A sampling of recent editorials from Colorado newspapers:
Longmont Times-Call, June 3, on the “kill list” program:
The president of the United States oversees a top secret program that places suspected terrorists, including Americans, on a “kill list.” They are essentially marked for death.
President Obama, it was revealed in a New York Times story, personally approves the kills, which are carried out by drone strikes in other countries, such as Pakistan and Yemen, and are often messy affairs in which people who happen to be nearby also get blown up.
Should Americans feel good about this? No, they should not.
Should Americans allow the president the power to personally single out American citizens as suspects, pass judgment on them and carry out death sentences in secret?
Should Americans accept that what amounts to assassinations are conducted by their government based on criteria and legal positions that are kept secret?
Should Americans approve of their government conducting targeted killings of suspects in countries with which America is not at war?
No, they should not.
The kind of unrestrained authority Obama has claimed for himself violates basic democratic principles. The Founding Fathers knew well the dangers of the kind of unchecked power Obama has seized, and the president’s kill list is yet another stark example of how due process and liberty have eroded since 9/11.
Part of the reported reason Obama takes such a hands-on approach in managing the kill list is that he wants to take moral responsibility for it. Perhaps that’s admirable, if more than a little ironic. But he’s setting a precedent that will pass to future presidents whose moral sensibilities might not always meet Obama’s purported high standards. It’s also a precedent that rival national powers are surely taking note of. If the United States establishes the legitimacy of drone strikes on foreign soil, how long before China or Iran follows suit?
Should Americans demand an end to the kill list program?
Yes, they should.
Editorial:
———
The Daily Sentinel, June 3, on the Sierra Club:
The recent steep drop in natural gas prices has been hard on energy companies and their workers in this region.
But it has been a boon to natural gas consumers nationwide—not just individuals and families, but to electric utilities and manufacturing firms. And that is terrible news, as far as the Sierra Club is concerned.
As was reported last week in The Daily Sentinel and elsewhere, the Sierra Club plans to soon roll out a new campaign to fight natural gas development, a switch from its position of just a couple years ago, when it supported natural gas as “a bridge fuel” until renewable energy can shoulder a larger portion of the nation’s energy needs.
But that was before gas prices dropped so much, as increasing exploration and new technologies provided access to vast new supplies of natural gas.
In other words, that was before the free market found ways to tap new sources of natural gas that could meet much of our nation’s energy needs for decades to come.
Now the Sierra Club’s mantra is “Beyond Natural Gas,” and it vows to fight any new power plants fueled by natural gas.
Of course, the Sierra Club has never really been a fan of natural gas or any other fossil fuel. However, a few years ago, one of its arguments for switching to renewable energy was that the free market would make fossil fuels unaffordable.
Back in 2006, then-Sierra Club Executive Director Carl Pope was warning about “peak oil”—the theory that we are quickly exhausting our available oil supplies. “And, as oil becomes more expensive, so too will its carbon competitors, coal and natural gas,” Pope wrote on the Sierra Club’s website.
Now that costs are going in the opposite direction, the organization is focusing on other issues, such as the possible dangers of hydraulic fracturing, to oppose natural gas development and restate its support for renewable energy.
But even its support for those energy sources is qualified.
The Sierra Club “has filed a lawsuit against the government for a solar farm in the Mojave Desert that threatens the desert tortoise,” said Robert Bradley, CEO and founder of the free-market Institute for Energy Research. “And it was none other than the Los Angeles representative of the Sierra Club who coined the term ‘Cuisinarts of the air’ in reference to wind power’s destruction of birds in California.”
While President Barack Obama argues for an “all of the above” energy approach, the Sierra Club’s policy is “none of the above,” Bradley maintains.
Whether that’s true, it’s clear the Sierra Club was at least somewhat friendly to natural gas when its price was high and its supply limited. But now that the free market has changed all that, the organization has abandoned natural gas and all those who depend on it.
Editorial:
———
STATE:
The Pueblo Chieftain, June 4, on food stamp fraud:
The three mail processing centers serving Southern Colorado have avoided the chopping block—for now, at least.
The centers in Colorado Springs, Alamosa and Salida avoided an initial round of 140 closures. But postal officials say that the USPS’ financial condition will have to improve for those three to stay open indefinitely.
Turning the service’s financial condition around seems dubious to nearly every observer. The service is projected to lose up to $12 billion this year.
If the regional sorting centers were to close, first-class mail delivery in Southern Colorado would change from overnight to a two-day delivery standard. Mail would be transported to Denver for sorting.
The USPS has recommended to Congress that it abandon Saturday delivery and reform health and pension programs.
Meanwhile, we continue to recommend that small post offices be closed and the USPS contract with businesses such as grocery and drug stores to offer counter mail service by contract. This would help bolster small businesses while still providing service in rural areas of the nation.
Editorial:
———
The Denver Post, June 3, on remedial education:
Remedial education costs the United States $3 billion annually, according to a study released last week by Complete College America, a nonprofit working to boost graduation rates.
In Colorado, state officials estimate the cost of remedial education at about $46.5 million for the 2010-11 fiscal year—with the state on the hook for about $22 million and students and financial aid picking up the remainder of the tab.
While those numbers are enough to give you pause as to the efficiency of our education system, Coloradans can take heart in news that state officials are tackling the problem on multiple fronts.
Efforts are under way—or soon will be—to better prepare high school students for college; to better align the secondary and post-secondary systems; and to find smarter ways to work with students in need of help rather than forcing them to spend an entire semester in a remedial class.
That the state is serious about addressing the issue is one of the few positives to be found in as issue that is replete with sobering statistics.
In Colorado, the number of high school graduates who needed at least one remedial course increased from 28.6 percent in 2009-10 to 31.8 percent in 2010-11, the most recent year for which data is available.
The trouble with that is that the state essentially pays twice for instruction—and students who take a remedial class must pay for a course in which they earn no credit.
That’s not a recipe for success, particularly when you consider that students in need of remedial help have higher dropout rates and tend to be from poorer areas of the state.
But Colorado is at the forefront when it comes to addressing the difficult issue. The GEAR UP program, which started in the Adams 14 district this year and is expanding to areas with some of the highest remediation rates in the state next year, works with kids from eighth grade until their first year of college and develops classes that meet specific college admissions requirements.
Another building block is the recently passed House Bill 1155, sponsored by Rep. Tom Massey, R-Poncha Springs, and Bob Bacon, D-Fort Collins. Among other provisions, it will align basic skills requirements at the high school level with admissions policies at the college level. And, rather than force people into remedial classes, it encourages “supplemental instruction,” which allows students to take courses where they earn credit while receiving remedial help.
Another bill passed this year pays for testing that should enable school districts to identify students who need remedial help early on and work to address their needs before college.
While not specifically a remediation bill, Senate Bill 45 lets students who earned credit in two- and four-year institutions—but who may not get a four-year degree—to receive an associate’s degree or certificate for their efforts.
Progress may not come as fast as we’d like, but it’s good to know that the issue is being taken seriously.
