A sampling of recent editorials from Colorado newspapers:
NATIONAL:
The Denver Post, July 11, on Corporate Average Fuel Economy hike:
As the price of gasoline hovers around $3.50 a gallon, it’s hard to imagine who wouldn’t be intrigued by the idea of cars so efficient they get an estimated 56 mpg.
That’s the populist hook that comes with the Obama administration’s proposal to substantially raise Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards by 2025.
We like the idea of requiring improved mileage for the nation’s cars and trucks, and always have. Such a move reduces our dependency on foreign oil and cuts down on harmful auto emissions.
However, given the delicate state of the economy and the auto manufacturing business, we think the idea has to be carefully considered.
Requiring fleetwide averages to be 56.2 mpg would increase the cost of each vehicle by about $2,375.
Those who support the tougher standards, however, counter that the owner of a significantly more efficient car would save somewhere between $5,500 and $7,000 in fuel costs over the life of the vehicle.
Sounds like a pretty good deal, right?
These are, however, soft estimates that could be changed by factors beyond the control of the Obama administration.
What if OPEC, which is dedicated to stability in petroleum income, were to clamp down on the oil supply in an effort to keep revenues up in the face of decreasing demand?
The point is, volatility in gasoline prices could make those back-of-the-envelope “savings” either grow or shrink.
We’re not trying to deep-six the idea of requiring greater fuel efficiency, but we do think a thorough debate ought to encompass the potential for fluctuating fuel costs.
In addition, the fragility of auto manufacturers ought to be a part of the equation. In late 2008, President Bush stepped in to prevent a collapse of the American auto industry, announcing a $17.4 billion bailout of Chrysler and General Motors.
By the time it was over, the Bush and Obama administrations would spend a combined $80 billion in rescuing the auto industry.
The automakers have paid back some of that and are showing signs of life, but they are hardly sturdy economic engines. Do they have the wherewithal to create such efficient vehicles?
Perhaps they do. That certainly was the plan when billions in taxpayer money were funneled into the industry: They would retool, reorganize and make more efficient cars.
Since the Obama administration broached the idea of increased CAFE standards, the industry has been raising concerns about being able to develop these fuel-efficient vehicles, and at a point that consumers would accept.
But the truth is, the industry has always reacted this way whenever the topic of increased CAFE standards has been raised.
Nevertheless, the question is a valid one, particularly given that taxpayers still have a significant financial stake in the success of American automakers.
Discussions between the administration and automakers about changes in CAFE standards have only just begun.
As they continue, we hope the debate will be guided by a pragmatic view of this nation’s economic reality.
Editorial:
———
The Gazette, July 9, on Casey Anthony trial verdict:
Little Caylee Anthony’s cherubic face will haunt some of us for a long time. There’s nothing more tragic or riveting than the unexplained death of a child, and we all wish such tragedies could be neatly resolved with justice served. Now that the dust has almost settled on the Casey Anthony case, the broader implications merit some reflection.
Anthony will be released this month. People are saying justice was not served—again. It’s the Simpson verdict, part deux. The jury got it wrong, critics say.
Our justice system is the most fair, the most respected in the world. We know that. Criminal justice systems around the globe are either common, civil, religious or socialist.
Imagine a justice system controlled by a church. Or imagine facing charges in Italy, where courts make mockery of the presumption of innocence. Many Americans recently watched this unfold during the Amanda Knox murder trial.
We’ve heard horror stories about the cruelties of Islamic law. Any legal system that punishes thoughts as blasphemy is so different from our own that we cannot grasp the rationale behind it.
In countries such as Pakistan, the laws seem almost barbaric—especially in their treatment of women. In China, there is no concept of a “right to remain silent.” Suspects must answer all questions put to them in an interrogation or face the possibility of torture. Just recently, more than a hundred human rights lawyers, activists, writers and artists have been arrested or prosecuted in China.
Protection of individual rights is the hallmark of America’s legal system. Suspects are read their Miranda rights, have the right to remain silent and a right to a fair trial, and are presumed innocent until proved guilty. That last tenet is what many forget when a jury delivers an unexpected or unpopular verdict. Our system has safeguards for the innocent and the guilty.
Public opinion is not a court of law. Yes, Casey Anthony seemed guilty. Her propensity to smile in court didn’t help, nor did the fact that she is an admitted liar and a person of questionable integrity. Parts of her life seem too dysfunctional to be real, so of course many deemed her guilty. But the American justice system demands a little more before it convicts someone. All the media hoopla, all the dysfunctional family details and gut feelings do not matter. A jury needs hard evidence that convinces its members of guilt “beyond reasonable doubt.”
Anthony’s peers on the jury felt they did not have that. Reasonable doubt means a jury must acquit. It is a crucial part of the American judicial process that we all need to remember. So when an O.J. Simpson or a Robert Blake walks from a courtroom unscathed, we may cringe or even scream. But the system has not failed, and any alternatives are far worse.
Maintaining freedom can be ugly. That means we cannot resolve every horrible act down at the courthouse.
Editorial:
———
STATE:
The Daily Tribune, July 7, on the importance of organ donations:
It’s impossible to fathom that even a speck of good can come from the tragedy of a baby dying.
But thanks to the unselfish decision of Ginger and Michael Mummery, the death of their baby girl, Kalea, will help save the lives of three other children.
Kalea was taken off life support and died at The Children’s Hospital in Aurora on June 29. She was injured in an accident at her day care when her head became wedged between a mattress and the side of a playpen, cutting off her ability to breath.
The Mummerys had already lost one infant, a child who died at 9 days old from a rare blood disorder. In this case, they had to make the decision to take Kalea off life support after several days in the hospital.
But in the middle of their agonizing grief, the Mummerys made the decision to donate Kalea’s organs. Her kidneys and two heart valves went to help three other ailing children.
It’s not an easy decision. Organ donation is a very personal decision for loved ones. It is also brave and selfless choice.
According to the Donor Alliance, the federally designated organ procurement organization serving Colorado and most of Wyoming, 2010 was a record year for the number of organ donations.
The group recorded 394 organs transplanted from 130 donors in their coverage area. The organization also helped facilitate 1,024 tissue donations, providing bone and skin grafts to recipients.
Colorado residents have a great participation rate in the organ donor program. At the close of 2010, 65.7 percent of Colorado’s licensed drivers and ID card holders had joined the organ donor registry.
If you are not already a donor, it is simple to register. Many do it when they renew their drivers’ license through the Department of Motor Vehicles.
You can also sign up online at the state’s donor registry, which can be found online at colorado.org. You must be 18 years old to join the registry. Parents of minor children must make the decision to donate their children’s organs or tissue.
Organ donation is a serious decision, and one that shouldn’t be taken lightly. The Donor Alliance recommends discussing it with your family or loved ones before signing up.
Donating organs is a way to continue a small portion of a life taken too early, to have some good come from an unspeakable tragedy.
Kalea’s aunt, Heather Shubert, said the Mummerys just wanted to help.
“The thought of saving another child’s life is a big factor in the decision they made,” she said.
We hope everyone will seriously consider joining the organ donor registry.
Organ donation is widely accepted and promoted by individuals, organizations, churches and medical groups.
Visit to learn more about organ donation.
It takes only a few minutes to possibly save someone’s life.
Editorial:
———
The Daily Sentinel, July 10, on obesity rates in Colorado:
We choked on our cola when we read last week that 19.8 percent of Colorado’s residents are obese. But we threw the soda can across the newsroom when we read that Colorado’s rate is the lowest in the nation. Pull up the Sansabelt trousers. This is serious.
We are a nation of expanding waistlines—expanding at an alarming rate. According to last week’s report by two public health groups, we are growing fatter exponentially. Colorado’s lowest-in-the-nation obesity rate of 19.8 would have led the nation as fattest in 1995. In 2010, 12 states topped 30 percent obesity, mostly in the South.
The American food industry produces 3,900 calories per capita per day. We can only responsibly eat 1,800 calories per capita per day. In other words, the American food industry produces twice the amount of food we can actually use. Who eats the rest? We do.
The spillover effects of this phenomenon are, well, huge. Skyrocketing health care costs, lower workforce productivity and lower life expectancy dog us as a nation. If a foreign foe set out to weaken this country, it would be hard-pressed to hatch a more dastardly plan.
So why is this happening to us?
There is no simple explanation. But some say there may be one culprit hiding in plain sight. Indeed, in every hot dog bun, every soda, every sport drink, every ounce of ketchup and almost everything else you didn’t make yourself: high fructose corn syrup.
The Japanese invented high fructose corn syrup in 1966 as an inexpensive substitute for cane sugar. It found its way into American foods in 1975, and in 1980, soft drink companies started introducing it into their products. Our consumption of fructose has gone from less than a pound per year in 1970 to 56 pounds per year in 2003.
According to Dr. Robert Lustig, a pediatric endocrinologist from the University of California, San Francisco School of Medicine, the correlation between our consumption of high fructose corn syrup and our rate of obesity has been in virtual lockstep since 1980. “You can actually trace the prevalence of childhood obesity, and the rise, to 1980 when this change was made.”
We blamed video games, the apathy of Generation X, the prevalence of fast food and a culture that indulges constant grazing in the workplace, but Dr. Lustig insists the explanation is more insidious. He contends that high fructose corn syrup actually flips off a switch in our brain that allows our body to naturally regulate itself:
“The science of fructose metabolism in the liver and fructose action in the brain turn the normal cycle of energy balance into a vicious cycle of consumption and disease. What I have proposed is quite controversial; that our food supply has been adulterated right under our very noses, with our tacit complicity. But I think the public gets it, and the tide is turning.”
With a 19.8 percent obesity rate that continues a disturbing rise, we aren’t ready to tell Dr. Lustig he’s wrong. And mostly, we thank goodness that Enstrom’s almond toffee—like most foods not made in a gigantic factory—is made with real, actual sugar.
Editorial:
