Re: “Civility is overrated,” Sept. 18 David Harsanyi column.

In his reaction to the incivility displayed in our society recently, David Harsanyi says that’s not a bad thing, especially when it occurs in Congress and is directed at President Obama. Perhaps Harsanyi needs to be reminded that words like “incivility” and “uncivil” have the same root as “civilization.” So to demonstrate incivility is to act in an uncivilized manner. When a large number of people are uncivil for a long period of time, civilization declines. Maybe Harsanyi thinks we ought to go in that direction and then start over after civilization collapses. Some of us would rather display the behavior that our ancestors fostered — respect for our leaders, especially the president, and try to improve what we have.

The next time the tea partiers, birthers, deathers, tenthers, oathers and 9/12ers convene in Denver, along with Glenn Beck, I suggest that Harsanyi put on his loincloth, grab his club (or AK-47), carve out his misspelled anti-Obama sign on a rock, and try to outshout his uncivil allies. Maybe then he would understand the necessity for civility. He would be wise to leave his press credentials back at the cave.

Yabba-dabba-do!

Wesley D. Smits, Denver

This letter was published in the Sept. 22 edition. For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here.

I am writing to celebrate a rare moment of agreement with David Harsanyi. His quote from the British parliament — “Poppycock, Sir!” — perfectly illustrates both where we could use less “civility,” namely in our disagreements over fact and in the passion with which they are expressed, and where we could use more of it, namely in the recognition of a worthy opponent. Such recognition includes respecting the status of the opponent as a legitimate participant in the debate, as a representative of whatever groups and opinion blocs he is speaking for, and as one whose eligibilities to participate in the debate with equally strong conviction and passion are sacrosanct. I look forward to future engagements with Mr. Harsanyi on these grounds.

H. Paul Zeiger, Denver

This letter was published in the Sept. 22 edition. For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here.

Re: “Do Americans still remember Sept. 11?” Sept. 16 letters to the editor.

Eight years have closed over the physical rubble that terrorists left behind. The salve of forgetting has soothed our scars. Why restart the pain? That day’s wound went deep, not the clean cut of a surgeon’s scalpel, easily stitched and easily healed, but rather like the tearing of flesh by a rusted saw — ragged, gaping and dirty. Remembrance can bring solace, but only when and not until the wound is cleansed of ugliness.

Reshaping memories into something that is clean and good becomes the task at hand. Those who died represented all of us, Americans who love and enjoy freedom. We can deflect the evil that caused their deaths by using it to bring about a renewal of our common bond — a government that accepts majority rule while respecting the right of every individual to be the person he chooses to be.

We are the link to the future that would have been theirs. We owe them a future that will guarantee the freedom they enjoyed to descendants of the world they knew. We must remember.

Harriet Freiberger, Steamboat Springs

This letter was published in the Sept. 22 edition. For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here.

Re: “Following an American soldier to war and back,” Sept. 17 letters to the editor.

I was taken aback by the mindless arrogance that suffused letter-writer Bill Sulzman’s critique of The Post’s “American Soldier” series, which depicted the leavening of a young Army recruit from the time of his enlistment through his deployment in Iraq. Sulzman relegates the budding young soldier to the role of a stooge, while dismissing the series as “the kind of sophisticated propaganda which keeps the country marching (sleep walking) on to war” — as if that’s what The Post is known for.

Speaking of propaganda, it appears that Mr. Sulzman belongs to the camp that wants us to believe that the choice between war and peace is ours alone. Never mind that our enemies are forever forcing us to choose who will shape human destiny. So, who will it be, Mr. Sulzman? Will it be those who reach for the necks of their fellow humans? Or will it be those who reach for the stars? Should peace ever prevail in the world, it will only be because the latter withstood the depredations of the former.

Herbert Cooper, Denver

This letter was published in the Sept. 22 edition. For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here.

As outlined by Sen. Max Baucus, health care reform would be paid for by a conglomeration of fees and taxes on various elements of the health care industry. The income thus generated would be required to fund the massive government bureaucracy created to manage this plan. As usual, the costs to the medical suppliers would be passed on to the consumer: me! Cuts would also be made to Medicare, another direct impact to me.

Let’s get to the root of the problem. Reduce medical costs by eliminating the ridiculous cost of malpractice insurance and the unnecessary tests ordered by doctors to cover themselves. If the government wants to get involved, how about a public option for malpractice insurance?

Lee Hendrick, Littleton

This letter was published in the Sept. 21 edition. For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here.

I am currently covered by an employer-based insurance plan. If the government decides to step in and enact a “public option,” what will that mean for me? If a “public option” is offered to employers that is less expensive than what they currently pay, we all know what will happen. I and my fellow employees will lose our current insurance plan and be forced into this “public option.” We won’t be consulted or have a choice in the matter. Ultimately the entire private insurance industry will be made obsolete and our health care system will look just like Canada and Europe: expensive, burdensome, lower quality, less access to new drugs and treatments. I can’t think of a worse solution to our health care problems than throwing up our hands and saying, “Let the government fix it.”

Cori Peth, Aurora

This letter was published in the Sept. 21 edition. For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here.

I have to disagree with letter-writer Kurt Staiger’s assertion (Sept. 16) that medical care providers cannot bring down health care costs without federal intervention. He is confusing “costs” with “prices.” Our government can set a limit on the price it will pay for an MRI, but that doesn’t change the fact that it costs $3,000 in labor, equipment, etc., to make that MRI possible. The only way to reduce the cost of bringing a product or service to market is by innovation and competition. To compare government price-control policies to the process that Home Depot uses to determine the price of a hammer is absurd. Anyone denying that rationing will be the end result should ponder the following: Why is there a long waiting list for rent-controlled apartments and none for a gallon of paint?

Steve Schow, Englewood

This letter was published in the Sept. 21 edition. For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here.

Re: “Forest rangers alter warning to hikers,” Sept. 16 news story.

I read with interest the article whereby the U.S. Forest Service apologized a second time for “offending” Latinos in describing, at a press conference, items the public should be alert for while in the woods of national parks. The specific words had to do with an ethnic food, ethnic beer, and ethnic music.

Unfortunately, Colorado is not the only state where marijuana is cultivated on federal land and the culprits’ evidence left behind is of ethnic identity. California is experiencing the same criminal activity in its national parks. I am pretty sure that evidence left behind will not include Polish vodka or Canadian beer bottles or European food containers. However, if those items were found at the marijuana fields, it is certain there would be no Colorado Latino Forum coming forth to declare “outrage” about ethnic discrimination.

It is distressing the way this country has become so concerned about the perceived “wrongs” committed by this nation’s law enforcement, the entire nation’s safety is compromised. How many times must this country apologize to these ethnic groups in this country? Give me a break.

James Smith, Loveland

This letter was published in the Sept. 21 edition. For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here.

Re: “Making a final campus drop,” Sept. 15 business news story.

Thank you for your article on the financial industry’s efforts to hook college students on credit cards. Parents among your readership should also know that my daughter received a solicitation from Bank of America to sign up for a credit card just last week. She is 11 years old, in fifth grade, and is having trouble rounding to the nearest 10. She has no clue about compound interest.

Rep. Mike Coffman’s office told me to contact state authorities, even though I had already found out that Colorado has no jurisdiction over Bank of America.

Bennett Rutledge, Centennial

This letter was published in the Sept. 21 edition. For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here.

I noticed President Obama extended the U.S. trade embargo against Cuba for another year, as has been the case since the 1970s under the “Trading with the Enemy Act.” So I propose this question. While I have no enemies in Cuba, I have a lot of enemies from both sides of the aisle in Congress and D.C. Can I get those enemies to embargo me, as in leave me alone?

Gary Halpin, Castle Rock

This letter was published in the Sept. 21 edition. For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here.

Re: “They’re growing in popularity,” and “But they’re not better for our kids,” Sept. 13 Perspective articles.

As a parent with two young children in the Denver Public Schools system (and one more to come), the articles in last Sunday’s paper about charter schools caught my eye. Truly, I have never precisely understood the debate over charter schools.

Jim Griffin did an excellent job explaining how charters fit in with the public system. Griffin explained that charter schools exists to help kids with different needs and interests succeed, or at the very least, complete their education. No claims of superiority, as M.L. Johnson states, just the goal of educating more kids — and being accountable for it.

I’ll gladly support public dollars going toward charters as a way of diversifying our investment in educating American kids with special interests or strengths. Or at least preventing students from dropping out of school altogether. Pretty much a no-brainer, I’d say.

Amy Hicks, Denver

This letter was published in the Sept. 20 edition. For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here.

As a former administrator in a Colorado school district, I worked with numerous parents who begged to come back to their neighborhood school after the charter school said their child “may not be right for the program at this school.” Interestingly, the child either had an individualized education program for special education services or needed additional help in learning or behavior. The fact that charter schools are “subject to the same non-discrimination laws as traditional public schools” is true.

Another fact is some charter schools only want students who are higher achievers because scores on CSAP mean everything to their marketing. Families are “counseled out” to avoid the look of employing selective admissions policies and thereby being open to a lawsuit. I know of charter schools attempting to recruit gifted students by calling parents who never requested an application, yet the sibling who was not identified as gifted is never mentioned.

Kathy Landry, Parker

This letter was published in the Sept. 20 edition. For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here.

The truth on charter schools is somewhere between the too-sunny viewpoint of the Colorado League of Charter Schools’ Jim Griffin and the too-negative view of lifelong educator M.L. Johnson. Many children do benefit from charter schools, but not all. It depends on the quality difference between local traditional schools and available charter schools.

Quality charters such as KIPP and others can make a huge difference in the education of inner-city children, but not much difference in some of Colorado’s mostly suburban charters, located in wealthier districts.

Colorado’s charters are mostly volunteer/parent run, rather than professionally run by educational management organizations. Unfortunately, parent-run charters are especially prone to accountability problems, and can have hidden agendas.

The reason for the charter movement is that public schools were failing the students, and charters have provided a swift kick in the pants to public schools. Improving our neighborhood public schools is the best solution, but it does not take more money — it takes will. Teachers unions need to get on board with more schools of innovation, recently authorized by the Colorado legislature, in which the teachers and staff buy in to programs known to increase achievement, and can avoid some union work rules that impede better instruction. Programs that work emphasize high expectations, parent involvement, longer school days and years, and avoidance of instructional fads.

There is no magic bullet — it will take hard work by students, parents, teachers and the community.

Louise Benson, Broomfield

This letter was published in the Sept. 20 edition. For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here.

Citizens should pay attention to what M.L. Johnson and Lisa Mieritz (“Are charter proponents hijacking legislative panel?”) have written.

Supporters of charters have apparently never considered where the current trend is taking us. Besides the arguments of those two, the future costs and effectiveness of Colorado schools should be considered. Charter schools aren’t likely to ever want to take more than 40 to 60 percent of the kids. They will also require much more money per child than currently, and the total costs and subsequent costs per students in the public schools will skyrocket. While charters are not private and do not charge tuition, it is the taxpayer who will be paying the bill. And which students will be left for the public schools?

I propose as alternatives to charter schools the following:

1. Reduce the number of school districts from 178 to 40 or 50, which will allow a district to provide more comprehensive and needed programs, while at the same time lower the total costs of education in Colorado.

2. Alter the procedure of selecting the members of the State Board of Education.

3. Citizens, be aware of which political party is really supports schools and change, versus one which primarily takes negative stands.

4. The state should be responsible for fully funding special education in spite of the amount paid for by the feds. That would release more than $500 million for the local districts to improvise.

5. Do not rely so much on standardized tests to measure results.

6. Do not place all the blame for so much of our failures on the teachers. Look at the State Board of Education, the legislature, the local boards of education, the superintendents, the principals, and, finally, you the citizen.

7. Be careful in choosing who is to identify the inept teacher. In my experience it was not the teachers union that prevented two inept teachers from being released, but administrators.

8. Repeal TABOR. Make it possible to place money and emphasis on where it is needed, and probably eliminate some not-so-necessary programs.

9. Find ways to assist all parents in being proactive with their children in educational activities.

John A. Ogden, Centennial

This letter was published online only.

Charter school proponents never seem to address that all taxpayers are expected to continue pouring money into a funding pool. Meanwhile, parents are supposed to have some “superior” rights alone to decide how those funds are spent on publicly funded charter schools. Non-parent groups – like single parents living in other states, elderly, gays, parents of school graduates, and childless folks – should not be expected to automatically fund school options we don’t support, or didn’t sign up for, vs. decades-old, largely successful public school programs that did just fine by me and my peer group.

Every two years or so, those of us funding schools should be asked where we want our money to go out of a few funding options placed on the usual November ballot. Charter-school-supporting parents can then spend as they wish the monies we voters allocate toward that option. My chosen default will be to continue funding traditional public education, not unaccountable charter schools that typically get to select the students attending.

Education funding is not some sort of manna that falls magically from Heaven. It smacks of arrogance to expect us to fund charter school options via what amounts to a “taxation without representation” scheme.

Dennis Webber, Louisville

This letter was published online only.

Re: “Salazar voted to save jobs,” Sept. 13 Vincent Carroll column.

Vincent Carroll’s attack on the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES) is inconsistent and wrongheaded. He states ACES is job-killing, yet cites three wildly different estimates of its financial impact on American families, both positive and negative. His article merely demonstrates its impact can’t be predicted accurately. Debating its costs has become partisan politics starring the usual characters, alignments and rhetoric.

What we do know about ACES is that it will reduce carbon dioxide emissions by the same regulatory mechanism that has reduced acid rain; subsidize energy efficiency and renewable energy for individuals and businesses; help reduce deforestation globally; and restore U.S. credibility at the Copenhagen climate negotiations this December.

Thomas R. Johnson, Denver

This letter was published in the Sept. 20 edition. For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here.

As a Colorado businessman, I could not disagree more with Vincent Carroll’s assertion that the American Clean Energy and Security Act would somehow cost American jobs. Independent experts agree that building a clean energy economy represents a highly cost-effective approach to pulling our nation out of the current economic crisis. Investment in clean energy sources creates up to three times more jobs than supporting traditional, dirty fuel sources like oil or coal, according to recent studies. That’s why switching to clean energy is good for both our economy and our climate.

What’s more, with one of the country’s fastest-growing clean energy sectors, Colorado has seen firsthand the positive effects that investing in renewable energy can have on employment. While our traditional economy has sputtered, jobs in Colorado’s clean energy sector have grown twice as fast as our traditional economy, generating more than $10 billion in gross revenues and tens of thousands of jobs through investments in clean energy.

With help from a comprehensive clean energy and climate bill, Colorado can lead the way in powering our economic recovery with renewable energy, not to mention weaning ourselves off the billions of dollars in foreign oil we’re importing from countries that don’t share our values. Let’s hope our senators are listening.

Auden Schendler, Aspen

This letter was published in the Sept. 20 edition. For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here.

Americans need to take back control of our energy production and our economic future from Big Oil and the special interest groups in Washington. Just last Sunday, Vincent Carroll penned a column citing figures from a Big Oil-funded think tank falsely claiming that a comprehensive clean energy bill would cost jobs.

Colorado businesses would benefit tremendously from the cleaner, cheaper energy offered by renewable sources – like the wind and the sun – as well as the 30,000 jobs such a bill would create in our state. The only folks who wouldn’t benefit would be the corporate polluters and special interests lobbying to kill this bill. And with oil companies racking up record profits, you’ll forgive me if I’m not too concerned about their ability to get by.

Paul Adams, Denver

This letter was published online only.

Re: “W. Slope cheers, jeers Ritter as politicos gather,” Sept. 13 news story.

The use of the term “Nazis” by some conservative protesters to decribe Democratic Gov. Bill Ritter and President Obama seems to fly in the face of history.

From Wikipedia: “The Nazi Party is generally described as being at the extreme or far right of the left-right political axis. While the party incorporated elements from both left and right-wing politics, the Nazis formed most of their alliances on the right.”

Reuben Espinosa, Denver

This letter was published in the Sept. 20 edition. For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here.

Re: “Renew the focus on Afghanistan,” Sept. 11 editorial.

It was easy to criticize former President Bush and his fellow war criminal cronies regarding their deceitful initiation of a war against a sovereign nation that had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks on our country. For a short time, it was easy to have some faith that President Obama would actually change the course of the war given his first vote on the Senate floor and his war-related rhetoric at the time. As time goes on, it is obvious that both Iraq and Afghanistan are “military-industrial complex” businesses as usual and Obama appears to be going along for the ride.

The fact that The Post says they were convinced the war in Afghanistan is a “worthwhile struggle for a better and safer world” shows not only a lack of historical perspective regarding that part of the world but also a reluctance to engage the new administration in any kind of critical, substantive dialogue about the wars. Further, asking the president to “define his goals, not just in numbers of troops, but in what constitutes success and failure,” assumes credible processes that are yet to be evident in the administration’s dealing with the Middle East.

Rocky Hill, Denver

This letter was published in the Sept. 20 edition. For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here.

Do we citizens know what the exit strategy from Afghanistan is that President Obama must have?

Keith Davis, Lakewood

I suppose we should be thankful Joe Wilson didn’t throw his shoes at the president.

Kurt Freund, Loveland

The birthers are doing all they can to unseat the president. There is another way to accomplish this task. It is called the next election.

Virginia L. Wielgot, Aurora

Where is good old Benjamin Franklin when you need him? He said a penny saved is a penny earned. Obama seems to think that I and all the other citizens in America are his personal ATM. He needs to read “Poor Richard’s Almanac.”

Frank Galmish, Denver

If a strong public health care option would not restrict their ability to gouge the American public, insurance companies would not be trying to defeat it by purchasing the votes of our congressmen.

Michael Gregorich, Westminster

While many things could come out of the president’s address to kids, I just want to know how long until we see hoards of schoolchildren running for student government on platforms of playground organizing.

Ryan Adler, Arvada

These letters were published in the Sept. 20 edition.

Re: “Hate always looks for a target,” Sept. 16 Mike Littwin column.

Mike Littwin’s column hit the nail on the head. He has effectively put on paper my thoughts of the past month. It is apparent to me that the main reason that the crazy people are acting out like this is because of race. It gives them intense fuel so they can act out like an angry mob promoting righteousness.

As Littwin pointed out, if it had not been the race issue, then it would have been the gender issue with Hillary Clinton. There are screamers out there, like Joe Wilson, who want Obama to fail, and they will do anything to promote it. They are so irate/indignant that a black person could be in charge of the country and believe he has no right, so they fight the only way they can, by screaming, picketing, etc.

Won’t this nation ever grow up? This issue has divided us into two factions who can no longer talk to each other.

Elaine Hanak-Hall, Battlement Mesa

This letter was published in the Sept. 19 edition. For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here.

Like Maureen Dowd, Mike Littwin skewered Congressman Joe Wilson for his uncontrollable passion for hate.

Wilson’s outburst was natural for him given the culture in which he moves. His culture approves of his racial remark judging by its financial support.

The culture of hate is a part of American life and not just in Joe Wilson. It will surface again in the halls of Congress. Its urgency will be expressed at a future joint meeting of the two houses of Congress when the senators and the representatives are addressed by our first Jewish president.

Henry Jesse, Denver

This letter was published in the Sept. 19 edition. For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here.

Mike Littwin misses the point: Actually, people charge racism as a disingenuous argument to make an unrelated point. It is a means to distract attention from an inconvenient issue they know is false.

Tony Flitcraft, Frisco

This letter was published in the Sept. 19 edition. For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here.

I am outraged by Jimmy Carter’s recent philosophical ramblings stating that Joe Wilson’s remarks in Congress were racially motivated. Carter is content with making excuses for an administration that is now poised to fail on many of its campaign promises, and as a last straw seeks to place the “race card” to advance his own ultra-liberal agenda.

Shame on you, Jimmy Carter. Why can’t you just stick to the facts and leave such theatrics out of the debate?

John Gardiner, Lakewood

As a member of a Foreign Service family, I am disgusted by recent letters written by poorly informed writers regarding the security situation at U.S. embassies overseas. These writers blame the previous administration and “people who want to make money” for the situation at the embassy in Afghanistan. In fact, contractual guards are used at almost every embassy worldwide.

There are two layers of security at embassies: the external security that protects initial access to the grounds, and the internal security for the building itself, which is provided by the U.S. Marine Corps. The Marines work with contract guards, often from elite local security firms, to ensure total protection across the entire embassy complex. This arrangement allows both parties to have the maximum effectiveness.

I hope that these letter-writers take the time to inform themselves about how our diplomatic interests are protected overseas. Reasonable people should be able to agree that this is not about profit motive or overzealous fans of limited government.

Meghann Silverthorn, Parker

Re: “Epiphany about insurers,” Sept. 16 Al Lewis column.

Thank you for the excellent column by Al Lewis that provided an insider’s view of the public relations tactics used by major health insurers in this country.

As a former insurance public relations employee for multiple companies, Wendell Potter spoke truthfully when he said, “People are suspicious of a government takeover of the health care system. But they are not suspicious of the Wall Street takeover.”

This is the critical piece that many frightened conservatives are missing as they unwittingly “become spokespeople for the insurance industry at town-hall meetings.”

I commend Mr. Potter for having the conscience and courage to tell the truth about this unacceptable situation, and invite Lewis to report further on the issue.

Christina Woodbury, Littleton