A sampling of recent editorials from Colorado newspapers:
NATIONAL:
Rocky Mountain News, July 9, on tuberculosis patient Andrew Speaker:
Andrew Speaker doth protest too much, and it’s getting harder to sympathize with him as a consequence. When doctors in Denver and Atlanta announced last week that the form of tuberculosis Speaker has is a less dangerous one than previously believed, Speaker issued a statement ripping the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for being wrong.
“In the future I hope they realize the terribly chilling effect they can have when they come after someone and their family on a personal level,” Speaker wrote. “They can, in a few days, destroy an entire family’s reputation, ability to make a living and good name.”
Excuse us? Yes, he’s understandably relieved that the form of tuberculosis he has is significantly less likely to kill him than the one officials thought he had when they told him, in May, to stay where he was—in Italy, on his honeymoon.
But given what the CDC knew at the time, the decision to issue a quarantine order for Speaker was fully justified. It’s not as if they do this frequently; it was the first such order in 40 years. They had a patient who, tests showed, had a lethal form of a dangerous disease. They didn’t know whether he was contagious, but if he were, he could put a whole planeful of people at risk on a long trans-Atlantic flight.
CDC officials had some reason to think he might not be cooperative, too, since it wasn’t clear whether Georgia health authorities had ordered or merely advised him not to fly to Italy. And, as subsequent events proved, he was certainly willing to disobey a clear order.
That the original diagnosis turned out to be wrong does not justify second-guessing what the CDC should have done. In fact, even Speaker’s doctor in Denver, as well the CDC’s Dr. Mitch Cohen, say the response would and should have been the same in either case.
But here’s Speaker feeling sorry for himself: “The truth is that my condition is just the same as it was back in early May, long before there was a huge health scare, and back when I was allowed to carry on with my daily life and was told ‘I was not a threat to anyone.'” That’s lawyerly spin. His condition may be “just the same as it was” in May, but the state of knowledge about his condition is different. That matters.
He can, just barely, spare a thought for the people he put at risk. “For the international panic that was created after my misdiagnosis and the way my case was handled, I can only hope that this news helps calm the fears of those people that were on the flights with me,” he said.
He means, of course, the flight he took after his decision to disobey the CDC’s orders and return to the United States by way of a commercial flight into Canada, rather than checking into an Italian hospital—even though by doing so he potentially exposed a large number of people to a serious disease.
And this is the guy with the gall to continue blasting the CDC?
Editorial: ,2777,DRMN—23964—5 620924,00.html
———
The Pueblo Chieftain, July 9, on the I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby case:
President Bush has commuted the prison sentence of former White House aide I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, sparing him from two and a half years behind bars.
This was a case that never should have gone to trial. It started as an investigation into who leaked the name of then-CIA operative Valerie Plame to columnist Robert Novak. Mr. Novak was reporting on the trip to Africa by Ms. Plame’s husband, Joe Wilson, to determine whether Saddam Hussein had obtained uranium “yellow cake” for his nuclear weapons program. Mr. Wilson made a false accusation about what the administration did and didn’t know about Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction program.
As it turned out, prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald learned that it was not Mr. Libby who leaked Ms. Plame’s name, it was State Department official Richard Armitage. Yet Mr. Fitzgerald continued his investigation of Mr. Libby anyway.
Mr. Libby was tried on a charge of lying to federal investigators. But there is ample evidence that what he told the investigators was purely a matter of not remembering conversations as other people remembered them, most notably NBC newsman Tim Russert.
Few people can recall the exact dialogue of a conversation with someone two years previously—and remember that Mr. Libby spoke to many people each day about a variety of topics while working at the White House. Why Mr. Fitzgerald continued with his probe and prosecution is a matter of speculation, but it doesn’t sound like he was out for justice, but rather for a scalp for his belt.
The president decided to commute the prison term because a court of appeals declined to reverse the verdict or override the sentence. So, at this moment Mr. Libby faces two years’ probation. He paid a $250,000 fine last week.
President Bush still could issue a pardon, which would eradicate those penalties. But the damage to Mr. Libby’s reputation cannot be undone.
All of this came because Mr. Wilson and Ms. Plame opposed the war in Iraq. Seems to us that the Constitution gives the right and responsibility to fashion foreign policy to the president, not some underlings in the bowels of the federal bureaucracy.
Editorial:
———
STATE/REGIONAL:
The Daily Sentinel, Grand Junction, Colo., July 8, on public policy and wildfires:
Fire has marched across much of the West with devastating consequences during the past few weeks. From a small blaze in the tiny town of Mesa on Grand Mesa that destroyed four homes last month, to the great conflagration near Lake Tahoe that burned at least 250 homes and more than 50 additional buildings, to the wildfire in northeast Utah a week ago that killed three men, the results of recent fires have been severe and tragic.
The hot, dry weather of late has made conditions ripe for fires, while occasional lightning storms have sometimes ignited blazes. But human activity has played a far greater role in recent fires than nature.
There was, for instance, the local man who admitted tossing a cigarette that started a fire in Grand Junction which engulfed three sheds and threatened, but did not burn, three homes. Children playing with matches may have ignited the fire that destroyed the homes in Mesa last month and a campfire that blew out of control is listed as the official culprit for the Lake Tahoe inferno.
Even seemingly inconsequential things such as sparks from a passing coal train can start fires, as was the case with a blaze near Paonia last week that forced the evacuation of three homes.
But careless human activity is one thing. Specific public policy that increases fire problems is something else altogether. Yet many people near Lake Tahoe believe an environmental agency that restricted their ability to remove trees on their property helped make the Tahoe fire worse than it would otherwise have been.
Late last week, the governors of California and Nevada announced the formation of a two-state panel to investigate whether policies of the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency—formed in the late 1960s to protect the lake from pollution—may have exacerbated the fire’s destruction and endangered area residents.
Homeowners in the region argue that the planning agency has gone far beyond its original mission by adopting policies such as issuing fines up to several thousand dollars to property owners who cut down trees on their own property and dictating to homeowners where they can rake their pine needles.
Even a spokesman for the planning agency said there appears to be “a disconnect between our policies and the reality on the ground.”
Following the devastating wildfires that blazed across much of Colorado in the early years of this decade, federal, state and local officials have taken a far different tack than what occurred in Tahoe, urging homeowners living in rural, fire-prone areas to clear firebreaks around their homes and thereby reduce the risk they’ll be harmed by wildfires.
And in parts of the state like Summit and Grand counties, where pine beetles have ravaged forests and created even greater fire danger, groups of citizens are working with local entities to protect homes and other structures and prepare for dealing with fires in beetle-kill areas.
But those efforts have been hampered by limited funding and a slow response from Congress approving legislation designed to provide money and other assistance in fighting the beetle kill on public lands. This despite efforts in Washington by Sens. Wayne Allard and Ken Salazar and Reps. Mark Udall and John Salazar.
Additionally … Sen. Salazar challenged Bush officials over reports that federal fire positions in Colorado are being cut even as fire danger from pine beetles increases. He also noted that hundreds of thousands of acres have been approved for treatment to reduce fire danger, but the work has not been done because of insufficient budgets.
Fires have been a part of the Western landscape forever. With the population rapidly increasing in much of the West, and more homes being built in forested areas, the potential for damage to private property has increased exponentially. It has been exacerbated, not just by the inexcusable carelessness of individuals, but by public policies. Those policies now under scrutiny at Lake Tahoe, along with Congressional and Bush administration refusal to provide the human and financial resources needed to prevent fires in beetle-infested forests, must be changed.
Editorial: ire—edit.html
———
Fort Collins Coloradoan, July 8, on health care reform in Colorado:
The need is clear, the tools are at hand and the timing is right, but will Colorado embrace health care reform in the coming year?
After months of analysis, public outreach and review, the Blue Ribbon Commission for Health Care Reform (known as the 208 Commission for its enabling legislation) is taking a hard look at four models to expand health-care coverage and decrease health care costs for Coloradans. The commission also is considering developing a fifth proposal with key elements carved out of the final four models as well as 27 other proposals submitted to the commission. A final draft is due to the Legislature and Gov. Ritter by Jan. 31.
The question remains, though, if lawmakers will embrace the commission’s findings or pick apart the proposal piece by piece, perhaps more for political gain than reform. Worse, lawmakers could amicably accept the health-care reform proposal and then shelve it.
Each year, more than $34 billion is spent on health care in Colorado alone, yet 785,000 residents in the state are uninsured. Those figures are only rising. During the past decade, the state Legislature has twice studied health-care reform and twice failed to enact meaningful legislation. While some health-care bills have passed, generally, lawmakers are playing a game in which one program is sacrificed to fund another. Meanwhile, health-care costs from the uninsured are shifted to all taxpayers, who foot the bill for an inefficient system.
The commission’s final proposal may not provide the only answer for health-care reform, but lawmakers should respect the process upon which the report was created, which included numerous public meetings, engaging stakeholders, developing task forces and an official analysis of each of the four finalists. The 27 commission members were appointed by former Gov. Bill Owens, current Gov. Ritter and the majority and minority leaders of the state Senate and House of Representatives.
This is work that lawmakers cannot do on their own. And, given the commission members’ diversity in philosophy and occupation, this will be a process that will have been widely reviewed. The final four selections reflect that diversity of thought, as well.
While lawmakers are encouraged to respect this process, Coloradans, too, should continue to monitor the 208 Commission. More public meetings will be scheduled this fall for residents to take a look at the proposals, including a consolidated proposal. An informed public will be key to ensuring that this process nets comprehensive health-care reform in Colorado.
Editorial: 80334/1014/CUSTOMERSERVICE02
