Letters to the editor
In your “Pub crawl comes to Edwards” article, written by Geraldine Haldner, Oct. 21, Kevin Egan from the Gore Range Brewery is quoted as saying the Edwards Great Escape is the “first ever pub crawl” in the not officially town of Edwards.
We wanted to bring to your attention that this claim from Mr. Egan is not true. Back on April 18, my colleagues and I organized the first “Eddie Pub Crawl,” which involved nine different Edwards bars involving a game of bar golf. The Gore Range Brewery was involved as the last hole, or bar. I had contacted Kevin that same week to inform him of our pub crawl, and he welcomed our business.
We just thought you should be informed of our original pub crawl. Please feel free to call me with any questions. Thank you for your time.
FYI: We will be conducting another “Eddie Pub Crawl” in November.
I attended the Vail Chamber and Business Association candidate forum. Here’s my question: Was it a candidate forum or an inquisition by Kaye’s Chamber? (Who is Kaye anyway?)
I know the sound of axes being ground when I hear it, and this was ridiculous. I felt bad for the candidates who showed up in good faith, presumably with the belief that they’d be answering fair-minded questions from the hosts. Not to be.
The questioners weren’t even trying to conceal their grievances couched as “questions” to the assembled panel. The questions were so buried in their personal tirades that even the candidates were hard-pressed to discern what was actually being asked.
A little sucking up to this one, an attack for that one; it was laughable. Call me crazy, but I have it in my head that a candidate forum is for the benefit of the electorate to get to know the people who are running for office from an objective standpoint.
This horse and pony show wasn’t even close. Which chamber or acronym for a business organization was this again?
I spend some of my time trying to figure out why people I don’t agree with do the things they do. Sometimes I do it by trying to see things from their point of view. Sometimes I do it by seeing things from my point of view. And sometimes, if I can calm myself down enough, I try to see things from no point of view.
When this administration went to war in Afghanistan, I thought, well, there are camps there. And it’s not a bad idea to wipe them out, even if it means the vermin will have to scurry to find other places to set up new camps. When we went to war with Iraq, I said, What? Are we crazy? You can’t win that war. Even if you manage to win the war, you can’t win the peace. These guys must be dreaming.
Now I understand. One thing that makes the USA great is our security. The homeland was attacked. We can’t afford to be attacked. Security leads to predictability, and predictability leads to routine, and routine leads to security. And so on, and so on. America’s routine was disrupted. This administration’s response was simple: Take the war to them.
This one sounds like Cheney: Take it to them and keep them on their heels. They won’t have time to try this again. Not in here. And, if they do, we’ll keep taking it to them, until we hunt them down – and on, and on, and blah, blah, blah.
It unnerves me when my government reacts rather than responds. It reacted to the attack with the Patriot Act and the creation of the Department of Homeland Security. It didn’t react when it came to the economy. It had an agenda. No matter what the truth was, it responded with its agenda.
I’m trying to be forgiving. I’m trying to say, Mr. President, I forgive you for putting my brothers and sisters in harm’s way, then forgetting about how to get them out of harm’s way. I’m trying to be forgiving.
Mr. President, I forgive you for putting more money into rich people’s pockets. Maybe they need it more than we do. Heck, maybe they’ll trickle some down to us. Mr. President, I forgive you for ignoring the mounting health-care crisis. It’s too big a problem for you to deal with. We’ll be happy to let the next president figure out that one.
Mr. President, I forgive you for not knowing the difference between reacting and responding.
I thought I was the only one born with a brief attention span condemning me never to finish what I started, especially if it was something really big. Can I excuse that in my government’s leaders? If I excuse it in myself, I’d have to excuse it in them.
But do I have to vote for them when they’ve proven to me their attention span is even shorter than mine? The guy who says he makes the decisions says, I don’t care about the polls. I don’t make decisions based on polls. Then, if you watch what he does, whenever there’s an issue that flares up during the week or over the weekend, that’s the one he deals with on Monday.
When another blind-sides him mid-week, he drops the issue he’s on and addresses the new one. By Saturday, he’s confused. He gives me the impression of a chicken running around with its head cut off. I voted for a president, not a chicken.
The only issue he seems absolutely single-minded about is raising money for his re-election. Heck, if he just gave that staggering sum to all the people who don’t have health insurance and all the people who are being driven into bankruptcy because of rising premiums and health care costs, we’d have that one licked, and then elect him anyway! But I guess that’s not how it works, huh?
Just wanted to say I enjoyed Don Rogers’ column Monday.
I think it is highly impressive that you are being fair across the board to both parties.
I’ve been reading the Vail Daily every day since the Kobe charges came about, and I have to say you call it like you see it. I wish everybody would do the same.
Scored some points
Kobe’s defense team might have “scored” a few points at the preliminary hearing, but psychologically it was more like a gang rape by the legal system.
Never mind the concrete evidence regarding the victim’s blood on Kobe’s T-shirt, tears, rips, and lacerations suffered on the jaws and genitals of the young woman.
Never mind the obvious social and physical power differential between Kobe and the TEENAGE damsel crying out in distress (yes, Kobe carries an aura of super-heroism that many females will understandably find tempting to flirt with).
Never mind that it took a mere 90 minutes for the married Kobe to meet, seduce, and rip a new one on one of his TEENAGE female, star-struck fans. Now the woman is being further brutalized and unprotected as a result of her name mentioned SEVERAL times by Kobe’s defense attorney. Even after the judge admonished the attorney (Pamela Mackey) for breaching the confidentiality of the TEENAGE accuser’s name, Ms. Mackey continued to identify the TEENAGE accuser’s name several more times! (Come on, it’s a blatant bully intimidation tactic.)
Never mind pictures of the TEENAGER’S injured genitals paraded in the courtroom and talked about like the weather in the media.
Never mind this TEENAGE accuser took some courage to press charges on a big national basketball star who, by the way, has a reputation of scoring points by hogging the game
from his own teammates and lying to and cheating on his wife.
Never mind that the accuser’s courage is now being framed by the defense team as her “tattling” subsequent to getting a “consensual, good lay.” Never mind that Kobe’s picture is still on my favorite chocolate spread called Nutella which now, interestingly enough, leaves a bitter taste in my mouth.
Never mind that Kobe’s wife stands by her man when, oh, never mind. Kobe is now having to put his money and power where his balls are, and I’m not speaking the basketball variety.
Sure, I believe Kobe should be defended in the best way, but dirty pool seems to be the tactic of the defense team. This covert attitude that “boys will be boys” and because Kobe is a good basketball player should somehow disavow or minimize his alleged sexual violence is pretty startling.
His fame and wealth make HIM more likely to prey on women rather than making him a likely target for a bogus law suit where the accuser must endure rips to her genitals and threats to her. Yeah, right, gimme a break. Oh, never mind.
Odd from start
I read Mr. Rogers column of Oct. 19 with interest. Being from Los Angeles, I have logged on to the Vail Daily numerous times. The issue of Sheriff Hoy’s rush to judgment struck me as being odd from the very start. His actions set up the district attorney right out of the chute. He had an arrest on a case that had not been thoroughly investigated.
Now the DA, the detective and the young woman all look foolish. The DA has egg on his face because the case appears like it will be chopped liver in no time. He has been acting like Baghdad Bob because he has not other choice.
The detective must have dosed off during a few classes at detective school because his continued bumbling bordered on the incompetent and the young woman sexual past is served up on a platter by these two is a most embarrassing manner.
Had Cowboy Hoy taken more time to get the lay of the land rather than think he got himself a “big one,” maybe stupid, poor behavior on the parts of Mr. Bryant and this young woman could have been settled in a different manner.
Mr. Bryant hopefully would have learned a stark, harsh and painful lesson about limits and ego, and the young woman could have kept her private life to herself.
His rush to arrest ended those possibilities. I would hope that Mr. Bryant was not a criminal, and I would hope that this young woman could settle on a positive course.
Mr. Hoy took a lot from her and Mr. Bryant that neither can ever regain. They were foolish. He was stupid and cruel to all parties.
Rancho Palos Verdes, Calif.
Re: “Authorities do alleged victim no favors,” by Don Rogers: “I’m sure we’ll get the full, tragic show in a trial. For justice to be truly served, however, County Court Judge Fred Gannett ought to make the remarkable but wise decision to stop the case here …”
Well, Don, I think Judge Gannett can’t wait to toss this rancid circus upstairs to another venue and let them sort it out.
Interesting legal term-of-art history of the phrase “probable cause.” You would think that, as an empirical matter, it would focus on the totality of facts and circumstances that made the truth of an allegation “more likely than not” – i.e., “probable” (as hazy as even that can be). Historically, though (and constitutionally apropos of), a finding of “probable cause” simply followed from the official presentation of allegations of criminal wrongdoing to a judge-magistrate by someone in police-prosecutorial authority, in nearly all cases. In essence, the assertion itself constituted “probable cause.” This is essentially what that Larry Pozner was saying on the morning news sound bite shows today.
As a working statistician, I am troubled by this subjective and wispy interpretation of “probability,” but that is in fact the jurisprudential underpinning of this particular element of due process. We could examine the final disposition of all warrants or prelim hearing ruling issued by every judge to determine whether they in fact hewed to ACTUAL probable cause, but no one does this. No one even thinks about it, as far as I can see.
As I argued in a prior post, I think Hurlbert is at this point dangerously close to any empirical showing of “probable cause,” and I wouldn’t have any problem with a judge tossing this case at this point. But I wouldn’t bet on it.
Expensive little bootie call, eh, Kobe? (I have to agree with your take on him – “the great big lie …”)