A sampling of recent editorials from Colorado newspapers:
NATIONAL:
The (Greeley) Daily Tribune, April 18, one U.S. soldier who should suffer consequences for refusing to deploy:
When you become a soldier of the United States of America, you lose some of your rights.
Except in extreme cases, you no longer have the right to refuse orders of superiors. You don’t have the same freedom of speech that other Americans enjoy. You serve at the pleasure of your commander in chief.
Lt. Col. Terry Lakin, while exercising rights that many Americans enjoy, now needs to suffer the consequences for his actions. He has violated the requirements of his office.
Lakin refused to be deployed to Afghanistan last week. The 18-year veteran of active uniform service is protesting his service based on the fact that he believes President Barack Obama has not presented a valid birth certificate.
We understand there is a group of U.S. citizens who have questioned the legitimacy of the president’s birth certificate and continue to challenge its validity even though it has been certified by the director of the Department of Health in Hawaii.
This really isn’t about the “birther movement.” Regardless of what you think about it, the so-called birthers have a right to think whatever they want.
But Lakin doesn’t. He is a soldier in the U.S. Army. He does not have a right to question his commander in chief. And regardless of what the birthers say, Obama is our duly, legitimately elected president, and he is the leader of our military.
Lakin’s refusal to be deployed will certainly result in a court-martial, and rightfully so. Lakin has obvious strong feelings about his position on the birth certificate issue, and is willing to sacrifice his career, and even his freedom, for his beliefs.
Some may view that as heroic. Some may view that as mutiny.
But the bottom line is Lakin’s actions undermine the very foundation of our military. Soldiers are not allowed to pick and choose whom they follow. They are given a very specific chain of command and when they sign up, they know they serve at the pleasure of their commanders and their country.
If you allow a soldier like Lakin to refuse orders, then you simply don’t have a military. And in these volatile times, that is dangerous.
Lakin should suffer consequences for his actions. Any punishment he receives should serve as a strong message to other soldiers that this type of action is not tolerated.
———
The (Grand Junction) Daily Sentinel, April 19, on President Obama’s attempts to cut funds from U.S. space exploration:
Back in February, President Barack Obama announced significant changes and cuts to this nation’s space program.
Last week he changed course. Political gravity, it seems, was a much stronger force than the president realized when he sought to take the space program into a new orbit.
Therein lies a tale about the difficulties of budget cutting or even significantly changing a federal program in the United States today.
We don’t think space exploration is a waste of money. Much of our modern, satellite-based communication system can trace its roots to the U.S. space program. Even without such practical results, there is great scientific value in exploration for the sake of discovery.
But one can reasonably argue that, in the depths of a recession and severe budget problems, space exploration should not be a top priority.
Not so fast. Politicians objected in a couple of key states including Colorado’s governor and two senators, all Democrats. One of the programs that was to be cut under Obama’s plan was called the Orion Project, and some 4,000 jobs in Colorado are directly related to that.
The hue and cry from Florida was even greater because of the number of space-related jobs in that state.
So last week, Obama jetted down to Florida and announced he was restoring much of what he had proposed to cut, including the Orion project, and will continue to push for his goal of a human trip to Mars sometime in his lifetime.
The U.S. space program may not be moving into warp drive, but it apparently won’t be left at the dock, either.
Editorial:
———
STATE:
The Denver Post, April 18, on the teachers’ union refusing to support the state’s Race to the Top application:
If you had any doubt about the motivation of the Colorado Education Association when it comes to teacher tenure and evaluation reform, wonder no longer.
The CEA is playing what it considers to be its trump card. By announcing last week that it will refuse to support the state’s second-round application for a $175 million federal Race to the Top grant, the union is showing its true colors.
The union, which knows its support is a big factor in whether Colorado will get this much-needed funding, is digging in its heels against a reform bill that would make it easier to get rid of poor teachers.
The CEA wants to control the process, and it apparently doesn’t care who gets hurt along the way.
If the CEA were serious about devising a fair system of evaluating teachers, they would focus on the details of that process instead of throwing up barricades in an effort to kill the bill introduced last week by state Sen. Michael Johnston, D-Denver.
We suspect that they would prefer to keep the venue of final approval for any and all reforms in the state legislature, instead of the state Board of Education. The teachers union has far more influence with lawmakers, many of whom depend upon the CEA’s support and manpower during election season.
The bill, as introduced, gives the Board of Education far more control. And Wednesday’s 7-0 vote by the board to support Johnston’s measure is an indication of the influence the union would have there. Not much.
An op-ed by Education Commissioner Dwight Jones published in The Post last week voiced support for Johnston’s bill, buoying its chances for passage. The union didn’t like that either, and accused Jones of throwing teachers “under the bus.”
We support the Johnston bill, and can’t say strongly enough that it’s not an anti-teacher bill. It calls for the kinds of reforms that would help develop good teachers into great teachers, and eventually ensure a quality teacher in every classroom. Its passage also would better position Colorado to get Race to the Top money, but that’s merely an added incentive to approve a smart bill.
The proposal, which has been kicking around since January in draft form as policymakers worked to get union buy-in, would change the way teachers are evaluated and change the way they get and keep tenure. The union called its introduction “hasty,” which is hard to fathom.
Among the controversial issues is the definition of an effective teacher. It is the linchpin for the rest of the system. The reform mandates that at least half of a teacher’s evaluation depend on academic growth of that teacher’s students.
If such legislation had passed in advance of the first round of Race to the Top funding, Colorado may have gotten money in that round, and it likely would have been a significantly higher award.
Water under the bridge, to be sure, but the lesson to be learned is that the state cannot let another opportunity pass by in an effort to kowtow to a teachers union that has an agenda that can only be construed as obstructionist.
Editorial:
———
The Coloradoan, April 20, on CSU president’s latest staffing changes:
CSU President Tony Frank is making the sort of tough decisions that all governments need to be making in these economic times.
The latest change was unveiled last week, making staffing changes that focus on delivering key services and positioning the university to build its resources.
Among other changes, Frank eliminated three on-campus positions with Colorado State University’s Extension Service. While those cuts are clearly painful to the people involved, the change allows CSU to put more money into field operations for its Extension Service, one of the key historic missions of a land-grant university.
He also is restructuring some of CSU’s outreach efforts, creating a new vice president for external affairs’ position in the process.
While some might question the need for a new administrative position in difficult financial times, this one makes sense. As state funding continues to be reduced, CSU must find new funding sources so it doesn’t continually have to seek huge tuition increases.
To be successful, CSU will need to communicate its value message both to potential funders and to the residents of Colorado.
“I think there’s a tendency within academia to look inward and to believe that, if we do our jobs in the classroom and laboratory and studio well, the rest—reputation, communication, advocacy, public support—will take care of itself,” Frank said in announcing the changes.
“I doubt this view has ever really been correct, but now seems like a particularly dangerous time to not be fully connected to our external stakeholders.”
Editorial:
