Are we OK with being under watchful eyes of surveillance?
Re: “Handing data over to surveillance cameras,” Nov. 2 letter to the editor
I’m not sure if the letter writer is aware, but these days, you can’t go anywhere without being surveilled. There are cameras inside all places of business. There are cameras outside all places of business as well. Running an errand to Target, Walgreens, King Soopers? Guess what? You’re on camera. Walk outside your front door and many of your neighbors have your every move on camera.
I don’t see it as an invasion of privacy, as the only privacy you really have is in your own home. (And maybe not there either.) I see it as an effective way to monitor activities, some innocuous and some harmful.
Ellen Haverl, Denver
In the old days, children were exhorted to be good because God sees all. Now we have Flock. Perhaps I am naive in thinking that cameras that monitor the movements of millions of people probably don’t give a darn about what I am doing, but if I wouldn’t do something in front of God, I probably shouldn’t do it in front of Flock either.
A. Lynn Buschhoff, Denver
Is there unity in the No Kings messaging?
Re: “Here is what it would take for me to join No Kings,” Nov. 2 commentary
I had to laugh in response to Krista Kafer’s commentary. I don’t often agree with Kafer, but rarely laugh at her. In summary, she might join the next No Kings protest if it were an entirely different event with a new name. But she made one good point. The most successful protests, i.e., the Civil Rights marches, had a single clear message and serious, average-looking people. No Kings has multiple messages and silly costumes that dilute its impact. How did we get here?
Our current government has a “flood the zone” approach to bad acts, which makes responding to all of them a challenge. And they each require a specific response. Even if the overarching issue is disregard for the constitution and laws, the individual outrages hit everyone in their own way (right, MTG?). Politics is personal.
Next, the costumes are a direct result of government overreaction to peaceful protests. Frogs and chipmunks send a message: We’re harmless, don’t hurt us. Plus, mocking the White House gets President Donald Trump’s goat. Politics is personal.
If Kafer wants a bipartisan approach, it will be up to Never Trumper Republicans to start it. They must learn to talk across the aisle. Your move, Kafer.
Cindy Wolf, Denver
Dear DP, thank you so much for publishing both of Kafer’s opinion columns on the limitations of the No Kings protests. In both pieces she articulated my frustrated sentiments about protest limitations and their inability (at least in Denver) to sway any tangible political change.
As an independent moderate voter who leans left of center, I am frustrated by Democrats’ inability to unify behind a consistent, effective message. The multitude of signs Kafer alluded to and all the varying liberal agendas are exactly why I won’t attend left protests and marches.
I also believe that if the protestors are so passionate, they should really be doing the work in politically red areas, truly listening to the 77 million people who elected Donald Trump president. Democrats should open their ears and ask voters what they want and what they care about, instead of telling them what they should want and what they should care about.
I’m sure Kafer got many letters letting her know how wrong her opinion is, so I wanted to write and say that many of us may seem silent because we don’t put on costumes and take to the streets, but that doesn’t mean we don’t agree with her and that our votes don’t have equal weight.
Rebecca Joseph, Denver
Dear Ms. Kafer,
Thank you for the nuance in your thinking and the skill you employ in presenting it to the Denver Post’s readership. Your journalistic work is most refreshing!
Evan Siegel, Westminster
Krista Kafer rails about the types of signs protesters carried, the dress (costumes) of certain participants, and her perception of the lack of bipartisanship in the sponsors. She ends by saying, “If the message is more consistent … Perhaps next time, I will join.”
I proudly attended the No Kings rally in Denver. What I thought was very significant about the rallies across the world was that these people, who had different priorities, different causes that made them jump in, all saw that the source of the issues they were concerned about was the authoritarian nature of the current administration.
As opposed to Kafer, I saw beauty in the fact that so many people from all walks of life, of all ages, from all political parties, were marching together in solidarity about something they agreed upon. I’m sure that if I had had detailed conversations with all of the participants, I would not have agreed with them on all of their views. That is not the point!
One thing I have learned from working as an activist over decades is how important it is to build coalitions. We must work together with people that we don’t agree with on certain topics in order to achieve a larger goal — that of making a strong statement to our government, which I think was accomplished on Oct. 18. I would encourage Kafer to let go of the picky critique she had of some of the details, and join our large movement of opposing the authoritarianism of the Trump administration.
Deborah Reshotko, Denver
Lack of civil discourse on the Democrats’ playlist
Re: “Abandoning civil discourse for ‘ad hominem attacks’,” June 19 letter to the editor
The letter writer wrote, “the basic tenets of civil discourse no longer count for some.”
The letter on civil discourse was clear in its message that the basic tenets of civil discourse matter to Democrats but not to Republicans. It made a lasting impression on me, so I made a mental note to watch the news more closely to verify its accuracy.
On Monday, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) accused President Donald Trump and the GOP of running a “pedophile protection program.”
Then there’s Jay Jones, Democratic candidate for Virginia Attorney General, who, in August 2022, in a hypothetical scenario involving Adolf Hitler, Pol Pot, and Gilbert, wrote, “Gilbert gets two bullets to the head.”
He stated he would “p**s on” the graves of certain Republican delegates when they died.
In a subsequent phone call and follow-up texts with Republican Delegate Carrie Coyner, Jones discussed the hypothetical death of Gilbert’s children, saying he hoped Gilbert’s wife, Jennifer, would one day hold her child as it died, believing that “Only when people feel pain personally do they move on policy”. He added, “I mean do I think Todd and Jennifer are evil? And that they’re breeding little fascists? Yes.”
Please remind your readers that both sides are lacking civil discourse.
Steve Holloway, Lakewood
‘Pause, regroup and reconsider’ wolf expansion
Re: “Feds’ stance hinders wolf plans; what’s next?” Nov. 3 news story
I feel sorry for the wolves enrolled in the reintroduction program. They are innocently caught in the middle between well-intended biologists and concerned ranchers. Perhaps the latest wrinkle from the feds, denying access to Canadian wolves, presents a good time to pause, regroup and reconsider the whole program.
I understand the importance of apex predators. But Colorado is not the same state as it was when wolves were eradicated. The human population has exploded statewide. Climate change and drought have dramatically altered the alpine ecosystem. This makes it difficult for wolves to thrive. Not to mention the stress of being uprooted from a pack and relocated.
By the same token, since the dawn of westward expansion, certain groups have had the upper hand and ultimate say in land use: the ranchers, miners, railroads and the fossil fuel industry. They all had a good run, making handsome profits and disappearing when no longer interested. So yes, some acknowledgement and compromise is in order there.
Don’t bring in any more wolves. Grant the existing ones some leeway while employing cattle loss mitigation. See where they continue to establish territory and multiply, or see if attrition is the final outcome.
Patricia Scott, Denver
Proposing a new name for The Denver Post
Re: “Where are the conservatives’ letters?” Nov. 2 letter to the editor
I couldn’t agree more with Jeanne Slade’s letter regarding the dearth of conservative commentary in your publication. Years ago it was common for newspapers to identify with a particular political party. Perhaps you should just be honest and consider The Denver Democrat as a new moniker.
Scott Grove, Denver
Metro districts are safe investments
Re: “No bailout for metro district investors,” Nov. 2 editorial
Your editorial, “No City of Denver bailout for investors who bet on risky metro district bonds,” asks investors to boycott the asset class using anecdotal evidence that metro district debt is a bad investment. The reality is that the municipal bond market is comprised of savvy investors with sophisticated credit teams who thoroughly analyze and understand these investments’ risks. In 2025 alone, Colorado has attracted over $1.5B in such investments.
Special district bonds are priced efficiently nationwide, from California to Florida and beyond. And despite your pessimism, over 97% of the metro district bonds issued from 2000-2008 (an appropriate time frame to evaluate performance) have been repaid in full despite the Global Financial Crisis that rocked credit and housing markets worldwide shortly thereafter. That era saw $7B of outside investment flow into Colorado through special districts that performed well through one of the worst economic downturns since the Great Depression.
Colorado remains an attractive place for people to live and work, but housing shortages drive affordability woes. Colorado must build more homes, and fortunately, it remains a great place to invest. Rather than discouraging vital investment in our state, we should actively encourage it. Strong capital flows keep our economy vibrant and help keep housing costs as low as possible in the current environment. At MDEC, we’re proud to play a part in solving Colorado’s housing affordability crisis and are actively working to keep Colorado’s economy vibrant by encouraging outside investment.
Kristi Pollard, Greenwood Village
Editor’s note: Pollard is executive director of the Metro District Education Coalition.
SNAP: Donating to food banks instead of Christmas gifts
Recently, the conversation in our house turned to Christmas, and the buying of gifts came up. This year, we have decided to forgo the exchange of gifts and to donate the money to local food banks or charities. After discussing our intent with our gift recipients, they all heartily agreed to do the same.
With the suspension of SNAP benefits, some 600,000 Coloradans who depend on this benefit to put food on the table will be at risk. These are our family, friends and neighbors. We are asking that you and your family consider doing the same. Can you possibly donate all or a portion of the money you spend on Christmas gifts to a local food bank or charity? A half or a quarter of what you spend? Even 10%? With the purchasing powers of food banks, your money will go a long way to helping others. Make someone else’s Christmas merry this year.
Janice Hall and Gary Romansky, Morrison
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.
