Wow, Ralph, What a shocker. The always 'fair and balanced' Indy cannot, in good conscience, endorse anyone that leans conservative. Who woulda thought?
davecooper928: You are correct. Change my "stages" to "chooses," please.
In looking at the photos (slides) Ms. Gunnoe used in her testimony before the subcommittee (http://www.slideshare.net/MGunnoe/truth-fr…), one can see why she did not object to excluding the photo in question; many of the other photos are (in my opinion) quite impactful, too.
The conditions in the region ARE tragic, and I do not blame residents for doing whatever they can to call attention to the human toll of mountaintop-removal coal mining.
It's a pity that this one photo and the unconscionable way Ms.Gunnoe was treated by the Capitol Police diverted the spotlight from the condemnable conditions in which those in the coal-mining region are living.
What is also wrong, however, is the way Rep. Lamborn has been censured by those who simply disagree with his (uber-conservative) political views. From all appearances, he is a decent man. He has integrity; he treats people respectfully and civilly (at least until their words or actions show such courtesy is no longer justified). An article about the incident in the city's daily paper stated: "Lamborn said he didn’t ask Capitol Police to question Gunnoe, and didn’t suggest that the picture was child pornography. He said he didn’t know who had spoken to Capitol Police." (I believe it was subsequently discovered to have been a staff member, perhaps the same one who had deemed the photo "inappropriate.") A Denver Post article the next day stated, "Gunnoe said she would welcome the opportunity to go back to members of Congress to talk again. Lamborn, too, said he would invite Gunnoe again to hear her voice on mountaintop-removal mining."
There are two victims here; two people were wrongly accused. I will not castigate Lamborn for accepting the opinion of a staffer. Those accountable for the way Ms. Gunnoe was treated are the staff member who contacted the police and the police themselves.
(To Willie: Sorry if facts annoy/antagonize you. I find your knee-jerk condemnation of Lamborn "vile.")
Im from Kentucky and Maria Gunnoe did not stage the photo - she wasnt there when the photo was taken 3-4 years ago. The photo was taken in Grapevine, Pike County KY (Maria lives in WV) by an independent photographer Katie Falkenberg. The Urias family has to use this well water because they are way out in the mountains and dont have city water.
We in Kentucky are trying to get the point across to our legislators that the polluted runoff from mountaintop removal coal mining is impacting people's health. We have lots of photos of orange water in people's sinks and toilets but those photos dont convey how people are getting sick and dying from the poison in the water. It was a good photo and I encouraged people going to Washington to show it to Congress.
As far as Maria, she lives below a gigantic mountaintop removal mine - the barren earth on the mine site has no trees, so it doesnt hold back the rainwater. We live in an eastern rainforest. Marias home has been flooded repeatedly and a big chunk of her land has washed away. She has spoken out against mountaintop removal and because she wont back down, she has been subjected to repeated threats and harassment by coal company employees. She has borne all this pretty well but the charge of child pornography by your Congressman is really shameful. He needs to apologize to Maria.
What??? Po', 'po, pitiful Maria Gunnoe! She STAGES a picture (there was no need to scrounge up a child to place in the tub; the water would have looked the same, would it not, without her in it?) Typical liberal tactic--trying to appeal to EMOTION instead of trusting the facts to be enough. See? YOU just tried it, too: "He should feel the pain she is feeling." Oh, bullpoop! This entire story has been blown WAY out of proportion. Lamborn never saw the photo in question; he relied on the word/opinion of staffers. Who knows how they described it to him? I'm guessing one said that in his/her opinion, it was in questionable taste, that there was no need to have a nude young girl in the tub. I'm also guessing that the story snowballed from there, perhaps intentionally (on Ms. Gunnoe's part). Maria Gunnoe is one of environmentalists' "greatest heroes and resources"? I see. Is she on par with Rachel Carson, whose _Silent_Spring_ is responsible for the deaths of thousands from mosquito-borne diseases such as malaria?
@Willie - Amen, brother. It's clear that any hope of getting rid of the coal burning monster in town will never happen until we get rid of Lameborn.
When lowlife politicians like Doug Lamborn call each other names that's expected and OK by me, but Lamborn's treatment of Ms. Gunnoe is inhumane and dastardly. He should be brought before the House ethics committee TODAY. He should feel the pain the she is feeling. The newspapers and constituents of his district should be bombarded with letters expressing our disgust for him and the people who would elect such a vile person. He should be thrown out of office and put in jail.
Re: "Young's mishandling of election-related issues in 2011 created embarrassment for the city and hastened her departure last summer; it was obvious she wouldn't fit into Bach's regime."
Kathryn Young retired of her own free will, unlike most others who have retired from city service since Bach took over. I asked Young if Bach had requested her retirement, and she said quite the opposite was true and gave me detailed information to show that she was not asked to retire. In fact, Mayor Bach urged her to stay and asked what it would take for her to stay. When that did not work, Mayor Bach asked his wife to speak with Young in an effort to get her to stay. The three of them had a lengthy lunch in order to discuss options that might get Young to change her mind and stay. Bach expressed disappointment to me about Young's decision and said she would be hard to replace. Young told me she could afford to retire and had decided to spend time with a grandchild while the girls was still little. She is about the only senior city employee who Bach wanted to keep. Bach blamed all of the 2011 election issues on City Attorney Pat Kelly, who he was anxious to fire. He said Kelly consistently gave Young bad legal advice and he hoped that the prospect of getting rid of Kelly would help Young decide to stay. In fact, I remember Bach defended Young after I published a Gazette editorial that wrongly blamed her for the election snafus.
"Soon, Johnson's staff must re-draw the City Council district maps, turning the city from four to six districts for the April 2013 election. County Clerk Wayne Williams had offered his office's services to do that, and even to oversee the municipal election, which would save the city a lot of money."
'scuse me, Ralph, but no amount of savings could possibly offset the potential for shenanigans, political maneuveriung, and blatant corruption that would have come with Wayne Williams' re-drawing the City Council district maps. What then? Unilaterally canceling future city elections that might have candidates running unopposed to save the city even more bucks? Ralph, you have to know that any savings Williams might have realized would have been a wash after he approached mayor Bach about giving him a nice fat bonus for his selfless efforts, right?
My uncle Tom--a gifted pianist, still a great showman, and always a great soul.
I for one agree with the above comment. I hope they don't remove the professional business staff that was at the new CSBJ. I thought it was making great strides to be a very credible source for local business news after losing it awhile from the last publisher. Time will tell. I cant see the Military dealing with the INDY staff at all. Being retired Military here. Time will tell.
I do not think it possible, given human nature, for the Indy to keep their "alternative agenda" from destroying the more conservative and capitalist driven Business Journal.
Now, if the Indy were to hire a journalist, as conservative as Hightower is liberal, it might be seen as taking a step toward credibility. I've been trying to get Tosches to see the light, but he is difficult (as you know).
Portland serves as a lesson in how good intentions of govt busybodies result in undesirable consequences, all of which are unmentioned in this article.
I'm assuming that revitalizing downtown COS is a good thing, therefore we should develop around America The Beautiful park and anchor the park not with a convention center or sports stadium but with a library -- a spectacular building with a glass front facing Pikes Peak, something like the one in Salt Lake City. Restaurants, museums, upscale shops and condominiums will follow. Let Tejon be what it is - a street of nightclubs for the college crowd -- but eliminate the parking problem on Tejon by closing the street to vehicles and open it to table seating. Let the cars park in the City owned garage at a cost of no more than a bus ride, with a free tram running every 10 minutes around town. And all the City owned sculpture should be removed from the streets to the new Sculpture Garden located on the empty lot where the present library now stands.
Once again the teabaggers are ruining our present city as well as any hope for our future. Typical conservative...only thinking about themselves and only about what makes money today.
Though I didn't vote for Mr. Bach, it is my sincere wish that he finds a way to move this city forward in concert with developers who know what a vibrant city should be. Fat chance though.
This is the wrong city given the increasing number of radicalized tax & government haters here who are determined to destroy all levels of government, and take the whole nation down to rubble and darkness.
Cranky: once again and not surprisingly, you have it wrong. It is not the GOP that wants someone else to pay the bill for them. In actuality the folks that want someone else to pay are: the occupiers, assorted loony liberals (you are no doubt included), everyone on welfare and food stamps (about 95% more than should be there), everyone collecting unemployment for 99 weeks, all the Marxists and socialists, 90% of the illegals, the unions, and way too many people that used to be responsible.
Most of us never see the dirt that exists in the peachy world of "free enterprise" like we do in the much more transparent government sector.
It's only when the shit hits the fan that we see the extent of corporate insanity. Case in point is the multi-trillion dollar mortgage and credit meltdown. Not to mention the glowing success stories like Enron, Arthur Anderson, Tyco, Global Crossing, MCI-Worldcom, Adelphia, Bernie Madoff, AIG, etc, ad nauseam.
The corporate world needs strong WORKING federal oversight to keep them honest.
In a prior century, Americans stormed Wall Street, took the crooks out and hung them from lamp poles. On the spot. No bailouts. No golden parachutes.
I've yet to read, anywhere, what is or was going on at Memorial which was so wrong that we HAD to HURRY HURRY and get rid of it.
All I saw was McEvoy's attempt to get the city to GIVE him our hospital in the guise of a not-for-profit entity not under control of city council. It's OUR hospital, OUR city asset. It's already a not-for-profit hospital that is here to serve the people of this city, not distant greedy bastards at one of the corporate hospital chains with notorious records for gouging Medicare and rationing care to up their profits.
Mr. Routon is right, the GOP hypocritical whiners always want it both ways....they want everything but don't want to pay what it takes to do so, they only want someone else to pay the bills for them.
please cite some examples, Ralph, of CEOs leaving their jobs without scandal and still renegotiating their contracts. Properly ran businesses don't do this. That's why there are CONTRACTS in place.
Ralph, I believe you have it wrong. Memorial was NOT run like a business. That is a false comparison. Any business (in the real world) run like Memorial would soon be out of business.
smartestman, if I had written that the boycott is a favored move of the right, you would have been all over me for not mentioning the left as well. When you write that the boycott is a favored move of the left, I merely followed your example. By your double standard, it is enlightening when you remind us to include the left when discussing political shenanigans, but it somehow proves that I am not smart when I do the exact same thing.
Mr c (sniff Jr.) - where did I use the word exclusively? Or (again) in your twisted vernacular, does "a favored move" mean that only one side makes that move?
I swear you must be taking smart lessons from the incredibly simple-minded sniff.
All content © Copyright 2013, The Colorado Springs Independent
Website powered by Foundation