A sampling of recent editorials from Colorado newspapers:
NATIONAL:
The Daily Sentinel, Grand Junction, Colo., April 6, on the great political divide:
President Barack Obama may have entered the White House with hopes of closing the great partisan divide in this country, but it isn’t occurring so far.
According to a study released last week by the Pew Research Center, the difference in Obama’s approval ratings among Democrats and Republicans is a massive 61 percent, the widest difference for a new president in the modern era. Among Democrats, 88 percent approve of the job Obama is doing, while only 27 percent of Republicans do.
In contrast, in April of 2001, during President George W. Bush’s first few months in office, the partisan divide was 51 percent—with 87 percent of Republicans approving of the job Bush was then doing, and 36 percent of Democrats. Clearly, the number of Democrats who viewed Bush favorably fell significantly by the time he left office, but initially, many gave him the benefit of the doubt.
The Obama numbers appear to reflect a widening partisan dispute, no matter who resides in the White House. Since Presidents Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter, when a majority of people in the opposition parties gave the new presidents positive approval ratings in their first few months, favorable ratings from members of the opposition party have been steadily declining.
Presidents Ronald Reagan and the first George Bush each received the support of 41 percent of Democrats shortly after their inaugurations. President Bill Clinton had the support of only 26 percent of Republicans.
The increasing rancor among members of the two major parties doesn’t bode well for the ability to reach bipartisan solutions to complex problems, no matter who is in the White House.
Editorial: 9—6A—divide—edit.html
———
The Gazette, Colorado Springs, Colo., April 3, on U.S. gun laws and the drug war in Mexico:
About a month ago, this corner questioned the accuracy of a statistic that has been brought up in discussions and speeches about the drug war violence in Mexico: that anywhere from 80 percent to 95 percent (apparently one can feel free to choose any number) of the firearms recovered from Mexican crime scenes—often related to the drug war—have come from the United States. It goes to the top levels of our government. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton reported it to reporters on her recent trip to Mexico.
The story, originating from the Mexican government, says that minions of drug lords cross the border and find willing U.S. citizens to drive over to the local sporting goods store, firearms shop or gun show and pick up a few rifles and pistols to smuggle into Mexico. News stories and government press releases are often accompanied by photos of an armed soldier standing watch over a table or room full of firearms, usually including a light machine gun or two, and a few rocket-propelled grenades and their launchers, often with a few hand grenades thrown in for good measure.
That might convince a few politicians on this side of the border that supposedly lax U.S. gun laws are key contributors to the deaths from drug violence, but most likely those politicians already favor stricter gun laws. More likely the reports are intended to sway American voters who, ignorant of many of the laws already on the books, might clamor for more laws to end the violence. If only it were that easy.
The truth is that U.S. gun laws are already quite restrictive when it comes to purchasing and owning fully automatic weapons and explosives. In Colorado, it’s even illegal to possess a “facsimile” explosive device. And the local gun shop or show isn’t likely to feature machine guns for sale. Even if they did, between the permit requirements and the law of supply and demand, they’d be fairly expensive. Why would a drug kingpin spend upward of $3,000 for a single automatic rifle, if he could find one at a U.S. shop, when that same money could buy five or six from an international arms dealer? It simply doesn’t make sense.
And more laws aren’t likely to make a difference in the violence, either. In the example above, the buyer is acting in the place of the final owner of the guns. If one were to accept the idea that Americans are purchasing firearms for shipment to Mexico, that’s called a “straw purchase.” Straw purchases are already illegal under U.S. laws.
Now, a report from FOXNews.com explains where the “fact” that most firearms used in Mexican violence come from the U.S. originated. In the news story, ATF Special Agent William Newell relates that in 2007-2008, Mexico submitted 11,000 guns to the ATF for tracing. The ATF was able to trace 6,000 of those. It turns out that 90 percent—ta-da!—of them originated in the U.S.
The problem with the statistic being thrown around is that according to the records of the Mexican government, 29,000 guns were recovered from crime scenes. FOXNews.com reports, “In other words, 68 percent of the guns that were recovered were never submitted for tracing. And when you weed out the roughly 6,000 guns that could not be traced from the remaining 32 percent, it means 83 percent of the guns found at crime scenes in Mexico could not be traced to the U.S.” That means 17 percent of the guns recovered at Mexican crime scenes have been traced back to the U.S.—a far cry from 90 percent.
It’s certainly true that U.S. policies are contributing to the violence in Mexico, but it’s the drug war, not our gun laws that fuels the violence. If the U.S. government wants to help end the violence in Mexico that’s beginning to spill over the border, changing the policy from drug prohibition to something more positive would be a good start.
Editorial: . html
———
STATE/REGIONAL:
Camera, Boulder, Colo., April 5, by Erika Stutzman, for the editorial board, on the notion that there were no winners in the Churchill case:
Despite former professor Ward Churchill’s victory-wave of a dollar bill, and the University of Colorado crowing that the jury’s mixed message signals a win for the school, let us be the first to say that there were no winners in this case.
But if Churchill is allowed to return to campus as a professor, there will be a loser: the CU student body.
On April 2, a jury decided Churchill was wrongly fired by the school in retaliation for a controversial essay he wrote comparing victims of the 9/11 terrorist attacks to a Nazi. Then, they decided to award a dollar—the minimum allowed—to Churchill.
In a separate hearing, the judge will decide whether Churchill gets his job back as he wishes, or to pay him a lump sum. We hope Churchill can take his dollars and wave them somewhere other than CU.
For the record, the school and others blew it. Churchill, after being a lecturer from 1978 to 1990, was awarded tenure by CU in 1991 without the typical six-year evaluation and probationary period, without a Ph.D. and apparently without a rigorous review of his work by outside experts.
Then, following the long-delayed outrage over Churchill’s 9/11 essay, political leaders including the former governor, state legislators and some regents, said he should be fired, signaling their personal wishes for political reprisal for free speech.
But, despite what Churchill’s supporters say now, the school’s review of Churchill didn’t find the broomsticks and pointy hats one would find in a witch hunt. What they found was serious enough to fire Churchill and enough for the judge to hopefully determine his services are no longer appropriate for the CU campus.
And it has nothing to do with anything he has ever, or will ever, say regarding 9/11. For the record: We don’t care.
In 2006, a panel of scholars found patterns of deliberate academic-misconduct violations, including plagiarism and fabrication.
We value and vow to protect free speech, but plagiarism and fabrication are unacceptable, pure and simple.
As the Standing Committee on Research Misconduct noted: “Professor Churchill has consistently failed to respond to critiques of his work—whether they occurred in the form of published essays, the inquiry subcommittee’s questions, or the investigative committee’s questions and report—with any acknowledgment that his practices violate standard norms. We are drawn to the irresistible conclusion that Professor Churchill is unable, or at least unwilling, to acknowledge legitimate critique.”
Churchill and his lawyer convincingly cloaked his plagiarism and fabrication with outrage over what they saw as political reprisal.
That may be worth a buck to the jury, but hopefully the judge won’t see fit to think it’s appropriate to continue allowing plagiarism and fabrication on CU’s campus.
Editorial:
———
The Pueblo Chieftain, April 7, on tough choices for the state Legislature:
With a weakened economy, state tax receipts are down as well. And a chief target of legislative budgeteers is higher education.
Meanwhile, there are noises in the Legislature that the Democrats want to create a single-payer health system in the state. That would require massive new taxes.
When Coloradans found out what that would cost them, the franchise for smelling salts would be at a premium.
The Colorado Commission on Higher Education fears cuts faced by colleges will be about $452 million. That could devastate some smaller colleges if their budgets were cut proportionally. The biggest schools—the University of Colorado and Colorado State University-Fort Collins—have more sources of income and thus are better set to weather the storm.
We don’t believe the state’s colleges can or should raise tuition enough to make up the shortfall. During a down economy, many people go back to college to brush up on their skills or learn new ones to take advantage of an economic recovery. Pricing them out of higher education doesn’t make sense. One pot of cash being eyed by lawmakers is the surplus Pinnacol Assurance has stockpiled. They are considering transferring $102 million of that money into higher education.
That’s a poor choice. Pinnacol is the state-created workers compensation program, and the premiums charged to all the employers who signed on with the program should be used as they were intended.
Higher education is going to have to make some internal changes, such as requiring professors to spend more time in the classroom. That will allow colleges and universities to hire fewer professors.
Taxpayers and the people who pay tuition deserve to get full value for the money they provide our institutions of higher education. And lawmakers need to take care that they don’t gut those institutions.
It’s a difficult time, with tough choices to make. But that’s what those in the Legislature signed on for.
Editorial: 9823.txt
