Brazil’s version of Trump is headed to jail
Re: “Brazil: After official’s conviction, Congress already considers granting amnesty,” Sept. 15 news story
Such outstanding news. Brazil’s Supreme Court convicted Jair Bolsonaro of the crimes involved in his violent coup attempt, by an overwhelming majority. Brazil’s legitimate President Lula da Silva responded to further threats from Marco Rubio with dignity and intelligence, in defense of their independence and sovereignty. Yes, Brazil put their version of Trump in jail, it’s a shame our Republican Party only pays lip service to actual law and justice, but it’s hard to stand up to crime when you’re serving a convicted criminal.
Thomas Holzfaster, Lakewood
Better than logging, revive the Small Tracts Act
Re: “Hidden in Trump’s law is mandate to strip big trees from national forests,” Sept. 4 commentary
For whatever nefarious reason President Trump has for selling off timber in the national forests, there can be better ways of accomplishing wildfire and proper thinning of trees, plus increased improved husbandry of the forests. However, it would result in fewer brownie points with rich constituents.
Back in 1983 there was an act called the “Small Track Act.” It was originally designed to settle disputes over land boundaries with the forest service and private owners whose land abutted the national forest. Small tracts of national forest land were to be sold off to private owners at a reasonable cost. It had a couple of unintended benefits. One that the private owners would be more involved in the care of those tracts than would the federal government and forest service with the thinning and upkeep of those tracts and the forest service would benefit from those funds received from the sales.s
I’ve had my application in and sat on that list since early 2002. Nobody that I’ve spoken with at the Forest Service knew anything about the list or the program.
If the program were dusted off and reinstituted, it would go a long way toward solving not all, but many problems in our forests.
Jim Lynch, Northglenn
Ready for long lines at polling places?
It is not clear what President Trump means by eliminating mail-in ballots. I can only surmise that this requires in-person voting at polling locations. I trust everyone is ready to stand in a long line come election day, or during early voting.
Full elections incorporate a multi-page ballot with not only all the candidates and positions for one to select, but multitudes of special propositions, new laws and extra items to vote on. The last major election I took 20 minutes to fill out my ballot, and that was after I fully researched statements in the “Bluebook” and newspaper and television editorials. Imagine the time it will take a lot of people to fill out their ballot while in that tiny privacy booth.
For many, it might be the first time they try to understand the wording on all the upcoming options that we will likely have the privilege to vote on. Plus, add the extra time at polling stations to check our ID card.
How about this: Send me my ballot in the mail, I can fill it out at home, then drive to a polling location and drop it off after showing my ID. Or will this also be classified as voter fraud? One thing is for sure, at least in my case, I will need no time to figure out which candidates to vote for, this time NO REPUBLICANS, easy,…. no time wasted.
Richard Reiff, Pueblo
Medical aid in dying is truly compassionate
I have a unique perspective on medical aid in dying (the term physician-assisted suicide is cruel and inappropriate). I am a retired physician who practiced in Oregon for 35 years, half of which was before and half after the passage of the Death With Dignity Act. The Colorado End of Life Options Act is a mirror image of the Oregon law.
I had several patients with end-stage cancer both before and after the Oregon law passed, and I experienced what their final days were like. Although I approved of the law, I didn’t actively participate in the process. Rather, I referred my patients who wanted to explore this option to physicians who were skilled in educating and counseling appropriate patients in the details. Not all of them chose to proceed after learning about the process.
I had one patient, a friend, with end-stage pancreatic cancer who asked if, as a friend, I would be present when he took the medication. He was surrounded by family and a few close friends and it was one of the most beautiful and spiritual deaths that I ever experienced.
I also experienced the death of a loved one, my mother, who had cancer. She had gone through the medical aid in dying process and had obtained the prescriptions. But she never chose to use them. I know that just having the option gave her comfort and a deep sense of control. The statistics from Oregon show that about 1/3 of those who obtain the prescriptions never use them.
Using medical aid in dying is a “choice” that is not appropriate for everyone, but should be available as an option for those who qualify under the law. Those of us who live in Colorado are the fortunate ones to have this “choice” and any efforts to reverse this law are cruel and inhumane.
John R. Lobitz, Denver
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.
