Dining at Carlos', gratitude for gay people's contributions, and the gun debate


April 24, 2013

Editor, 235 S. Nevada Ave., CS, CO 80903 • e-mail: letters@csindy.com

If your comments are mailed or e-mailed to us, we'll consider them for publication — unless you request otherwise.

Please include your name, city of residence and a daytime phone number for verification.


"These days, you've gotta milk a dollar out of every dime." — Gayle Forman, novelist

Nobody in middle-class America pinches a penny harder than I do. Frugality is unquestionably a virtue, but an occasional meal in an exceptional restaurant can be a worthwhile indulgence.

When one chooses the luxury of savoring a dinner in a truly great high-end restaurant, it's just plain tacky to carp about price like Mr. Schniper did in last week's Independent ("Greetings from the top of the world," Appetite, April 17).

There are many, many mid-priced and even bargain restaurants in Colorado Springs where delicious meals are available. Most of us enjoy the bulk of our dining out in these good establishments. When concerns about breaking the bank might compromise your experience, stick with these eateries, and don't even venture into the expensive realm of fine dining.

Respecting one's budget is forever wise; however when you are able to splurge, you can't go wrong with Carlos' Bistro — a local small business where quality food is expertly and lovingly prepared and then served with style. For my money, it's the best meal in town.

— Jan Allbright

Green Mountain Falls

Follow the money

To Pam Zubeck: Thank you for the informative story on the financial effects of Mayor Steve Bach's mass firings ("Take the money and run," News, April 3). His actions have shown he actually has very little concern for the welfare of the city.

There is so much we could have done with that million dollars. Why was he so concerned last year about the million-dollar severance for Dr. McEvoy of Memorial Hospital when he pulled a similar stunt?

I hope the Independent continues to pursue release of the public records of the severance packages. Might be worth a court fight.

— Judith Lee

Colorado Springs

Where credit is overdue

As May 1, the date Colorado will recognize civil unions, draws close, we say "thank you" and "kudos" to Tim Gill.

My husband and I watched the biopic Milk this winter, and it feels like American culture is finally achieving the breakthrough San Francisco Supervisor Harvey Milk predicted: If gay men and women would say publicly, "I'm here and I'm queer," the stigma and discrimination would vanish.

Tim Gill, through his foundation, demonstrated with beautiful action this fact: Gay people have contributed greatly to humanity's development in all domains — art, science, religion and philanthropy — always have, and always will. In the past, we didn't acknowledge they were gay people's contributions, because gay people didn't acknowledge they were gay people's contributions. Now, they have: They're out, and they're claiming credit and authenticity, and the rest of us are quickly learning how fair and right that is.

— Di Graski

Colorado Springs

Self-defense argument

Congratulations Jill Coleman ("Firing back," Letters, April 17), and all you loyal NRA members, on your victory in defeating the Gun Violence Act in the Senate.

Now for a fact from the Department of Justice's National Crime Victimization Survey: Gun homicides in 2010 can be broken down into 2.7 percent justifiable homicides and 97.3 percent criminal homicides.

As Mother Jones puts it: "The gun lobby claims that firearms are used for self-defense an estimated 2.5 million times a year. But according to the Department of Justice the actual number is just a fraction of that. ... Guns are used for self defense (both successfully and unsuccessfully) by less than 1 percent of all violent crime victims (tinyurl.com/MoJo-gun-stats)."

Also: "In another twist on the self-defense argument, the NRA likes to claim that women in particular need guns to guard against bullies and rapists. But crime statistics ... indicate that only about 10 percent of those who shoot people in self defense are women."

Don't let your love of guns, and the lies the NRA brainwashes you with, confuse you with actual facts. Go ahead and believe the NRA loves our kids and is not buying off politicians.

Let's all agree on one thing: We are not looking forward to the next gun massacre.

— Elaine Brush

Colorado Springs

Ignorance in power

At a lecture on Wednesday, April 17, Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson said: "There's no crime in being ignorant. Problems arise when people who don't know they're ignorant rise to power." I think that this can be applied to the members of the United States Senate who voted against the expansion of background checks to purchase a gun.

Any polls that I have seen indicate that between 78 percent and 98 percent of the American people surveyed favored the expansion of background checks and that over 70 percent of members of the National Rifle Association are in favor of the expansion of background checks. Yet some members of the Senate and the leadership of the NRA either don't know this, which would have me believe that they are ignorant, or just don't care.

Some say this is due to the lobbying efforts of the NRA. If that is true, my question is: Why do we allow an organization with an estimated membership of approximately 4.5 million, which would be about 1.5 percent of the population, have so much influence on national policy, and law? Something is very wrong with this picture.

— Bob Sprenkle

Colorado Springs


Senate aristocrats

I've been working for gun-violence prevention since President Kennedy was assassinated in 1963, 50 years ago. We had a democracy then. A majority vote has been the only requirement to pass legislation in a democracy. Not so in an oligarchy, aristocracy and plutocracy — which the U.S. Senate has become.

Only in a democracy do senators vote the people's interest, not their own personal self-interest in getting re-elected. Ninety percent of Democrats voted for watered-down, compromised background-check legislation. Ninety percent of Republicans voted against it.

Shame on Senators Reid and McConnell for requiring 60 votes to pass legislation in the country's interest.

Shame on Democratic and Republican representatives for voting for their re-election first and against background checks, ammunition limits and a military assault weapons ban approved by a large majority of citizens.

Shame on us, the voters, for giving such dangerous power to such mediocre NRA cronies. In the face of the most recent targeted killings of defenseless human beings, these senators deserve to be impeached for approving a minority vote to take away our constitutional right to a vote democratically representative of the majority of the American people.

— Bill Durland

Colorado Springs

Dump the troll

I was a little surprised to see that Sam Taylor's letter was published ("A pro-Earth sickness?" April 17). Was it a slow week for letter writing? Sam wasn't contributing to the debate over climate change or environmental stewardship by calling people names. He was just being a troll.

A troll never has anything constructive to add, but simply tries to get a rise out of people by posting inflammatory material, usually on the Internet. I think Sam realizes that he knows nothing of the science behind climate change, so instead regurgitated a 20-year-old Rush Limbaugh insult to try to get a rise.

I have no issue with you, Sam. Say all the dumb shit you want. But to the Independent, the only place a letter like Sam's belongs is about 157 comments down on a Sheryl Crow video on YouTube. If you need help filling your pages every week, I will gladly submit a weekly column.

Just please move this kind of thing to your deleted e-mail folder. For the greater good.

— Tom Nelson

Colorado Springs


In "They are not a PAC" (Letters, April 10), Colorado Springs Police Protective Association executive director Robin Rogers is correct to point out that her organization is a Small Donor Committee, not a Political Action Committee. However, Rogers' assertion that SDCs "are limited specifically to support from the people or members in their associated organization" turns out to be inaccurate. While the CSPPA may have accepted donations only from its members, Andrew Cole with the Colorado Secretary of State confirms that by law, SDCs may accept donations from any individual.


• In "Route 64" in last week's ReLeaf, the subject of the portrait identified as Craig Small is actually Eric Bergman.

• In last week's Dine & Dash column, the incorrect Bean Bandit location was listed as having been visited. The actual location was 320 N. Circle Drive.

We regret the errors.


Comments (18)

Showing 1-18 of 18

No surprise here. The Indy, in its untiring effort to be balanced, published three anti gun letters and no letters supporting the second amendment.
Mr. Sprenkle indicates that all the polls he has seen show 78% to 98% in favor of eroding 2nd amendment rights. Golly Bob, where have you been looking?
For every phony poll you put up showing support for the systematic erosion of our rights, I can put up five that counter the claim.
Polls are heavily influenced by two things. How the question is worded and how the question is interpreted.

report 3 likes, 3 dislikes   
Posted by siggie on 04/24/2013 at 8:28 AM

In fairness if siggie is going to ask where Bob has been looking for polls in favor of eroding 2nd ammendment rights, it is fair to ask siggie if he also can provide links to the "five that counter the claim." Both are entitled to their opinions, however if they are going to state "facts" it is fair to ask for their sources.

report 2 likes, 0 dislikes   
Posted by MDT on 04/24/2013 at 2:14 PM

A brief internet search led me to the following report to gun control polls...


report 2 likes, 0 dislikes   
Posted by MDT on 04/24/2013 at 2:26 PM

The point is --- any poll can say anything the pollster wants it to say.
Give 'em an inch and they will take a mile. Be very wary of any erosion of your rights. I suspect that the trusting Germans allowed their rights to slowly, but systematically be taken from them. When they awoke, Hitler had established a Facist state.

report 1 like, 3 dislikes   
Posted by siggie on 04/24/2013 at 3:40 PM

Info wars poll is from Oct 2011, not very recent in light of recent events, CBS report is from 2010, new american is same poll as infowars poll, citing a gallup poll, the blaze poll is an online poll and fails at the test of a true scientific poll, mitchell poll is at least fairly current Jan 2013. The Rasmussen cherry picks to fill their agenda. At least you tried and did cite your sources siggie.

report 2 likes, 0 dislikes   
Posted by MDT on 04/24/2013 at 6:30 PM

MDT: Since you seem to be speaking for Bob, all I can say is - you made my point.

report 1 like, 2 dislikes   
Posted by siggie on 04/25/2013 at 6:00 AM

Siggie, not speaking for anyone,never said what position I take, just if you ask for sources you should provide some, and you did, just outdated sources. But if you are speaking of current events, you should provide some CURRENT sources.

report 2 likes, 0 dislikes   
Posted by MDT on 04/25/2013 at 3:05 PM

siggie, the German people, like other Europeans, did not have any rights to begin with. America, was the first nation in history to begin its life with a definition of the rights to which its citizens were entitled. The German people had to fight tooth and nail against an entrenched aristocracy for every right they now enjoy. Far from being asleep during the Nazi takeover, the citizens overwhelmingly voted them into power with their eyes wide open, although, to be fair, they had been driven to despair by their collapsing economy.

report 4 likes, 0 dislikes   
Posted by Mr. K-- on 04/25/2013 at 4:06 PM

K: instead of cherry picking a specific in my comment and giving your highly prejudiced opinion on history, why don't you discuss the real issue? That is, the systematic erosion of our rights by the federal government. Perhaps you believe that the American people have too many rights and there should be more government control. Perhaps you believe, as Obama does, that the government is the answer to all things. Perhaps you fail to recognize that as the federal government gets bigger the rights of the American people get smaller. Perhaps you should go back to playing with tejontech. The problem is that he refuses to engage, unless you want to talk about religion.

report 2 likes, 2 dislikes   
Posted by siggie on 04/26/2013 at 7:52 AM

siggie, perhaps I am not interested in the topic of the federal government. Perhaps I am only interested in the historical topic, and in correcting the misinformation you gleefully spread.

To that end, I take issue with your characterization of my comments as my "highly prejudiced opinion on history." How would you know? In fact, your original comment begins, "I suspect that..." In other words, you are speculating. You speculate because you do not know. Since you do not know, you cannot demonstrate my remarks are erroneous or exaggerated.

I have studied the history, so, I do happen to know the truth. Nevertheless, since you are not interested in the truth, but only in "winning" the "argument" against a "liberal," you engage in the kind of trash talk more suitable for professional wrestling than a debate.

report 2 likes, 1 dislike   
Posted by Mr. K-- on 04/26/2013 at 10:39 AM

What a silly little man you are K. I hold only opinions and you hold only the truth?
I'll stick with your question - "How would you know."
I suspect that since you read something (no doubt written by one of your extremely liberal scholars), it is automatically true. You have proven yourself quite foolish and yet you seem to think you are something special.
On second thought, tech is too much for you, maybe you can engage the illiterate fat girls from the utility.

report 0 likes, 3 dislikes   
Posted by siggie on 04/26/2013 at 4:57 PM

Siggie, Typical name calling when you can not talk with intelligence........yes erosion of rights, womens rights by the religious right, unlawful wiretaps and loss of rights in the Patriot Act as done by the Bush administration, rights of other religions other than christian.... the list can go on from both the LEFT and the RIGHT. Its HELL being stuck in the MIDDLE with all of you. LEAN TO THE LEFT, LEAN TO THE RIGHT, STAND UP, SIT DOWN, FIGHT!FIGHT!FIGHT!

report 1 like, 0 dislikes   
Posted by MDT on 04/26/2013 at 10:31 PM

MDT: stuck in the middle? Doubtful. You state "...never said what position I take." I believe you are making it quite clear.
And for clarification ...... As a Libertarian, I decry the loss of rights regardless of which party is responsible.
Funny you should mention "women's rights". I suspect you mean abortion? Is that a right? Before you get all 'high and mighty' and begin your lecture, I take the libertarian position on abortion. I have stated my opinion on the subject many times. 1st tri: okay. 2nd tri: subject to reasonable discussion. 3rd tri - only in the most extreme cases.

report 0 likes, 1 dislike   
Posted by siggie on 04/27/2013 at 7:11 AM

Ok Siggie HERE is my position on guns since you apparently KNOW my position, I think that yes, you should get a background check on the sales of guns, retail, gun shows whatever. I NEED to get a background check to get a JOB, sometimes to access housing or whatever, so why should someone not need one when purchasing something that can blow my head off? Whats the problem if they have nothing to hide? What are they afraid of? The 2nd amendment says "WELL REGULATED" The founding fathers failed to define that. If we consider weapons available at the time, then we should all only be allowed muskets. I think the purchaser of the guns should pay for the background check. Why should I as a taxpayer pay for that background check? Can we AGREE that taxes are high enough?? As far as the cry that you shouldn't have to pay to access a right, well many on the right want Picture IDs for voting, and expect someone to pay to get an ID to use that right, whats the difference? As far as clip size, it really doesn't matter to me, if you need 20 rounds to hunt an elk, that doesn't make someone a bad person or a threat to me, just makes them a lousy sport hunter and maybe they should change hobbies, I seriously doubt that limiting rounds is going to make much difference in the large scheme of things, so I would not be in favor of that. As far as assault weapons, I really don't take a position on that, I don't see the thrill, but it doesn't matter to me. But maybe we SHOULD allow tanks and bazookas too, following the logic of gun advocates. The thing we ALL need to agree on is where the line is, at least we need to agree to disagree.

So, I think we disagree on needing background checks, and most likely agree that bans on assault weapons and rounds is not going to do much so why bother. Can we agree that everyone should have tanks and bazookas too? Know where I can buy one? I will be glad to get a background check and I will even pay for it. Why don't you come over and help me clean my shotguns, its way over due!!

report 1 like, 0 dislikes   
Posted by MDT on 04/27/2013 at 7:30 AM

Oh and one more thing Siggie, in your first comment you said... "Polls are heavily influenced by two things. How the question is worded and how the question is interpreted." That is correct, you failed to mention a third, polls are also influenced by who is asking the question. A fourth would be is it random or not, that is why the online poll you cited is not really valid since it was not a "random sampling of voters"

report 1 like, 0 dislikes   
Posted by MDT on 04/27/2013 at 7:40 AM

MDT: Clean your own shotguns. I clean mine. (The only guns I own.)
Your 3rd influence "who is asking the question" was covered in "how the question was worded".
As to random sampling, I took several statistics classes in college and am well aware of the requirements of a "valid" poll. Do you think Bob was referencing a scientific poll?
I probably agree with most of what you say on guns. My problem is with the 'big government' types gradually yet relentlessly taking away our freedoms.

report 1 like, 1 dislike   
Posted by siggie on 04/27/2013 at 1:42 PM

"The 2nd amendment says "WELL REGULATED" The founding fathers failed to define that." And the second clause of the second amendment says "shall not be infringed", but I notice very few people have that figured out.

Secondly, there is no need for a background check for a job. I got my last job w/out even so much as an employment application being submitted.

Lastly, polls are good for whomever commissions them. I do not believe that anywhere near 90% of the US populace believes we should have "enhanced" background checks for the purchase of buying firearms. When a background check fails to stop the next shooting, who or what will be your bogeyman?

report 1 like, 0 dislikes   
Posted by None of the Above on 04/28/2013 at 5:37 PM

siggie, your ignorance is only exceeded by your arrogance. I am not debating you. I am correcting you. I am not doing it for your benefit. I am doing it for the benefit of any reader who might make the mistake of believing you know what you are talking about.

You write, "I suspect that since you read something..." If I had only read one study of the subject, that would still be one more than you have ever read, but I happen to have made a study of it. On the other hand, you also began your original statement with the same silly phrase, "I suspect..." and now you wonder why your opinions are automatically dismissed! An opinion is only worth something when the opiner actually knows something about the subject. Since you know nothing about the subject your opinion is as worthless as your suspicions.

Posted by Mr. K-- on 04/29/2013 at 5:34 PM
Showing 1-18 of 18

Add a comment

Clicky Quantcast