A sampling of recent editorials from Colorado newspapers:
NATIONAL:
The Denver Post, Oct. 8, on the recent spate of gay teens committing suicide:
Five. That’s how many gay teenagers apparently killed themselves in recent weeks, at least four of them after having been tormented about their sexuality. But those aren’t the only numbers that are deeply distressing when it comes to the difficulties faced by gay teens.
Nearly 61 percent reported in a survey that they felt unsafe at school because of their sexual orientation. More than 86 percent said they were called names or threatened. Forty- four percent said they were pushed or shoved at school because of their sexual orientation.
These numbers, gleaned from a survey by the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network, should disturb us all. No matter what your personal or moral beliefs are, there should be room in one’s conscience for the expectation that gay people should be treated with decency and respect.
That doesn’t mean you have to wear a rainbow T-shirt and march in a gay rights parade. But it should mean tolerance for our differences and intolerance for biased, hurtful attitudes toward gays. Being a teenager is difficult enough. This is something we should demand not only from ourselves, but also from school officials, parents, elected officials, religious leaders and our children.
Much like the 1998 death of Matthew Shepard in Wyoming, the five suicides, capped by the gut-wrenching death of a Rutgers University freshman who leapt off a bridge after he was secretly filmed in a sexual liaison with another man, have been another wake-up call.
A 13-year-old hanged himself in his California backyard. An Indiana boy, 15, hanged himself. A 13-year-old from Houston shot himself. A 19-year-old man hanged himself in his Rhode Island dorm room.
What a terrible shame. At this point, it is unknown why the young man in Rhode Island, who was openly gay, killed himself. The others reportedly were bullied.
The public response to these tragedies has been heartening. There have been calls for action from various civic groups, celebrities and politicians.
A YouTube campaign, “It Gets Better,” reaches out to desperate young gay people to offer them hope of a better life.
U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan also spoke out against the harassment. “This is a moment where every one of us . . . needs to stand up and speak out against intolerance in all its forms,” Duncan said.
The Denver Post’s editorial board has advocated for the revocation of the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy that forces gays serving in the armed forces to hide their sexual orientation. We have supported gay marriage, calling it a civil rights issue.
Doing right by these issues and treating gay teens with tolerance are important steps toward giving gay Americans the full rights and respect that every American should have.
Editorial:
———
Canon City Daily Record, Oct. 5, on new Internet regulations that would make it easier to conduct wiretap surveillance:
The Obama administration is proposing new regulations for the Internet to make it easier to conduct wiretap surveillance of suspects, it was reported last week.
As terrorists and criminals increasingly put down their phones and turn to their keyboards to chat, federal law enforcement officials say changing technology is hindering their ability to monitor suspect communications. They want to require communication companies to have the technological ability to provide them with wiretap access and unencrypted versions of the communications.
Critics labeled the proposal as a sweeping new mandate that would be costly to communications companies and might even establish back doors that could be exploited by the wrong people.
The FBI’s general counsel, Valerie E. Caproni, however, framed it simply as a way for law enforcement to keep up with evolving technology. “We’re talking about preserving our ability to execute our existing authority,” she was quoted as saying.
In that light, the proposal is reasonable and necessary.
The problem is that it follows years of abuses of the expanded authority granted federal law enforcement officials after the 9/11 terrorist attacks and passage of the Patriot Act.
In 2007 it was revealed that the FBI violated the law or government policies possibly 3,000 times in conducting searches of records. Earlier this year we learned the FBI violated legal procedures in collecting call records in more than 3,500 cases.
In September, the FBI acknowledged widespread cheating among its own agents who took a test that gauged their knowledge of new procedures they must follow when investigating U.S. citizens.
All this makes us wary when federal officials ask for broad new abilities to conduct surveillance.
We want those officials to be able to do their jobs.
We want them to have the tools needed to exercise the authority they already have.
We want them, above all, to keep us safe.
We don’t want them to abuse their authority.
Whatever the final form of the administration’s proposal, there must be safeguards against such abuse.
Editorial:
———
STATE:
Aurora Sentinel, Oct. 12, on why voting for Proposition 102 would only lead to overcrowded jails:
For more than 200 years, Americans have been struggling to strike a balance between the rights of individuals and the rights of the community.
When it comes to finding such an accord for those accused of crimes, however, Proposition 102 works against all sides.
The measure clearly sought to protect the public by ensuring that dangerous criminals aren’t allowed to leave jail while awaiting trial.
Proposition 102 fails on all fronts.
It not only doesn’t really accomplish balance, it’s likely that Proposition 102 would instead lead to already overcrowded jails becoming even more dangerously packed. More importantly, it would mean two systems of justice in Colorado: one for the rich and one for the poor.
When someone’s accused of a crime, the legal system has to persuade a court that enough evidence exists to warrant a trial. Once that happens, the defendant is advised of charges and in most cases allowed to work out an agreement with the court to ensure the suspect returns for a trial rather than skip town. Courts can have the choice of forcing a suspect to either promise to return to court or pay a fine, or in cases where the crime is more serious or the suspect more sketchy, the court can require a suspect to put up cash before the trial, or work a deal with a bail bondsman to post a bond.
In either case, the courts in Colorado rely on a host of pretrial service agencies to assess whether the suspect is potentially dangerous to the public, and whether the suspect will actually show up in court to face charges. In addition, these agencies help monitor suspects who are “free on bail,” to ensure they keep court dates.
Proposition 102 would restrict those allowed to post an unsecured bond on most second felony offenses. Most poor suspects are unable to come up with thousands of dollars of cash and don’t own real estate and other items to use for collateral for a bail bondsman. That means that the majority of poor suspects will wait in jail for court dates, a proposition they can ill afford and one that will cost taxpayers dearly.
Legislative experts estimate the change would cost Colorado taxpayers about $3 million a year from the get go as suspects who would have made it to trial under the current system are forced into lengthy jail stays.
While it’s clear that getting suspects to court has always been a problem, the numbers show that the pretrial services system is far more efficient at keeping risky suspects off the streets and ensuring justice is served. Vote no on this wrongheaded proposal.
Editorial:
———
Montrose Press, Oct. 8, on why Rep. John Salazar is a stronger candidate:
Voters frustrated with incumbents and Democrats must recognize that U.S. Rep. John Salazar is no ordinary Democrat—nor a typical incumbent.
Salazar, a U.S. Army veteran from the Vietnam era who still works weekends on his family’s San Luis Valley ranch, has voted against the Democratic Party in Congress 57.3 percent of the time.
“I always vote the way I believe the majority of constituents in my district want me to vote,” he says. Advertisement
Indeed, he voted against the cap-and-trade bill because, while it would have benefited coastal states, it also would have radically increased utility bills in the 3rd Congressional District, where coal is key.
He joined with uber-conservative U.S. Rep. Marilyn Musgrave to defeat the Army’s expansion of its Piñon Canyon Maneuver Site, thus protecting southern Colorado farmers and ranchers.
And, while GOP candidate Scott Tipton decries federal earmarks, Salazar understands that he can fight to bring those dollars to his district—or can watch them go to other states.
Were it not for Salazar, about 50,000 southern Coloradans still could not look forward to the clean drinking water they have been promised for 50 years. Thanks to Salazar, though, the Arkansas Valley Conduit will be to provide that water and 3,350 jobs.
The centrist Salazar is one of the Blue Dog Democrats, who fight for financial and national security. Unlike most of his colleagues, he opposed the $700 billion bank bailout, noting that it would not reform the financial services industry but would suck up federal finances.
A farmer and rancher, he led the effort to pass the Farm Bill.
A veteran, he pushed the Rural Veterans Health Care Improvement Act, fought for the radically improved G.I. Bill and led the move to add $23 billion to veterans’ health care.
A native who appreciates the splendor of our state, he sponsored the bill that designated 210,000 acres on the Uncompahgre Plateau as the Dominguez-Escalante National Conservation Area. And he is behind the San Juan Mountains Wilderness Act, which faces a House vote later this year.
A rural Coloradan, he passed the Rural Physicians Pipeline Act, so rural residents can be trained as doctors who will practice in their communities.
“I’ve never been a partisan person,” Salazar says. “I’m running on my accomplishments.”
Tipton, meanwhile, has spewed bizarre ideas and flip-flopped so frequently as to cripple his credibility.
During the Republican primary, he said Medicare and Social Security must be phased out. Now he’s running a campaign ad saying he would never cut or privatize Social Security.
Earlier, he vowed to dismantle the Department of Education and return its functions to state and local governments. Now he says he would simply whack it—and the rest of the federal government—in half.
Eliminating half of our government is not only ludicrous and impossible, but also dangerous. That ill-conceived idea makes no provisions to protect the military, veterans, Social Security or Medicare. And it would whack the water projects and other critical services on which Coloradans depend.
Tipton also recently reneged on his earlier vow to eliminate the 17th Amendment, which allows voters to select their U.S. senators.
In the last legislative session, as a state representative, Tipton battled a bill to increase Mineral County elected officials’ salaries. Yet he passed just such a bill for Montezuma County officials a year earlier.
While that’s hypocritical, Tipton made matters worse when he said his bill was to beef up his county’s police force. The legislation had nothing to do with law enforcement.
Flamboyant statements about slashing the federal bureaucracy, eradicating earmarks and revising the U.S. Constitution may shine the spotlight on Tipton. But we prefer the diligent, determined, studied and thoughtful work of a man who actually achieves progress and obtains important projects for his constituents.
Editorial:
