Wonderful opinion piece from Ralph Peters. Off the Washington Post.
Is it the genius of Vladimir Putin? Or is it simply highly skilled cunning?
(Learn more? Click title or comment to start discussion)
"Truth goes through three stages. First it is ridiculed. Then violently opposed. Finally, it is accepted as self-evident."
September 27, 2011
SandBox Comments: Summit County Citizens Voice "Skiing: Monarch Mountain’s season pass goes global"
What a fantastic tourism marketing idea!
Avatars in commentary have been asking for years, for a similar concept to be created in our regional tourism marketing.
Imagine the smaller resorts such as Sunlight and Powderhorn joining resources with a combined pass.
Now imagine the big boys like Vail, Aspen and Telluride throwing in some killer deals for their slower times.
Combined ski passes.
Heckuva idea. So glad the 'kids' thought of it years ago and have pushed it ever since. Primarily because it's a great way for families to be able to take mini-vacations in the area.
Good wishes to Monarch Mountain as they take the idea global.
(Learn more? Click title or comment to start discussion)
"Truth goes through three stages. First it is ridiculed. Then violently opposed. Finally, it is accepted as self-evident."
Avatars in commentary have been asking for years, for a similar concept to be created in our regional tourism marketing.
Imagine the smaller resorts such as Sunlight and Powderhorn joining resources with a combined pass.
Now imagine the big boys like Vail, Aspen and Telluride throwing in some killer deals for their slower times.
Combined ski passes.
Heckuva idea. So glad the 'kids' thought of it years ago and have pushed it ever since. Primarily because it's a great way for families to be able to take mini-vacations in the area.
Good wishes to Monarch Mountain as they take the idea global.
(Learn more? Click title or comment to start discussion)
"Truth goes through three stages. First it is ridiculed. Then violently opposed. Finally, it is accepted as self-evident."
SandBox Comments: Glenwood Springs Post Independent/Letter to the Editor "Public art is beautiful and worthwhile"
"Employee in the hospitality industry" Katie Turner of Glenwood Springs writes in to the PI with her feeling of "how sad" of an individual Jolene Varley of Carbondale 'is'.
Wouldn't it be nice for our city coffers to have tourism based representation not repeatedly show our community in the same light as those within our tourism industry that are divisive, elitist, intolerant and just plain old 'subtle' and arrogant 'bullies'?
What we hear Jolene actually saying, that is now taken out of context by Katie Turner and turned into a personal attack on Jolene; is that we cannot afford, at this time, what we are spending on public art and the maintenance of.
Jolene 'attacks', in her letter to the editor linked above, the elected officials, the known suppliers and vendors that perpetuate what she considers waste spending. As a taxpayer that has no choice but to assist putting heads in beds for her community to survive, technically somebody like Katie Turner, in the "hospitality" industry...works for Jolene Varley.
What Jolene is implying is a bit like the 'birthday cake gimmick' and $600 dollars per minute ($300 of that covered by another bailout to tourism marketing by the folks) for the fireworks this year; both of which are just a small portion of the reason we are so buried in the hole with our tourism dollars here in Glenwood Springs.
How 'sad' it is that no matter how much deeper we sink into the quagmire, our hospitality and tourism representation still resorts to attacks on the general population.
Weighing the two letters against each other, Jolene Varley most certainly comes out on top as the class act.
(Learn more? Click title or comment to start discussion)
"Truth goes through three stages. First it is ridiculed. Then violently opposed. Finally, it is accepted as self-evident."
Wouldn't it be nice for our city coffers to have tourism based representation not repeatedly show our community in the same light as those within our tourism industry that are divisive, elitist, intolerant and just plain old 'subtle' and arrogant 'bullies'?
What we hear Jolene actually saying, that is now taken out of context by Katie Turner and turned into a personal attack on Jolene; is that we cannot afford, at this time, what we are spending on public art and the maintenance of.
Jolene 'attacks', in her letter to the editor linked above, the elected officials, the known suppliers and vendors that perpetuate what she considers waste spending. As a taxpayer that has no choice but to assist putting heads in beds for her community to survive, technically somebody like Katie Turner, in the "hospitality" industry...works for Jolene Varley.
What Jolene is implying is a bit like the 'birthday cake gimmick' and $600 dollars per minute ($300 of that covered by another bailout to tourism marketing by the folks) for the fireworks this year; both of which are just a small portion of the reason we are so buried in the hole with our tourism dollars here in Glenwood Springs.
How 'sad' it is that no matter how much deeper we sink into the quagmire, our hospitality and tourism representation still resorts to attacks on the general population.
Weighing the two letters against each other, Jolene Varley most certainly comes out on top as the class act.
(Learn more? Click title or comment to start discussion)
"Truth goes through three stages. First it is ridiculed. Then violently opposed. Finally, it is accepted as self-evident."
SandBox Comments: Aspen Daily News "Officers: Cocaine suspect only allowed detective to enter his Main St. home"
"An Eastern European man who is the suspect in a cocaine case gave permission only to an Aspen police detective to enter his Main Street residence, law enforcement officers testified Friday.
But their testimony during an evidence-suppression hearing indicated that at least two federal immigration agents and a police officer besides the detective entered the suspect’s home...."
(Chad Abraham)
(Learn more? Click title or comment to start discussion)
But their testimony during an evidence-suppression hearing indicated that at least two federal immigration agents and a police officer besides the detective entered the suspect’s home...."
(Chad Abraham)
(Learn more? Click title or comment to start discussion)
SandBox Comments: Aspen Daily News/Letter to the Editor "Who’s the bully?"
"Editor:
The word “bully,” originally meaning “sweetheart” in the 1500s, evolved by the 1680s to its current meaning, “harasser of the weak.” Mr. Doug Allen, writing in last Friday’s Aspen Daily News, labels Ms. Marilyn Marks as a “bully.” He characterizes her supporters as a “small handful” and ascribes their collective attitude as “turned on by her constant anti-everything antics.” Mr. Allen goes on to insinuate that Ms. Marks is a jerk, disparages her business success as a CEO, defines her stature as a “divisive political figure,” and her influence on the city’s election commission as “improper.” He concludes by summarizing her political views as nothing more than the rants of a “political malcontent” and presumes to speak for us all by stating that “we don’t want you involved in our city government.”
I would first like to comment on Mr. Allen’s use of the term “bully.” By definition, a bully must occupy a position of power over the bullied. Mr. Allen never states exactly who has been bullied by Ms. Marks. For Mr. Allen to be judged accurate in the use of this term, one would have to conclude that, in the power relationship between Ms. Marks and the unmentioned victims, presumably Aspen’s politicians or administrators, she held the power position and they were the powerless, she the harasser and they the weak. Is this the power dynamic when a lone citizen challenges a government body? At best, ascribing the term “bully” to Ms. Marks is inaccurate.
The accuracy of Mr. Allen’s comment, “small handful of supporters,” cannot easily be verified as he offers no information in support of this description. One could use Ms. Mark’s vote tally when she ran for council. Ms. Marks received 34 percent, or 877 votes compared to 43 percent or 1,090 votes for Mr. Ireland. Ms. Marks’ supporters could accurately be described as a minority of Aspen voters. They might also be described as a significant minority since the next highest vote tally was 17 percent or 421 votes. Ms. Marks’ supporters could reasonably take exception to being classified as a “small handful.” They might also take exception to being characterized as “turned on by her constant anti-everything antics.” I took the liberty of calling a few people who I know support and voted for Ms. Marks. They unanimously denied supporting Ms. Marks for the reason Mr. Allen stated. I could hardly refer to this small sample size as scientific, being that it was such a “small handful.”
The bully analogy continues and morphs into “jerk.” The exact meaning of the word “jerk” is difficult to determine. It is certainly pejorative, a word intended to disparage or belittle, I might suggest, a word intended to bully. Mr. Allen continues to slight Ms. Marks by casually disparaging her business success as a CEO of a large corporation by referring to it as “unclear.” It isn’t enough that a woman rises to the top of a traditionally male business; Mr. Allen finds it necessary to demean that success by suggesting it may have been less than we might imagine. No facts, just a not-so subtle insult.
Mr. Allen goes on to describe Ms. Marks as a “divisive political figure.” I Googled the term “divisive political figure” and found names as diverse as Al Gore, Dick Cheney, Sarah Palin and Nelson Mandella. It seems the term can be used to make any point one wishes. The choice of such a term appears to say more about its user than its target.
Mr. Allen refers to Ms. Marks’ “improper influence over the city’s election commission” as “well documented accusations,” as if the fact that any accusation that is well documented is true. Can any reader of this commentary think of a well-documented accusation that has later proven false?
I suggest, based on Ms. Marks’ behavior as it relates to her political activities, stated positions, court challenges or verbal exchanges, that she is more aptly described as a political activist, a person who is a vigorous advocate for a cause. Most Americans cherish the right of free speech and understand the responsibility that the majority has to protect and defend that right. I suggest that anyone who seeks to diminish that right, to intimidate others into silence or submission, need only look in the mirror to know what a bully looks like..."
(Steve Kaufman, Carbondale)
The word “bully,” originally meaning “sweetheart” in the 1500s, evolved by the 1680s to its current meaning, “harasser of the weak.” Mr. Doug Allen, writing in last Friday’s Aspen Daily News, labels Ms. Marilyn Marks as a “bully.” He characterizes her supporters as a “small handful” and ascribes their collective attitude as “turned on by her constant anti-everything antics.” Mr. Allen goes on to insinuate that Ms. Marks is a jerk, disparages her business success as a CEO, defines her stature as a “divisive political figure,” and her influence on the city’s election commission as “improper.” He concludes by summarizing her political views as nothing more than the rants of a “political malcontent” and presumes to speak for us all by stating that “we don’t want you involved in our city government.”
I would first like to comment on Mr. Allen’s use of the term “bully.” By definition, a bully must occupy a position of power over the bullied. Mr. Allen never states exactly who has been bullied by Ms. Marks. For Mr. Allen to be judged accurate in the use of this term, one would have to conclude that, in the power relationship between Ms. Marks and the unmentioned victims, presumably Aspen’s politicians or administrators, she held the power position and they were the powerless, she the harasser and they the weak. Is this the power dynamic when a lone citizen challenges a government body? At best, ascribing the term “bully” to Ms. Marks is inaccurate.
The accuracy of Mr. Allen’s comment, “small handful of supporters,” cannot easily be verified as he offers no information in support of this description. One could use Ms. Mark’s vote tally when she ran for council. Ms. Marks received 34 percent, or 877 votes compared to 43 percent or 1,090 votes for Mr. Ireland. Ms. Marks’ supporters could accurately be described as a minority of Aspen voters. They might also be described as a significant minority since the next highest vote tally was 17 percent or 421 votes. Ms. Marks’ supporters could reasonably take exception to being classified as a “small handful.” They might also take exception to being characterized as “turned on by her constant anti-everything antics.” I took the liberty of calling a few people who I know support and voted for Ms. Marks. They unanimously denied supporting Ms. Marks for the reason Mr. Allen stated. I could hardly refer to this small sample size as scientific, being that it was such a “small handful.”
The bully analogy continues and morphs into “jerk.” The exact meaning of the word “jerk” is difficult to determine. It is certainly pejorative, a word intended to disparage or belittle, I might suggest, a word intended to bully. Mr. Allen continues to slight Ms. Marks by casually disparaging her business success as a CEO of a large corporation by referring to it as “unclear.” It isn’t enough that a woman rises to the top of a traditionally male business; Mr. Allen finds it necessary to demean that success by suggesting it may have been less than we might imagine. No facts, just a not-so subtle insult.
Mr. Allen goes on to describe Ms. Marks as a “divisive political figure.” I Googled the term “divisive political figure” and found names as diverse as Al Gore, Dick Cheney, Sarah Palin and Nelson Mandella. It seems the term can be used to make any point one wishes. The choice of such a term appears to say more about its user than its target.
Mr. Allen refers to Ms. Marks’ “improper influence over the city’s election commission” as “well documented accusations,” as if the fact that any accusation that is well documented is true. Can any reader of this commentary think of a well-documented accusation that has later proven false?
I suggest, based on Ms. Marks’ behavior as it relates to her political activities, stated positions, court challenges or verbal exchanges, that she is more aptly described as a political activist, a person who is a vigorous advocate for a cause. Most Americans cherish the right of free speech and understand the responsibility that the majority has to protect and defend that right. I suggest that anyone who seeks to diminish that right, to intimidate others into silence or submission, need only look in the mirror to know what a bully looks like..."
(Steve Kaufman, Carbondale)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)