, and silent vigils have an important place in our democracy. But how does a pro-Israel or pro-Palestinian protest in a city council meeting make sense? How does our city council, school board, or university administration have the power to affect the politics of a country thousands of miles away? Why shout at them?

I say, enough with the temper tantrum. The adults in the room, whatever their politics, have important work to do, and throwing hissy fits won’t get it done.

Lynn Buschhoff, Denver

Teach kids about the danger of drug use

Re: “Dozens of U.S. adolescents are dying from drug overdoses every month,” Dec. 3 commentary

I agree with Ty Schepis in his article on the severity of teen drug use and how it differs from that of adult substance use. His use of facts and statistics emphasizes the specific group that seems to have the most usage and issues with overdose. As a teenager living in a wealthy suburban area, I have witnessed the detrimental effects of the lack of substance education. From kids in my grade overdosing in the school bathrooms to knowing people who have witnessed extreme drug usage, Schepis was right on the money.

It is extremely important for parents to focus on educating their children on the harmful effects of drug use, especially at such a young age. Schools also could put more effort into better classes that focus on student health and reversing the epidemic of drug use in teens. Mental health issues are also extremely prominent in my generation, so with access to drugs becoming easier as well, those who want drugs can get their hands on them without thinking twice. Although not all substance use can be stopped, teaching kids to use them in safe environments and making them aware of the consequences could greatly decrease the number of adolescent overdoses.

Cayden Lanziner, Highlands Ranch

More traffic stops mean more danger for officers

A recent letter correctly noted how common drivers running red lights, speeding, and driving recklessly have become. The author had a simple solution, i.e., law enforcement officers (LEOs) must make more traffic stops. What was not mentioned was that those stops are one of the greatest risks of death for officers, deputies, troopers and marshals.

Just days ago, a Cortez police officer made a traffic stop, and for doing his job enforcing traffic laws, he was shot and killed. Other officers, despite the circumstances, did their sworn duty and pursued the killer. While being shot at, they killed him.

Law enforcement agencies such as Denver are significantly understaffed at a time when serious and violent crimes are on the rise. Recruitment is difficult when there are still cries of “cops are murderers” and “defund the police.” A significant increase in traffic enforcement will not happen any time soon. The real solution is self-enforcement, but that isn’t going to happen.

Vic Reichman, Denver

People of Pueblo need depot cleanup

Re: “Clean up the Pueblo Chemical Depot,” Dec. 3 editorial

As a pilot at a local Denver airport, I’ve heard warnings from other pilots when flying cross-country flights to Pueblo, “You can’t fly over the chemical weapons dump, it’s restricted.” I wondered what was there when I found this article. I agree with the author’s statements that a place holding extinct chemical weapons next to a major Colorado city is dangerous to the population. The threat is the contamination the plant poses to the water, land, and people who have to live and deal with the consequences.

The proposed cleanup may cost the Army $600 million, but to the families and people of Pueblo the cleanup would be essential. The plant also takes up thousands of acres of real estate that could be used for other purposes like housing, recreation, and others. This possibly profitable land is unusable because of leaks of chemicals and even one time a lightning strike that ignited unexploded ordnances. The Army has reduced the groundwater contamination of the area by a small margin yet there are still concentrations of explosive materials that exceed the EPA’s standards for drinking water. Residents south of the plant refuse to drink the well water out of fear of contamination and a local river that’s crucial to the infrastructure runs through the area. The area overall needs this project to go through for the benefit of everyone involved.

Carson Luttman, Castle Pines

Pity for ranchers but not wolves?

Re: “Wolves are coming,” Dec. 3 news story

My excitement over the Sunday headline, “Wolves are coming,” quickly turned to disappointment as I read the article. Instead of celebrating Colorado for the return of a much-maligned species and iconic top predator that is essential to a complete and healthy ecosystem, it is another pity party for ranchers.

Ranching is like any other business with expenses, losses, write-offs, payrolls, insurance, etc. Their livelihood is not at risk as they would have one believe. This is an exaggeration because ranchers will be generously reimbursed for losses, and they can receive government subsidies. Operating a business costs money and non-lethal predator deterrents should have been a rancher’s business expense from the beginning.
The idea that we might lose the “open space” ranch to development is ironic since ranching itself is development. The natural landscape is cleared, the soil diminished, native plants overgrazed, and wildlife driven away.

How could one not view ranchers as “bloodthirsty” considering the barbaric ways wolves were brought to the brink of extinction by ranchers in the past, as well as from comments made by some current ranchers regarding wolves? Ranchers even fought to enact the 10-j Rule of “experimental,” an exception to the Endangered Species List, so they could continue to kill. Haven’t ranchers learned from the past?

Lenny Klinglesmith said it best that ranching and wildlife can coexist, that is if ranchers are willing to take responsibility for their business expenses, practice tolerance, and the best of non-lethal scientific practices.

Katherine Webster, Littleton

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

Re: “How cold should it be to open shelters?” Nov. 29 news story

I read the recent article in The Denver Post with amazement that a question like this would even need to be discussed. Where is the humanity and compassion in such a question? If it is too cold for you to sleep on the cold ground all night or to consider leaving your pet outside, then it is too cold for an unsheltered person to be outdoors.

I have seen people of all ages pushing, carrying or pulling all their belongings with them, who need food, restroom facilities and shelter in nice weather.

For those of us lucky enough to have a roof over our heads and warmth from the cold, let’s not quibble about when it is too cold to deny another human being that same warmth.

Mary K. August, Lakewood

The value of subscribing

I continue to subscribe to The Denver Post and our Golden Transcript. It seems to me that there is personal and social value in reading the news and the stories from around Denver, the state, the nation and the world. We become aware of the interesting, rewarding, and sometimes heroic or difficult experiences of people and various organizations. However, I often read stories, letters, and editorials that increase my world of thought and community awareness and what I might be able to do to help in the community and for our institutions.

Yes, I often hear that newspapers are more limited and much more expensive than they used to be. With fewer and fewer people actually paying for newspaper delivery to our homes, the price of reporting, publishing, and delivery is bound to increase, and some news stories will be limited. For those who subscribe, we have seen our costs rise considerably. However, as in a third-grade economics lesson, “Everything has a trade-off.” The news stories and Open Forum letters are part of my trade-off for a more interesting and understanding awareness and participation in my small and larger community. So, I’ll continue my subscriptions to the newspapers and my support for their journalists and delivery persons.

Janet Johnson, Golden

Water a limited resource

Re: “As U.S. groundwater dwindles, powerful players block change,” Nov. 26 news story

Thank you, Denver Post, for reprinting a very comprehensive and informative story about how constructive changes in water policy are being blocked in our state capitals by big business and corporate agriculture.

It says a lot when the New York Times sends a pair of top-notch reporters out West to investigate what should have been readily apparent to our area’s politicians and voters all along.

Thus, we have the ongoing development of raw real estate in massive proportions along our Front Range. We see the big development trend extending to my small town of Buena Vista, where our town board is currently under pressure to issue more building permits even as the future viability of our water resources is in question.

We have numerous examples in Arizona and other states where new housing developments have prematurely drained their aquifers. I guess hauling water in by the truckload is cheaper for local authorities than using their common sense to limit unsustainable growth. Then, we have long drought periods in which water becomes scarce despite our efforts to limit our usage.

Mother Nature, not mankind, controls the availability and distribution of that precious liquid we call water. When we don’t take heed of her most glaring and alarming warnings, we will suffer the dire consequences of our ignorance.

Gary E. Goms, Buena Vista

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

Re: “Busload of migrants gets dropped off at state Capitol,” Dec. 5 news story

The Denver mayor’s office is critical of Texas for busing immigrants who are in the U.S. without legal status from Texas border towns to Denver, calling the conduct “inhumane” and “shameful.” Denver is a self-proclaimed “sanctuary city,” thereby extending its welcome mat to all comers. Denver police do not hold or report people here illegally to ICE for deportation and Denver welcomes them with housing, bilingual education for the children, and other government benefits.

President Biden and Colorado’s liberal democrats in Congress refuse to enforce federal immigration law and are perfectly happy to let the flood of illegal immigration continue. Texas border towns are not sanctuary cities and do not have the money, resources or inclination to ignore federal immigration law or to welcome and support these immigrants. Denver’s mayor and the Democratic Party are the ones guilty of shameful conduct by flouting the law and must continue to bear the consequences of their actions. You wanted them, you got them. Now take care of them.

Kevin Amatuzio, Englewood

U.S. House draws a line

Re: “Santos kicked out of Congress in historic vote,” Dec. 2 news story

It was so refreshing to see the Republican Party stand up to lying, cheating and outright fraud with the expulsion of George Santos. Now, let’s see if that same Republican Party can finally muster up the courage to divorce themselves from the 45th president.

Bobbi Clementi, Pueblo

A very good friend of mine, who has voted exclusively for Democrats over the past 50 years, had been badgering me, saying, “Why aren’t the Republicans expelling Santos from the House of Representatives?” My answer: “A serious crime has to be shown first because the people’s vote cannot be overridden by other elected leaders.”

Now that it has been revealed in an ethics committee report that Santos did, in fact, spend thousands of dollars of campaign funds for his personal use, the House voted to expel him, and rightfully so. However, expelling him without just cause would have been a dismissal of the voters who elected him in the first place, which would have been “an attack on democracy.”

Fred Ruder, Broomfield

Re: “Farewell to George Santos, the perfect MAGA Republican,” Dec. 2 commentary

Thank you for including Michelle Goldberg’s New York Times piece on your editorial page. Her description of George Santos and the state of Donald Trump’s MAGA Republican party is priceless. Goldberg has a way with words that make understanding politics and politicians in the current environment interesting, insightful, thought-provoking and educational.

Goldberg’s one omission, and a critical one, was her failure to not include Mike Johnson, the Speaker of the House and second in line for the presidency, vote against Santos’s expulsion and a description of his undying support of Trump. Johnson, who professes to live his life according to the rules of the Bible and Christian doctrine and brags about his covenant marriage, supports two of the most “unbiblical “people in public life whose lies, adultery, indictments, cheating, fraud, stealing, and a lack of respect for our institutions characterize them and the majority of the Republican party.

Hopefully, The Post will continue to write and reprint columns that will educate the public about the pitfalls of politicians, their policies and behavior that adversely impact all of us and the fate of our democracy.

Barbara Morton, Highlands Ranch

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

Just like those between-innings races featuring dental characters on the scoreboard at Coors Field, the City of Denver has its own race that is well underway. Who will finish first? Remodel at DIA? Remodel at the Denver Central Library? Or the rebuild of the 16th Street Mall? The pace is slow but somebody has to finish first. Place your bets.

Ben Eastman, Denver

The crux of our current political climate

The electorate has the luxury of believing as they will, endlessly disagreeing with their neighbor, and voting for the candidates of their choice.

But few issues are black and white. None should be used as a litmus test for any candidate because few candidates are all of one persuasion, liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican. We all possess a mixture of those traits at any one time, and those traits change over time and circumstances and issues.

Yes, we elect our representatives because we believe they think like we do most of the time on most issues. But we should also elect them to do what we resist, what we have the luxury of NOT doing — to find consensus, make compromises, find solutions, and move the country forward. Our representatives have a higher duty than just representing us or parroting party slogans and talking points. They take an oath to serve the Constitution and do what’s in the best interest of the country.

We should demand our elected officials find that middle ground called “compromise.” The Constitution itself is a product of compromise. It emerged only after innumerable concessions by strong-willed and passionate men of principle on different sides of most issues. Following their lead should be the goal of every elected official.

Our elected officials need to curb the vitriolic words of civil strife and show us “the better angels of our nature” to help heal what divides the nation. We should elect them to compromise for us. If we don’t, then each of us is part of the problem.

Kenneth T. Cook, Littleton

GOP has more worthy options

Recent opinion surveys indicate that many Republicans would recommend Donald Trump to the nation as a trustworthy candidate for the presidency in 2024, regardless of the fact that the former president and his accomplices sought to overturn the 2020 election using every devious scheme they could invent. The election of 2020 was not stolen, but only because the former president failed in his determined efforts to steal it.

Are they persuaded by Trump’s ceaseless repetition of his election theft claim, despite the investigations, court hearings and vote recounts to the contrary? A claim now so discredited that only a fool would believe it. With each repetition of the theft claim, Trump reminds us that he both lost the election and will continue to lie about it.

There are some Republicans who prefer to overlook Trump’s threats against those who disagree with him. His attacks on others have served as a cue to some of his followers to threaten those who disagree with him, thus creating a terroristic tool to intimidate the opposition. Trump has stated that he would imprison opponents if elected. These are the methods and mindset of a dictator.

Insurrection, threats of violence, violent attacks on Capitol police, irrational claims of election theft, scheming to overturn an election and chronic deception have resulted from the former president’s leadership. Nominating Trump would place Republicans in the intolerable position of needing to defend the indefensible. Republicans have alternative candidates who would be much more credible and worthy of respect than Trump.

Ralph Jacobs, Loveland

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

Last month, the Supreme Court heard arguments for United States vs. Rahimi, a case that could allow individuals with a history of domestic violence to obtain guns. It is common sense to keep guns away from people with a history of violence, and the majority of Americans would agree. When my daughter died in the Aurora mass shooting, I dedicated my life to ensuring no parent goes through the pain and trauma caused by gun violence. Now, I am alarmed that the Supreme Court paved the way for this extreme case to be under debate at all.

United States vs. Rahimi is the first time the fate of gun violence prevention has been in the Supreme Court’s hands since its 2022 Bruen decision. In Bruen, the Court rolled back long-standing precedents on gun safety, putting special interests ahead of our communities. This is why Rahimi is on the docket – and more dangerous cases could come if Congress doesn’t take back its power and fix this broken Court.

Right now, our Supreme Court is captured by extremists and their wealthy benefactors who are prioritizing their own dangerous agenda over the will of the people. Our communities are paying the price. We deserve a Court that prioritizes the interests of everyday Americans. That’s why I’m standing alongside United for Democracy – a coalition representing tens of millions of Americans – to call on Congress to take immediate action and restore our nation’s faith in the Supreme Court.

Sandy Phillips, Lone Tree

Looking for mutual benefits in Mideast

Re: “Oct. 7’s acts of heroism and the Israeli Bedouin Arabs,” Nov. 25 commentary

Thomas L. Friedman’s essay about Israel and the Palestinians was very thoughtful and prescient. Peace between them could and would be beneficial and profitable to both.

On Dec. 11, 1941, Nazi Germany declared war on the United States. After three and a half years of bloody war, Hitler was defeated and after that Germany was rebuilt with the help of its former enemies.

In 1955 West Germany joined NATO and became our ally and profitable trading partner. This beneficial relationship has gone on for more than sixty years despite the enmity engendered by two world wars. It helped America and Germany.

A similar peace and prosperity is possible between Israelis and Palestinians. The United States should promote it. All the world would benefit, but Israelis and Palestinians would benefit the most and there could be peace in the Middle East.

Robert C. Springs, Denver

One-party rule not good for state

The success of the Democratic Party in Colorado over the past years is due not so much to good policy as to the Republican Party going off the rails and clinging to the dark side of American politics. The danger of this is the ego temptation of governmental overreach. Examples are the state attempting to claim local control of land use and development regulation and the legislative push to overturn the public’s recent vote against Proposition HH — Jared Polis’ property tax “relief” plan. Colorado voters are not as dumb as our political body seems to think they are. One-party rule has pitfalls and does not guarantee good government.

Robert Porath, Boulder

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

Re: “Tributes highlight reach as first lady, humanitarian” and “Trump hints at expanded role for the military within the U.S.,” Nov. 28 news stories

I couldn’t help but chuckle at the juxtaposition on page 13A of Tuesday’s Denver Post, where the article memorializing the life of First Lady Rosalynn Carter, who spent nearly a century alongside her husband, former President Jimmy Carter, devoting their lives to the welfare of others, sat side to side with the continuation of the story about former President Donald Trump suggesting the use of America’s military against its own people.

Could the comparison be any more striking?

While President Carter and his wife weathered a difficult presidency, they went on to use their position to show what true civil service looks like. It looks like humility, compassion, kindness, selflessness and service. It is putting the well-being of others before yourself.

In comparison, Trump has never lifted his finger to do a charitable thing in his life. At over 90, President Carter was still hammering nails into boards to build homes.

Trump boasts and brags. He has been indicted for lying and cheating. He is embroiled in political and personal scandals and sowed the seeds of division that led to the most shameful political event in the United States in well over 100 years: Jan. 6th. The Carters leave the legacy of Habitat for Humanity, which works in 70 countries and has helped more than 46 million people.

The side-by-side placement of these stories in The Post reminds me that we all have a choice to make every day. Do we choose a life of vice or of virtue? Let’s all choose humility, compassion, kindness and service. America will be a better place for it. Thank you, Rosalynn, for showing us how.

Christie McNeill, Englewood

Was officer guilty of lesser charges?

Re: “Officer returns, will get back pay,” Nov. 29 news story

It is perhaps understandable that a jury would have acquitted Aurora patrol officer Nathan Woodyard on manslaughter, or homicide charges in the arrest death of Elijah McClain, given that ketamine administered by paramedics arriving later in the arrest played a part in the sad outcome. Should there not have been a lesser charge also made against Woodyard — perhaps a felony assault — which could have more likely resulted in a conviction? Doing so would have disqualified Woodyard from reinstatement or other police employment while avoiding the reported taxpayer cost of $212,546 in back pay for the 26 months of his suspension time, which equates to around $98,000 a year.

Peter Ehrlich, Denver

Mayor victim of car theft punctuates the city’s epidemic

News that Mike Johnston’s car was stolen about a month ago, and the fact that this happened to him before as well, goes on to show the extremely high auto theft crime rate in the metro area, which even the mayor is not immune to. However, not every Denverite is as lucky as Mayor Johnston in recovering their vehicles. If this incident will not wake up the authorities to crack down on auto theft, there is little hope for what can help the Mile High City.

Hassaan Idrees, Denver

Sports columnists should tackle political commentary

Please help! When I opened the paper one morning, I turned immediately to the sports section (usually my go-to is the editorial pages). The Post has great sports columnists featuring clear-eyed opinions leavened with humor. And sports as an activity, despite everything, has a spontaneous beauty supported by supreme athleticism. (They work so hard, and the risk is so great!)

For a day, can your sports columnists anonymously weigh in on our political competitions?

Evan Siegel, Westminster

Re: “Some might say it’s futile, but pulling thistles sows hope,” Nov. 16 commentary and “Clearing the path of goat heads,” Nov. 18 letter to the editor

I was gratified to read the article on the community and personal benefits to pulling musk thistle near Jackson, Wyo., and the subsequent letter from “Goathead Greg,” who endeavors on Denver’s urban trails. My bête noire is not musk thistle, which, as the writer points out, is a pretty noxious weed that attracts butterflies and bees, but rather Russian thistle. It has the Putinesque attributes of being invasive and relentless, contains no beautiful flowers for pollinators, and engulfs our natural areas.

If you visit the picnic stop at Vogel Canyon south of La Junta, be prepared to approach your table through a forest of this prickly menace. The valley floor just beyond is so impenetrable that viewing the petroglyphs is almost impossible. Up north, the Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge sent out an appeal to the Colorado Native Plant Society for volunteers to clear a hillside of Russian thistle that is endangering the rare North Park phacelia. And CDOT has added to the problem. The Pueblo rest stop used to host some beautiful native plants including a bush morning glory and species of milkweed commonly found farther south. Since closing the rest stop, you can only find Russian thistle and no natives around. (If you’re wondering, the plant is just as abundant near Denver).

Natural resource managers cannot do the job alone due to staffing problems. If you enjoy and value the outdoors that you use, volunteer on a weed crew.

C. Greenman, Lakewood

Put plastic in its place

Re: “Plastic is polluting our recycling efforts,” Nov. 17 letter to the editor

A letter writer questioned the need to recycle plastic. As I was sitting in a beautiful Denver park the other day, enjoying the day, I looked up at a tree and I saw no less than three plastic bags entwined in its branches. That is why, if they are going to keep bombarding us with plastic, we need to recycle it. I do agree with the writer that we must wean ourselves away from plastic throwaways as soon as possible.

Bart Cox, Denver

“Support small nuclear projects”

Re: “U.S. bets on small nuclear reactors,” Nov. 14 news stories

I’m an Environmental Studies major and recently attended a lecture about nuclear energy. The hesitancies from generations before mine were evident due to Chernobyl, Fukushima and Three Mile Island, contrasting from the more positive perspective housed by my fellow Gen-Zers. It was interesting to read the same sentiment expressed by the Biden administration and Republicans alike, especially through the implementation of small nuclear reactors.

Even though nuclear energy has its benefits, its main downfalls include optimal planning and handling radioactive waste. Delayed plans aren’t helping reach goals of near-zero carbon emissions in upcoming decades, so we need to maximize the energy currently being produced while new reactors are built simultaneously. The Big Wires Act has been introduced in the Senate and House at an optimal time.

This bill requires the transfer of 30% of energy’s peak demand between regions. Different places can use different methods to achieve this, such as building transmission lines or even upgrading existing facilities. Updates sound familiar regarding nuclear energy, especially considering the Big Wires Act encourages states to build clean energy-oriented infrastructure. It’s a win-win to support small nuclear projects that can have a greater impact on net-zero carbon emissions.

I appreciate Sen. John Hickenlooper’s introduction of this legislation and encourage Sen. Michael Bennet and Rep. Jason Crow to cosponsor the act, if not for nuclear, for the state of energy in this country.

Sara Eyassu, Aurora

Since I applied for unemployment on June 1, I have been waiting on hold for the equivalent of more than 11 days and still haven’t received a payment or any idea when a payment will be made. If you think this is an isolated incident, think again. I was told by staff at the Colorado Department of Labor (CDL) unemployment office that nearly 6,000 claimants are experiencing a program integrity hold. We must demand that the unemployment system in Colorado be brought into the modern age, and fix a process that isn’t working effectively or efficiently.

One of the most stressful events in our adult lives includes being unemployed and faced with financial uncertainty. The CDL fraud detection tools have the unintended consequences of preventing thousands of legitimate claims from being paid. For some, they’re locked out of even being able to file a claim. For others, reaching a human to talk about the situation is next to impossible.

Employers almost entirely fund unemployment funds. The CDL receives the money to pay claims by debiting the employer’s unemployment insurance account. The CDL is a steward of these funds and needs to operate in good faith and efficiency. While they may be operating in good faith, there is certainly a lack of efficiency. It’s long past time something is done to fix this system and take care of the people that need it most. When businesses operate with inefficiencies of this magnitude, they are out of business. Enough is enough!

We deserve better than this. Don’t stay silent. Fraud may have been committed on your CDL account and you may have no idea until a future date when you need it. Write your representative and contact the CDL to find out if your account is secure.

Lisa Craig, Thornton

Continue the fight to keep Trump off our ballot

Re: “Judge rejects Trump ballot challenge,” Nov. 18 news story

All of us who stand for the rule of law and want to protect our great constitution are now confused and saddened. The judge overseeing the election disqualification case has said that the former president, the twice impeached, four-time indicted Donald J. Trump, was involved in an insurrection attempt on Jan. 6, 2021, but has ruled that he should be allowed on our Colorado ballot.

So, the judge says that Trump is an insurrectionist but still allows him on our ballot, violating the constitutional 14th Amendment, Section 3? Why not just say that Trump is an insurrectionist and ban him from the ballot and then let Trump’s lawyers take it to the Supreme Court to decide? This would once and for all let the highest court in the land decide and set a precedent for future attempts by autocrats.

If Trump loses his bid for president, given his proven track record, he will once again send his “patriots” to the Capital in an attempt to stop the count. This time he just might succeed in sending our democracy into the toilet. If he is reelected, he will tear down our great country once again with his bans, go after his political rivals, cozy up to Russian President Vladimir Putin and all the world’s autocrats and weaponize the Department of Justice.

This is truly a sad day for Colorado and the Constitution, which begs for this rendering to be appealed and sent to the Supreme Court.

Curtis Urban, Pueblo

Editor’s note: The Colorado Supreme Court will hear appeals on the case in December.

Re: “Dems’ plan nears finish,” Nov. 20 news story, and “Lawmakers wrap up session,” Nov. 21 news story

I lean left but didn’t buy The Post’s tepid endorsement of Proposition HH. I knew it would have had unintended consequences and there would have been follow-up legislation or ballot measures to “fix” the mess. Observing the legislature’s slap-dash, let’s get-outta-here-before-Thanksgiving approach, I see the same thing.

Before summer the unintended consequences of the current blob of bills will begin to become apparent. Predictably, at that point, Republicans will say, “I told you so,” but their fervent devotion to TABOR wore thin 25 years ago. Yet Democrats are in charge and they should have been better than this.

Barry Noreen, Denver

Re: “Senate GOP slows rush,” Nov. 18 news story

Again, we see the Democrats in the Colorado legislature trouncing over their GOP colleagues. And then, isn’t it amazing how the Democrats cry and wail when they do not have a supermajority? And the GOP uses the Democrat tactics against them. We, the voters, need to get rid of all incumbents. We deserve legislators who will work together for the benefit of all Coloradans.

Richard D. VanOrsdale, Broomfield

Once again, the left-leaning Denver Post focused only on the Democrat proposals for property tax relief. They failed to mention the Republican proposals, which would have resulted in a far more generous reduction in property taxes. The GOP plan would reduce the assessment rate from 6.75% to 6.5% with an $80,000 exemption. Simple. Straightforward. The default Democrat bill again arrogantly presumes the party knows more than the voters by confusing the issue with more back-alley funding mechanisms.

Linda Pryor, Berthoud

Coloradans should embrace recycling

Whenever I read a report about the abysmal rate of recycling in Colorado, I am in disbelief. How could a state with so many residents who enjoy the outdoors be so terrible at taking care of our environment? It is not hard to recycle! But one thing always missing in these stories is an explanation for why Coloradans do not recycle!

If you are fortunate enough to afford many of the recycling options, it is a no-brainer. We recycle through our trash service for a minimal monthly fee. The City of Westminster offers monthly leaf or branch recycling at no cost. We purchased a home composter so all of our food scraps are recycled. We subscribe to Ridwell — a company with bi-weekly pickups of plastic film, multi-layer plastic, fabrics, light bulbs, batteries, and more. They partner with companies that turn our recyclables into products. Our weekly trash output is now less than one 13-gallon bag.

And for anyone who is not able to make the same financial choices, recycling is not hard. Almost every city has recycling bins where you can take your recyclables for no fee. There are facilities like SustainAbility in Broomfield and Arvada that are committed to filling unmet recycling needs in the metro area by working in partnership with cities, residents and businesses to divert valuable resources from landfills.

An added bonus is they employ people with intellectual and developmental disabilities — an under-employed segment of society. Win-win! Please, Colorado — we must do better!

Kim Dion, Westminster