I was flabbergasted that the “powers-that-be” would consider the Rev. Robert Whipkey’s jogging naked a sexual act (“Police collar priest on nude jog,” Aug. 9). The last time I read the definition of sex, as an act, I don’t recall the inclusion of the word “jogging” in it. From the definitions in the various dictionaries I possess, sex includes sexual intercourse, and anything related to the gratification of this pleasureable and reproductive activity.

This Speakout has not been edited.

By Michael A. McGrath

I was flabbergasted that the “powers-that-be” would consider the Rev. Robert Whipkey’s jogging naked a sexual act (“Police collar priest on nude jog,” Aug. 9). The last time I read the definition of sex, as an act, I don’t recall the inclusion of the word “jogging” in it. From the definitions in the various dictionaries I possess, sex includes sexual intercourse, and anything related to the gratification of this pleasureable and reproductive activity.

To charge a Catholic priest as a “sex offender” for simply jogging nude is absolutely ludicrous.

The uptight residents in this country, and this state, should study history a bit closer. Would Jesus Christ have been arrested for leaving his clothes behind in the tomb? Would St. Francis of Assisi been arrested for going naked about his hometown, after giving his clothes away to the poor? Would the apostle Peter have been arrested for fishing naked in the Sea of Galilee? Later on, in religious history, the Adamites believed that being naked was a state of spiritual innocence. Even some of the early Quaker preachers were known to preach the Gospel in the nude.

The list goes on and on, even if we go back a couple of hundred years to the Founding Fathers of this country. Benjamin Franklin used to sit in front of his open window, as naked as the day he was born, taking what he called “air baths.” Would he have been arrrested today? Thomas Jefferson, and other members of our early government, used to go skinny-dipping in the Potomac River. Would our police officers have arrested them for indecent exposure? Even the early YWCA and YMCA used to have a rule: only nude swimming in their pools! In spite of the fact that these swims weren’t co-ed, swimsuits weren’t allowed for “hygenic” reasons.

I believe it is time for this country to just plain old grow up! I am fed up with the uptight nature of our horrendously prudish belief systems. The naked human body is God’s masterpiece, and we have been treating it like it was something evil. Maybe those who believe this falsehood should be forced to read Genesis 1:26-31 and Isaiah 5:20. When God calls something “very good,” and we call it “evil,” maybe we deserve exactly what we have gotten for our “stinking thinking.”

If the six acts of redemption performed by the Lord Jesus Christ (the Incarnation, the Circumcision, the Baptism — or Mikvah — the Scourging, the Crucifixion and the Resurrection) were all done in the nude, what is our problem with the naked human body? The answer to that, for those who have ears to hear, should be obvious.

With that being said, I believe Whipkey should be freed and left alone by the authorities. He wasn’t doing anything “wrong.” If he had been masturbating in public, or having sex in public, that would have been a different story entirely. He was just enjoying the body God gave to him in the state it was originally intended to be — naked and unashamed before his God.

Michael A. McGrath is a resident of Kittredge.

By Francis M. Miller

The recent collapse of the bridge in Minneapolis brought into sharp relief the matter of deteriorating infrastructure in a way that previous reports by blue ribbon committees could not. The response ranged from an immediate injection of $250 million to replace the bridge to a consideration of raising taxes to deal with the issue.

This Speakout has not been edited.

By Francis M. Miller

The recent collapse of the bridge in Minneapolis brought into sharp relief the matter of deteriorating infrastructure in a way that previous reports by blue ribbon committees could not. The response ranged from an immediate injection of $250 million to replace the bridge to a consideration of raising taxes to deal with the issue.

As a member of the Infrastructure 2050 Committee, based at the University of Colorado’s School of Engineering, and as a previous member of the Douglas County Planning Commission, I have lived in the petri dish of this problem for many years. The problems of infrastructure are not restricted to bridges and highways but range more widely.

It has been over 20 years and the bike trail system to the headwaters of Cherry Creek is still not completed, a task that should have taken five years at most. If you add up all the needs for the building and maintenance of schools, public buildings, highways, bridges and dams it rapidly becomes clear there is not enough money and there never will be.

After World War I, when Dwight Eisenhower was a young soldier, he led a caravan of military vehicles across the country towards San Francisco. The roads were mostly wagon trails back then and he recognized that without an effective interstate highway system we would never achieve our potential. When he became president he pushed for the system, part of which contains the Minneapolis Interstate 35 bridge.

Over the years we have progressed from the use of indigenous materials such as wood and steel to reinforce our bridges, highways and buildings to more technologically based materials such as reinforced concrete. The promise of future breakthroughs at the nano-molecular levels promises to yield superior materials that are more cost-effective. But, that does little to solve the problem of aging infrastructure built with older materials and to a set of specifications that are now out of date. This is compounded by the fact that nearly 50 percent of our infrastructure is beyond its half-life and increasingly vulnerable to overuse.

Consider bridges as one example. Pre-stressed concrete emerged on the scene in Denver, of all places. It involves tensioning cables and then pouring the concrete around them. When the concrete cures and the cables are released the concrete beams are vastly superior to the old method. The problem with this is two-fold. First, it took nearly 50 years to gain acceptance for this new way of doing things. The construction industry is notorious for embracing new technology at a snail’s pace. The risk of failure is so great that overengineering of old technology is viewed as superior to a deadly-embrace of some new-fangled, but as yet unproven, invention. So, when you examine our public portfolio of infrastructure, probably less than 40 percent of it is modern and up to date.

But there is more. In the case of bridges built with pre-stressed concrete using steel rebar, it is widely known that problems of corrosion and micro-cracking develop over time. Concrete is a porous substance and the use of de-icing salts will eventually penetrate the material, causing the concrete to deteriorate and the steel to corrode.

It is probably no surprise that the collapse of the Minneapolis bridge occurred in an area where snow is a chronic problem. Add to this recipe the constant pounding that these structures take from overloaded trucks and way too many vehicles and it is a wonder the bridge has stood as long as it has.

When you stand back and connect the dots, it is clear the infrastructure problem is as big a problem as health care and education. Our nation’s productivity is now inextricably linked to the use of trucks to transport our food, which travels an average of 1,500 miles before we buy it. The design of our cities has been reshaped by the automobile.

Urban densities have gone down, even as more of us moved from the farm to the city for jobs and opportunity. Without the automobile, getting to work and shuffling the kids from music lessons to soccer is an impossibility. Maybe it will change over the very long run, but in our lifetime this is the world in which we live.

If it were only a matter of earmarking monies for a bridge or raising the gas tax a few pennies we could grin and bear it. But it is far larger than an incremental political solution at the margin will allow.

It gets down to the fundamental values and priorities of how we as Americans live. A consumer society that pulls the equity out of its houses to buy big-screen TVs and is horrified at the notion of waiting until the plows have removed snow will be unable to accept the trade-offs necessary to deal with its long-term infrastructure. We want huge houses and we want a landscape with a view. We consider it our God-given right to leapfrog the problems of the inner city and move to the idyllic fringes and build new schools, hospitals and roads; the devil be damned when it comes to cleaning up industrial sites and old infrastructure that is crumbling behind us.

Minneapolis-St.Paul is one of the most cohesive communities in North America. There is no place that deals with community issues better. So, if the canary in the coal mine suddenly plops over dead, you can bet that there are more pervasive problems everywhere else. I suggest readers use GoogleMaps and do their own aerial survey of the Colorado Front Range.

It will be impossible won’t be able to ascertain which bridge will collapse next, but youthey will see a debris field and dross-scape that even a tornado couldn’t create.

Francis M. Miller is a resident of Parker.

By Dianna Kunz

These days we seem inundated with stories concerning corporate greed and injustice. The recent Joe Nacchio trial might lead one to believe that the good guys are in hiding.

This Speakout has not been edited.

By Dianna Kunz

These days we seem inundated with stories concerning corporate greed and injustice. The recent Joe Nacchio trial might lead one to believe that the good guys are in hiding.
At Volunteers of America, we have a different perspective of the corporate world. Our faith-based nonprofit serves Colorado’s most vulnerable populations in every demographic — preschoolers from limited-income families, homebound seniors relying on Social Security, young mothers attempting to complete GED programs, and the chronically homeless. Without the generosity of Colorado’s business community, we would be unable to provide the basic services that often lead to independence and success for those we serve.
In the past few weeks, Volunteers of America has seen some amazing acts of compassion and generosity coming from Colorado’s for-profit organizations. The Denver Doubletree Hotel recently donated hundreds of sheets, towels and hygiene kits to the VOA Family Motel, a short-term emergency shelter on Colfax Avenue. Pinnacol Assurance delivered 75 birthday boxes to the Volunteers of America Brandon Center, Colorado’s largest shelter for homeless and battered women and their children.
Residents whose birthdays fall sometime during their stay at the center are given a ray of sunshine with new clothes, games or toys.
These acts of corporate kindness truly make a difference throughoutin the lives of individuals in crisis. Frontier Airlines supplies each Meals on Wheels recipient with an emergency “blizzard box” in case the weather makes delivery impossible. Kroenke Sports Enterprises delivers meals on wheels to homebound elderly while the Integer Marketing Group has an entire team helping us with our public relations and marketing efforts.
If you think law firms don’t care, let me point out that over the last 20 years Holme Roberts & Owen provided and assembled more than 25,000 Thanksgiving baskets while Brownstein Hyatt Farber Shreck delivered fans to hundreds of elderly this spring right before the current heat wave.
Metro Brokers, Coors, CBS Outdoor, Deloitte Touche, Safeway and Wells Fargo are just a few more businesses that are donating their time and resources to live out their corporate philosophy of giving back to the community.
Financial and in-kind donations are crucial to what we do but the enormous volunteer commitment on behalf of corporate employees is always humbling. I apologize for all of the businesses I have omitted and I know there are many. I just feel compelled to let people know that a few bad apples do not represent the corporate culture in this community.

Dianna Kunz is the president and CEO of the Colorado branch of Volunteers of America.

By Jacob Schor, ND, Denver

The reason to eat organic fruits and vegetables is not that they are less toxic but that, in a way, they are more toxic.

By Jacob Schor, ND, Denver

This Speakout has not been edited.

The reason to eat organic fruits and vegetables is not that they are less toxic but that, in a way, they are more toxic.

Plants can't run from danger. Rooted in the ground, they must fend off whatever attacks. Plants make chemicals for protection. They churn out antibacterial, antiviral, antifungal, insecticidal, and neurotoxic chemicals. Sometimes they just make chemicals that taste bad.

Over the millennia, insects and animals have adapted to the presence of these chemicals and evolved mechanisms to counteract their damage. Large quantities may still be toxic, but the doses in food are often beneficial. Cells respond to these chemicals with defensive countermeasures. These adaptive responses overcompensate for the 'harm' the chemical might cause. Rather than causing injury, they stimulate improved function. For example, the sulforaphanes in broccoli improve liver function. Ginkgo and ginseng which are neuro-toxic to insects are neuro-protective for us.

A long list of plant chemicals have potential for preventing and treating cancer. Some of the most well known are: curcumin from turmeric, epigallocatechin gallate from tea, allicin from garlic, and sulforaphane from broccoli.

When researchers first found higher levels of these chemical in organically grown vegetables, they realized it was, "not the organic production methods that made the difference." Instead, that, "the organic system provided an increased opportunity for insect attack, resulting in a higher level of total phenolic agents"

Mold growing in a vineyard triggers nearby vines to make a chemical called resveratrol. Resveratrol protects the vines against mold attack. Resveratrol has various effects in animals; it stimulates cancer cells to commit suicide, a process called apoptosis. It also triggers the expression of "longevity genes" extending lifespan. A few moldy grapes in a vineyard is a good thing for us.

A University of California study comparing organic tomatoes against conventionally grown ones found a big difference. Quercetin and kaempferol were 79 and 97 per cent higher in organic tomatoes. The researchers explained this increase as a stress reaction. Nitrogen is less readily available from organic fertilizers. It's easier to get nitrogen out of commercial fertilizer than compost. In response to this stress, the plant makes more flavonoids. The 'low' flavonoid content of modern tomatoes isn't their natural state; it's an 'anemic' tasteless condition induced by easy living.

Organic tomato ketchup can contain triple the lycopene as non-organic ketchups. When lycopene levels and antioxidant activity of 13 ketchup brands. Were compared, organic ketchups won. One brand contained 183 micrograms of lycopene while a popular restaurant's ketchup contained just 60 micrograms per gram.

Plants respond to threat. The more insects nibble on them, the more molds try to rot them, or the more 'hungry' they are for nutrients, the hardier they become and the better they are for us to eat. Modern farming technology gives us lazy plants, the vegetable equivalent of couch potatoes.

I purchase organic ketchup not for fear of pesticides but because I want the all the nutritional benefit ketchup offers. There's one other reason. All these long named chemicals happen to add flavor; organic ketchup tastes more like ketchup should.

Jacob Schor is a naturopathic doctor and past president of the Colorado Association of Naturopathic Physicians. He practices and lives in Denver.

By Rhonda Hackett

Even Michael Moore’s most vocal critics are having a difficult time arguing with the absolute and gripping impact his latest film, Sicko, a documentary spotlighting gaping problems inherent in our health care and health insurance industries. CNN found out the hard way that Moore was utterly detailed in his research and can back up each and every claim, statistical and otherwise, he’s made in the movie with solid research findings from a number of reputed government and independent agencies including the Centers for Disease Control and the World Health Organization. Although CNN’s Dr. Sanjay Gupta initially took issue with some of Moore’s stats, he later admitted Moore’s references in the movie were indeed accurate.

This Speakout has not been edited.

By Rhonda Hackett

Even Michael Moore’s most vocal critics are having a difficult time arguing with the absolute and gripping impact his latest film, Sicko, a documentary spotlighting gaping problems inherent in our health care and health insurance industries. CNN found out the hard way that Moore was utterly detailed in his research and can back up each and every claim, statistical and otherwise, he’s made in the movie with solid research findings from a number of reputed government and independent agencies including the Centers for Disease Control and the World Health Organization. Although CNN’s Dr. Sanjay Gupta initially took issue with some of Moore’s stats, he later admitted Moore’s references in the movie were indeed accurate.

The state of our country’s health-care system is clearly on the minds of more than admittedly extreme left-leaning liberals who demonstrate a propensity for making controversial docudramas. Coloradans are as vocal as any when it comes to sounding the alarm over the lack of care (700,000 of our residents currently do not have any health insurance) or the dire circumstances that can arise as a result of having insufficient health insurance coverage.

Indeed, Moore made his point regarding the latter by including the poignant story of a local couple suffering the fall-out of a years-old medically related bankruptcy.

In 2006, the United Health Foundation, a nonprofit organization dedicated to expanding health services and analyzing health-related trends, found Colorado ranked 16th overall in terms of health performance in comparison to all other states, up from 17th the year before. Undoubtedly, being nearer the top would be ideal, however we can take some comfort in knowing, for example, that part of what makes our overall state of health as high as it is, is our relatively low prevalence of obesity (17.8% for Colorado vs. 24.4% for the nation); the fact that 83.4% of children ages 19 to 35 months receive complete immunizations; the decrease in smoking rate from 28.6% in 1990 to 19.8% currently; and a low rate of cardiovascular deaths (274 for us vs. 326 per 100,000 for the nation).

Major health care challenges facing Colorado and citied in the United Health Foundation report include the abhorrent lack of adequate prenatal care experienced by an average of nearly 30% of pregnant women in this state; the fact that 17% of our residents have no health insurance whatsoever; and the reality that we boast one of the lowest per capita public health spending records in the nation — spending just $92 per person.

The most staggering Colorado health-care statistic, albeit the least discussed, is the more than 10 billion tax-exempt dollars purportedly dedicated to improving the health of our state.* No other public charities including the arts, education, and those dedicated to the environment come close to having assets anywhere near those reported by charities listing health as their main initiative. Indeed, all of these charities combined claimed less than $7 billion in assets in 2006.

It seems reasonable to assume that the work of Colorado’s many tax-exempt organizations dedicated to improving the health of our state is at least partly responsible for our overall fair performance. Even so, with so many opportunities for improvement and with so many tax-free dollars at stake, there can be nothing lost in asking the question of whether or not these organizations are maximizing their impact.

One of the largest 501(c) 3 organizations in the state with health improvement as its core mission is The Colorado Health Foundation. Formerly known as HealthONE Alliance, it is the 50 percent nonprofit joint venture partner with the for-profit HCA hospital system, known locally as HealthONE. Per its Web site, The Colorado Health Foundation currently has total assets of nearly $900 million.** Since its 1995 inception, $40 million in grants have been distributed to the community — an investment that pales in comparison to the organization’s counterparts.

The Colorado Trust has grown from its $191 million dollars in starting assets in 1985 to a current asset base of approximately $480 million. An impressive $267.1 million dollars have been granted to other community nonprofits that are focused on our health. Nearly $20 million in grants were disbursed in 2006 alone.

Rose Community Foundation was started with $190 million in 1995 and currently reports total assets of approximately $270 million. It has distributed a remarkable $170 million to the community in 12 years.

Nearly $12 million dollars were distributed last year.

Following a major strategic overhaul that began in late 2005, the Colorado Health Foundation decided it would dedicate a significant portion of its tax-free dollars to those areas of health that we seem to be already doing pretty well on, relatively speaking. For example, a $2.7 million two-year grant to reverse the state’s obesity trend was approved by the board in 2006. As previously noted, Colorado is already doing pretty well in this area. Might that money be better dedicated to one of those areas posing a greater challenge to our overall health — prenatal care, for example? Moreover, this foundation makes particular note of wanting to increase the number of immunized 19-35 month olds up to 90%. Given we are already at 83.4% complete immunizations for this age group, it seems fair to suggest that a nearly $1 billion tax-exempt entity dedicate its massive resources to areas of more critical concern. Securing health insurance for our uninsured children comes to mind as a worthy effort. It costs about $76 million per year to run the state’s Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHP+).

President Bush is proposing a plan that will lead to half of Colorado’s 57,000 kids enrolled in CHP+ being kicked off, and the 50,000 other children currently eligible for the program but not enrolled, no longer being qualified. The Colorado Health Foundation is participating in a coalition of business and health leaders to address this issue. One can only hope they will see fit to mark their participation by dedicating their significant dollars toward effectively addressing the problem.

In all, it would appear Colorado is not as Sicko as the rest of the country in many regards. Yet, it is clear we do have a number of serious issues to immediately address if we are to improve our health and the state of our health-care system overall. Incredibly our tax-exempt coffers are brimming over with $10 billion earmarked for those very things. Let’s hope everyone entrusted with that wealth will continue to critically evaluate their impact and do everything within their power to make every dollar count when it comes to our health.

Rhonda Hackett is a resident of Lakewood. She worked for HealthONE Alliance from 1996-2000, and contracted with the organization for consulting services 2002-2004.

* National Center for Charitable Statistics: Number of Public Charities in Colorado, 2006. $9 billion for “health"; $356 million for “mental health"; $100 million for “disease, disorders, medical disciplines"; $27 million for “medical research”

** www.coloradohealth.org

By Brian Hodson

It’s that time again; my stress level is rising and my wallet is getting robbed of what little was there to begin with. Must be time to update the info for my child support payment.

This Speakout has not been edited.

By Brian Hodson

It’s that time again; my stress level is rising and my wallet is getting robbed of what little was there to begin with. Must be time to update the info for my child support payment.

Now let’s get a couple of things straight right off the bat.

First, under normal circumstances I think divorce should never be an option for couples experiencing problems, especially when there are children involved (guess which side of the divorce I was on). Just because the kids will “learn to adapt” doesn’t mean they should be forced to do so, they have enough do deal with in our fading quality of society.

Second, and most important, I pay my child support faithfully, on time, every month without question.

Have you every come across an individual who pays child support that has said they feel the amount they pay is fair or within reason? I doubt it. I’m not looking to get out of my paying my child support but I am questioning the validity and accuracy of the amount.

Here is my scenario, and I know there are others who have it worse than I.

I see my son every other weekend for a couple days, the rest of the time he lives with his mom out of state with family (of her own free will). Day care isn’t needed, and there are no other extraordinary expenses. According to the State of Colorado’s worksheet for calculating child support I’m obligated to pay $500 monthly and I’m convinced that it does not take that much a month to raise a child.

From my understanding, the reason couples get divorced is because someone isn’t happy in the relationship and wants to move on with their life. If life truly does go on, people get remarried, have more kids; so why is the child support a snapshot in time instead of adjusting with the rest of your life?

Since my divorce I’ve remarried and have another child. Is there any reason why he will get less, financially speaking, than his older brother? What if I decide to have another 5 children; does it make sense that they will get (for example) $100/month and their big brother gets 5 times that? And when my ex gets remarried, why doesn’t his income count into the calculation? After all, he will be spending more time with my son than I will; he should be financially responsible as well.

How about putting money into savings, put a little away to retire or save some money for the kids education? Good luck — you’re pretty much working to pay your mortgage and child support.

My family hasn’t been reduced to eating nothing but noodles and canned corn, but there is quite a bit I could do with even part of what I’m obliged to pay. So far, when it comes to child support, the consensus answer is “Deal with it,” and that answer just isn’t working for me anymore.

I don’t have the solution; I just know that there are plenty of others out there like me stuck in the same situation.

Food for thought: Keeping the current custody arrangement, if I quit my job and ask my wife to work full time according to the worksheet my ex would need to pay me $300/mo.

Today might be my last day of work.

Brian Hodson is a resident of Centennial.

By Mike Archer, Golden

Last summer I saw a fight break out at a public gathering. Two middle-aged men exchanged words then, as we used to say, “came to blows.” They had a few too many beers. Several others became involved, chose sides and a brouhaha ensued. Within minutes there were five police cars at the scene.

By Mike Archer, Golden

Last summer I saw a fight break out at a public gathering. Two middle-aged men exchanged words then, as we used to say, “came to blows.” They had a few too many beers. Several others became involved, chose sides and a brouhaha ensued. Within minutes there were five police cars at the scene.

A half-dozen people got handcuffed and hauled away. A couple of them resisted arrest, more or less, and met with at least matching counterforce.

It wasn’t pretty.

Around 1962 I was attending the Feast of St. Rocco at the Potenza Lodge on 38th Avenue and Shoshone Street. Two men exchanged words and came to blows. A few others got involved. Soon the neighborhood police officer drove up in is 1960 Ford cruiser. If memory serves, he was alone. He walked up calmly to the fighters.

“Hey, Tony, what ya doing? You’re too old for this s---. This is kid’s stuff, Tony. And you, Positrano, your wife is gonna have a cow when she sees you all messed up!”

He broke up the fight, dispersed the crowd, made the boys shake hands — and drove away. I I doubt it was worth doing any paperwork over.

The policeman was a neighbor; he lived on 38th Avenue and Pecos Street. Everyone knew him and he knew everyone. Police were part of the community. The police-as-adversary seems to have started in the 1970s; I wish I knew why.

Today I saw a woman get a ticket for running a stop sign on our side street.

It’s a great stop for the police; a real revenue generator. Thirty years ago you would have gotten a warning.

Yes, it’s dangerous to run a stop sign. Driving is serious business and you need to pay attention. Today your odds of getting a warning are slim to none. There’s very little community between the police and the neighborhood. The police officer is busy and there are new customers waiting for service.

In 1959 a neighborhood teenager stole a brand new Chevrolet Impala off the Murphy-Mahoney car lot on Speer and Federal boulevards. He sped down Umatilla Street honking and waving to the kids; a big, goofy smile on his face. After about the third lap, a policeman gave chase. Jerry took off with a burst of speed but was finally corralled somewhere on 32nd Avenue — by one police cruiser, not a dozen. The policeman escorted Jerry and the Impala back to Murphy-Mahoney. Luckily for Jerry, the manager knew his dad. More community.

The policeman drove Jerry home and let his dad handle the punishment.

Today? It’s your guess.

I learned recently an old school friend, Ron Sloan, just retired as chief of the Arvada Police Department. I read where he worked hard to connect the police to the community, going to Kiwanis Club breakfasts and such. As teens, my older boys helped pay Ron’s salary on several occasions. We need more of that connection with the community, not just from the chiefs but from the officer in the street.

Lawbreakers are more likely to react positively to a person they know, and a police officer is apt to be more sensitive and cautious with a neighbor. Neighborhood informal social gatherings would be a good idea.

We’ve lost the sense of neighborhood community and the police as being part of it. I don’t know how we lost it, but we did. I wish we could get it back.

Mike Archer is a resident of Golden.

By Kathleen Kennedy

Rocky Mountain News columnist Tina Griego recently met with Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings and “12 influential Hispanics” to, as the headline of her Aug. 2 column suggests, discuss the reauthorization of the federal No Child Left Behind law (“Hispanic gathering unites over No Child Left Behind”). On behalf of the Pueblo City Schools’ Board of Education, we wish Griego had done her homework.

This Speakout has not been edited.

By Kathleen Kennedy

Rocky Mountain News columnist Tina Griego recently met with Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings and “12 influential Hispanics” to, as the headline of her Aug. 2 column suggests, discuss the reauthorization of the federal No Child Left Behind law (“Hispanic gathering unites over No Child Left Behind”). On behalf of the Pueblo City Schools’ Board of Education, we wish Griego had done her homework.

As the president of the Board of Education, I must speak up because Griego’s lack of checking the facts leaves the readers with a false impression of our school district, the Cesar Chavez Academy charter school and its leader, Lawrence Hernandez.

Hernandez is quoted as saying that “40 kids showed up at his door” after the official count date in October. He goes on to say that “if after that day, students leave, are kicked out, are encouraged to go to another school, say, they are not likely to do well on the state standardized test, the money allocated to educate them stays with the school.”

What Griego does not report, and perhaps Hernandez did not volunteer, is that he is employing the very act that he is criticizing.

Cesar Chavez Academy is a charter school, funded by the taxpayers of the State of Colorado. As a state public school, as with all Pueblo City Schools, CCA is accountable to the taxpayers. Because there are serious issues noted in Griego’s article, it is our ethical responsibility to set the record straight on Hernandez’s comments regarding funding.

Our numbers show 32 (not 40) students requested to enroll at CCA after the census date, but, more important, our numbers show, and the article does not share, that 90 students left CCA (and its sister charter school Dolores Huerta Preparatory High School) after the census date. Do the math and you will see that these two charter schools kept state funding for these students ... nearly 50 of whom transferred, without the state funding, to our schools.

Second, Hernandez suggested that students “are encouraged” to go to another school because ... they are not likely to do well on the state standardized test ... ” This is misleading. The 2006-2007 Colorado State Assessment Program Procedures Manual supplements the No Child Left Behind act (Section 111). In a nutshell, at the state level, students who transfer after Oct. 1 are not included in the school’s academic performance rating; at the national level the student must be continuously enrolled for 12 months.

Ironically, CCA can choose the type of students it enrolls ... Pueblo City Schools (or any other public school district) does not have that option ... we accept all children.

Griego’s column further states CCA is an “acclaimed K-8 public charter school.” We agree CCA has its share of successes; however, Pueblo City Schools is much stronger when comparing students living in poverty. Using apples-to-apples comparison, 23 of our 37 schools rate higher than CCA. As a specific example, Minnequa Elementary School has a 90 percent poverty and minority rate, yet 90 percent of its students achieve above Colorado standards of excellence. Noting these facts, is it correct to label CCA, in the middle of the pack, as an acclaimed school?

Third, my fellow board members and I are disappointed with Hernandez’s claim that our “Pueblo” (alluding to our school district) did not have 1980 dropout data. His accusation is absurd and insulting. This information has been, is and will continue to be readily available ... all one has to do is ask.

Last, Griego makes a generalized statement regarding the latest CSAP data of low-income students “scoring at least 30 points less than other students” and that half of Hispanic third-graders are reading at grade level. While this may be correct at the state level, Pueblo City Schools (with which CCA is aligned) is and will continue to be the state leader in elementary progress. So I don’t forget our elementary programs have been recognized nationally by the U.S. Department of Education ... headed by Spelling. We are more than happy to make our CSAP information available, but we instead recommend Griego check with the Colorado Department of Education (which in a ceremony Aug. 3, attended by Gov. Bill Ritter, recognized Pueblo City Schools as a High Performing District). Coincidentally, Commissioner Jones specifically noted our district for continuously closing the achievement gap, especially in schools with 50 percent or more of its student body on free and reduced meals.

Pueblo City Schools is in the process of applying for international standards status. What this means is we will not be satisfied meeting CSAP or NCLB Annual Yearly Progress. We are changing the paradigm by becoming a world-class school district ... we will be evaluated on international standards. We are creating a system that will prepare each of our students to be successful in a global society. We are accountable, transparent and dedicated to excellence in all we do.

Journalistically, Griego failed her readers by not checking her facts and relying on an unreliable source. We were never contacted on this article, but by this response we hope the Rocky Mountain News will set the record straight. We look forward to reading Griego’s updated article.

Kathleen Kennedy is the president of the Pueblo City Schools’ Board of Education.

By Conny Jensen

If only people, such as letter writer Dennis Hammond (“Math, science are key in education,” July 24) and especially those in business, including students majoring in business, would read books like “Turbo-Capitalism: Winners and Losers in the Global Economy” by Edward Luttwak, they would realize that only a small number of all the envisioned “proficient” students” will ultimately find a slot away from the base of the pyramid that is capitalism!

This Speakout has not been edited.

By Conny Jensen

If only people, such as letter writer Dennis Hammond (“Math, science are key in education,” July 24) and especially those in business, including students majoring in business, would read books like “Turbo-Capitalism: Winners and Losers in the Global Economy” by Edward Luttwak, they would realize that only a small number of all the envisioned “proficient” students” will ultimately find a slot away from the base of the pyramid that is capitalism!

Well-paying high-tech jobs requiring advanced math and science will be few. Yet, Gates and others believe it necessary that kids are pushed in that direction whether it is their area of strength, or love, or not!

Why do we even believe this hype, when according to BBC World News corporate America is already investing money in research and development labs in China, therewith supporting the graduates over there instead of here? (See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6912056.stm) It’s not because there are no smart graduates here as we are supposed to believe. It’s because investing in Chinese graduates and labs is cheaper! Having more science and math majors here is not going to change that.

Luttwak writes “Corporations are not moral entities. They exist to earn profits.” Indeed! They are opportunists, lacking allegiance to their own country, fellow citizens and even their own employees which they easily lay off under the guise of “restructuring.” At a later time they rehire, but at lower wages and offering fewer benefits!

Clearly corporations will employ any strategy that promises profit, including outsourcing which has nothing to do with the talent pool stateside, but with savings. Writes Luttwak: “ ... even at the height of the boom in 1997, there was still an oversupply of software engineers in general, so much so that employers could pick and choose among job applicants, specifically picking the young who cost less, while rejecting mid-career applicants - not something they could afford to do if there were a shortage.”

As an example, since 1997 Microsoft has only hired 2% of all software writing applicants! The other dozen or so smaller software companies hire even fewer which leaves more than 70% of qualified people without a job of their choice! That’s what “business” hopes No Child Left Behind will “produce” — an oversupply of qualified human resources for any field in which large profits can be made to drive down wages and generate more profit. And profit for whom? The CEOs and the stockholders!

Conny Jensen is a resident of Greeley.

By Andrzej Kurek, Littleton

There are many (too many) choices in medical coverage, ALL of them are confusing, costly, with myriads of limitations, exceptions, etc. – many times policies promising a lot and delivering a little due to the above “buts” and “ifs”.

This Speakout has not been edited.

By Andrzej Kurek, Littleton

There are many (too many) choices in medical coverage, ALL of them are confusing, costly, with myriads of limitations, exceptions, etc. – many times policies promising a lot and delivering a little due to the above “buts” and “ifs”. Some health insurances can be obtained through company one work for - as one reader rightfully mentioned: “situation rapidly dwindling” in this respect, other policies can be obtained directly by private person for much higher cost yet with as many “buts” and “ifs”. Very high number of citizens has no insurance at all, because they are in low income bracket (can’t afford), part timers, or working for smaller businesses, which are paying low wages and/or are not offering any health insurance. According to latest statistics the USA is 42nd in longevity (many people didn’t even know that there are so many countries). Affordability of health coverage is a big issue.

In my particular case, I’ve been laid off few months ago, my income stopped, little saving disappeared, unemployment is ¼ of previous income, many thousands to pay off credit cards, utility bills are coming and there is no way I can afford necessities, and more so insurance. My wife lately needed to use a doctor’s help, possibly MRI, and other tests, but can’t. Should the condition be slightly more serious, the only choice is to die. Doctors are feeling bad when they have to ask patient FIRST for insurance or money and if those are satisfied, THAN for patient’s health condition.

Many people question where the money is going to come from for health care for all, but that was already discussed and resolved – money is wasted by multitude of insurance organizations (especially management salary) instead of centralized health system for all, not to mention billions and billions of our tax money wasted elsewhere.

Other reader calls for “Michael Moore not to be taken seriously” – if the facts can’t be taken seriously, what can? I’m sure there are much more cases of similar kind or worst.

So, I have few questions to help me (and probably many others) to deal with situation: -How can anybody defend present system - what is so good about it if so many people are deprived from much needed medical care? The present system is loading companies with the health insurance responsibility (cost), which should not belong to them in the first place.

-How about very large number who can’t afford insurance for various reasons, many times not their own fault? What should they do?

-What to do when help is needed fast for uninsured person, but person can’t call ambulance, because of huge cost?

-What to do when help is needed in regular situation – not necessary emergency?

-Are there other options than dying or other suffering condition when person is not able to pay?

-Does person have to loose everything to qualify for any government help?

-Is it humane to let people die or push them into debt, which in many cases is already unbearable? One my say that debt is better than death, but that’s not a point – USA suppose to be the best, with high standard of living and healthy citizens.

I’m against government intervention in every aspect of live, but few basic services should be available/assured for free for ALL citizens - all developed and many other countries do that.

Those free services are: health, education and retirement.

By Steve Zorichak
My interest in solar activity began in 1952, when I began skiing (side-stepping up and sliding down the gentle slopes of Willis Case Golf Course, which borders the north side of Interstate 70 at Sheridan). I lived at 44th and Otis and could easily walk there, about 1½ miles when I was 16 years old.

This Speakout has not been edited.

By Steve Zorichak
My interest in solar activity began in 1952, when I began skiing (side-stepping up and sliding down the gentle slopes of Willis Case Golf Course, which borders the north side of Interstate 70 at Sheridan). I lived at 44th and Otis and could easily walk there, about 1½ miles when I was 16 years old.

I had read in the Larousse Encyclopedia of Astronomy that the ancients saw sunspots and made the correlation of the effect on the warming of the Earth two to three days later. The book also showed that vintage grape crops occurred during the 11-year periodic cycle shown for the last 200 years.

The Federal Register in 1975 reported that a group of scientists from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA’s Boulder, Colorado-based environmental research laboratory) and the Space Environments’ Service Center had been observing and forecasting the effects of solar activity.

The year 1971, the scientists note, was part of what is normally a quiet period late in the current 11-year cycle of solar activity. NOAA indicates that the impact on Earth was extensive: Peak X-ray emissions of the August flares were in the extremely high “X-5” range or higher, an unprecedented level in the history of solar observations. “Hard” X-rays — highly energetic ones with very short wavelengths — cause enhanced electrical conductivity in the upper atmosphere and related changes in the Earth’s magnetic field. Reports received at NOAA’s Boulder laboratories indicated that, at certain times during the storms, large percentages of homing pigeons failed to return home; those that did make it back were often frightened and disoriented.

The science section of the August 1972 Time magazine reported: “With no forewarning, the sun underwent a series of violent eruptions that caused some of the worst magnetic storms on Earth in recent years. It’s like getting a snowstorm in Atlanta in July.”

On July 3, 1989, the Time cover story headline read: “Great Ball of Fire, an angry sun stages a spectacular show.” The June 6, 2006, U.S. News & World Report cover story was “Global Warming: Can We Live with It?”

In spite of 50 years’ reporting, sunspot activity is regarded as abnormally high. One reference mentioned a normal year has 14 eruptions. By 2004, the eruptions had increased to more than 1,000.

Unless one has a fascination with solar storms and their effect on ski conditions, these escalating events attract very little attention. The years 1972-1975, 1983-1987, 1998-2000 and 2005-2007 may be recalled as heavy snow years.

Last week, National Public Radio interviewed one scientist who said the cycle is diminishing rapidly and in half a dozen years, the cycle should return to a normal 11 years. Why, then, are some politicians and environmentalists so worried about global warming? They needn’t be. In just a few years, everything will be back to normal.

Steve Zorichak is a resident of Vail.

By Mohammed Akacem

The credit markets have been jolted lately by a big dose of market reality

By Mohammed Akacem

The credit markets have been jolted lately by a big dose of market reality. The subprime market mess has spread across the globe, forcing central banks from the United States and Europe to Asia to intervene and inject liquidity to calm both markets and perhaps nerves. Groundhog Day may be here again, as we could possibly relive the experience of the 1998 financial crisis.

The question, however, that we must ponder is: Should the Federal Reserve or foreign central banks for that matter be in the business of rewarding bad investment decisions?

While the Asian crisis of the late 1990s and the subsequent failure of the hedge fund Long-Term Capital Management had their root cause outside the U.S. financial markets, this time the crisis appears to have emanated from right here in the United States. However, these days it does not really matter where the crisis starts. The global economy has no borders to speak of, particularly in the area of financial capital. The latter has no passport or allegiance. It will move at the slightest opportunity for a gain, and run at the slightest possibility of a loss, forcing central banks around the world to react — if they so choose.

What we have here is a classic case of moral hazard. Rewarding bad decisions only encourages more of the same and the market ceases to be relevant in doing what it does best, which is to punish those who make bad decisions. This is true for governments as well as for private investors.

In 1994, the United States and the International Monetary Fund helped bail out Mexico. The same story repeated itself in 1998 when Russia defaulted. Again, through some prodding, the IMF came through for Russia. Why? Russia was too nuclear and too big to be allowed to fail. The world’s taxpayers came through again via the IMF for Brazil and now our central bank is trying to lend a hand to the mortgage market.

In this attempt to rescue the credit markets, the Federal Reserve actually did something that is not usually done. It accepted as collateral for the loans it made — the new money it injected into the economy — mortgage-backed securities instead of the good old U.S. Treasury securities.
This is what is known as an open-market operation. When the Federal Reserve needs to inject money into the banking system, it buys securities. When it needs to reduce the amount of money that circulates, it sells securities.

Let us be clear: The Federal Reserve is totally within its rights and charter to do what it did by buying mortgage-backed securities instead of standard Treasury securities. The target for federal funds rate — the rate that banks lend each other for overnight loans — increased to 6 percent, much higher that its target of 5.25 percent. So the Fed intervened to get it back to where it was supposed to be by flooding the market with new money.

Still, do we want a central bank that is intervening in the market to help prop up one segment of the economy? That could potentially be a slippery slope down a very bad road and, once traveled, we are destined to make a precedent of it and do it again. The goal of any intervention should not be dictated by changes in one area or segment of the economy. Yes, spillover effects from the subprime market can extend throughout U.S. and world financial markets — as they have. Still, we need to be careful not to subsidize bad financial decisions by either small or large players in financial markets and certainly by large banks who fueled the credit markets with money with which to extend the many loans that are now in question.

Why not extend this generous help to everyone’s 401(k) so that we can all sleep better at night? Or is this sort of generous assistance reserved for a chosen few who are too big to fail? The Federal Reserve has a stellar reputation around the globe and the U.S. dollar is the reserve asset used by many foreign central banks. However, this reputation might slowly erode if we keep intervening in markets when we do not have to. Throughout this saga, the Bank of England is the only one that showed any sense or courage and did the right thing: nothing.

Mohammed Akacem is a professor of economics at Metropolitan State College of Denver.

By Mike Coffman

It’s being called Tsunami Tuesday — Feb. 5, 2008 — when at least 18 states will hold their presidential primary to determine the nominees of both parties. Seven states will have already held primaries or caucuses before this tidal wave hits, and as the Rocky Mountain News warned
in a recent editorial, we could see New Hampshire’s primary in mid-December of this year.

By Mike Coffman

It’s being called Tsunami Tuesday — Feb. 5, 2008 — when at least 18 states will hold their presidential primary to determine the nominees of both parties. Seven states will have already held primaries or caucuses before this tidal wave hits, and as the Rocky Mountain News warned
in a recent editorial, we could see New Hampshire’s primary in mid-December of this year.

Few political pundits argue that this race to be first is a good thing. Voters are likely to grow apathetic to the presidential contenders a full year before they go to the polls to elect the next leader of the free world. But state lawmakers all across the county can’t seem to help themselves; South Carolina was the latest to buckle to the pressure, moving its primary to Jan. 19.

I commend Colorado lawmakers, who acted a bit more rationally earlier this year when they passed legislation giving the major political parties the option of holding their caucuses on Feb. 5. The Democratic state party already took the bait, and the Republicans will likely follow suit soon.

One potential silver lining to the 2008 Mad Dash may be that the idea of a rotating regional primary will gain traction. Last month, U.S. Sens. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., and Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., introduced federal legislation that would create a rotating regional system.

Senate Bill 1905, the “Regional Presidential Primary and Caucus Act of 2007” divides the nation into four regions that will rotate holding their presidential primary or caucus during either the first week of March, April, May or June.

The U.S. Elections Assistance Commission would be required to hold a lottery to determine which region will hold their primary in March 2012. If Region Two is selected for the March primary, for example, then states of that region will hold their primary during the first week in March, Region Three states would hold their primaries or caucuses in April, Region Four states in May and Region One states in June. Regions would rotate in 2016.

Colorado, along with the other Western states, would be in Region Four. Visit my Web site, www.sos.state.co.us, and go to “Press Releases and Statements” under the “Press” page link for more information on the plan.

The legislation is not perfect. The bill carves out exceptions for New Hampshire and Iowa, allowing them to hold their primary prior to the first week in March; the rationale being that New Hampshire and Iowa have a long and rich tradition of holding their presidential contests first. That may be so, but opening the door for two states to operate outside the schedule will likely lead to other states clamoring to do the same. A rotating regional system will only work if it applies to every state in the union.

After we’ve dried off from Tsunami Tuesday and after we’ve suffered through 111/2 months from the first state primary to the final vote tally, it will be well worth taking a careful look at a rotating regional system.

Mike Coffman is the Colorado secretary of state.

By Bruce C. Hanson

As a retired teacher, who will be a teacher still until I breathe my last breath, I looked with some sadness at the report in the Rocky about CSAP scores. My sadness comes because of the misdirected values we have placed on this test.

This Speakout has not been edited.

By Bruce C. Hanson

As a retired teacher, who will be a teacher still until I breathe my last breath, I looked with some sadness at the report in the Rocky about CSAP scores. My sadness comes because of the misdirected values we have placed on this test.

Before explaining that comment, let me say that keeping track of what is happening in schools is important. I am definitely not advocating that we never test, or that schools should be free to do whatever they want without some checks and balances. My sadness comes as a result of the message that we have placed on CSAP results.

In years past, testing was just one more tool that helped in the understanding of a student’s growth. There were students who were good readers, good mathematicians, good artists, good musicians, and good athletes. They were not weighted in value. If you were not so good at one, but could make up for it in another, then all was well.

Today, students often find their value as human beings based on their performance on this test. If they are unsuccessful, it doesn’t just say to them that they are poor at writing, it says they are not valuable as human beings, that worth in this world is based on measurable qualities that are best ferreted out through a test like CSAP.

When the current results show that students are beginning to flatten out, it tells me that students have begun to be fatalistic. If for 2 or 3 years in a row, they have failed to perform at an acceptable level, then they must be deficient as human beings.

Once a student has arrived at that conclusion, then the test represents their own failings as people. The conclusion becomes one of why should I try, I am just not very good. Once a student has begun to feel worthless and without merit, then he/she becomes a sitting duck for all the things that lead to what we see too much of today: gang violence, drug involvement, suicide, an overall decline in the quality of life.

Somehow, we must find away to watchdog what we do in our schools without conveying these kinds of messages. The worth of a person is not ultimately based on test scores but on what kind of person you are in relating to the world around you. Some of our best citizens may have once been mediocre students test-wise.

Children need to know that they are worthy regardless of test scores, and sadly, CSAP does not convey that message.

Bruce C. Hanson is a resident of Westminster.

By Darryn Zuehlke, Chuck Line and Ken Fellman

Recent articles in the Rocky Mountain News, The Denver Post, the News and The Denver Business Journal describe Qwest’s complaints about an ordinance adopted in metro-area municipalities requiring certain information be provided to the city when making an application for a competitive cable franchise.

This Speakout has not been edited.

By Darryn Zuehlke, Chuck Line and Ken Fellman

Recent articles in the Rocky Mountain News, The Denver Post, the News and The Denver Business Journal describe Qwest’s complaints about an ordinance adopted in metro-area municipalities requiring certain information be provided to the city when making an application for a competitive cable franchise.

Qwest’s claims the ordinance is anti-competitive, imposes disclosure obligations different from those imposed on Comcast, and requires it to publicly disclose information that is proprietary. As a result, Qwest will likely only seek franchises in communities that do not adopt the ordinance.

ProblematicallyYet, none of the complaints identified by Qwest are true.

In March, the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”)adopted an order pre-empting certain local authority regarding cable franchising, and imposing a new “shot clock,” requiring many applications for cable franchises to be acted upon in 90 days, or be automatically imposed upon the citizens. Under the FCC rules, a franchise applicant must only provide the city with very limited information unless local law requires additional information.

Despite Qwest’s argument, the ordinance does not require information different from what the incumbent cable operator provided. Prior to the FCC order, the parties could negotiate over a longer period of time, so information was requested and received at various points during negotiations. Now that cities are required to act within the FCC’s shot clock, it is important that this information be provided when negotiations commence.

The required information is not unreasonable. This ordinance asks for basic things such as: Is the company financially capable of deploying its network without causing damage to city streets and private property? Can the company post sufficient bonds and letter of credit to protect the public in the case of damage? Has the company ever been found in violation of relevant federal, state or local regulations in connection with the operation of its business? This information is necessary to evaluate whether to grant a company permission to use public property. Cable companies have provided this information to the cities — why shouldn’t Qwest?

Qwest’s complaint that it will be required to make confidential information public is specious. Local governments already require this information to be provided by cable companies. The Colorado Open Records Act provides that entities may identify information it provides to the government as confidential, and as a result, the government is under no duty to release that information to the public.

In its attacks on the ordinance, Qwest completely ignores the section that waives every single obligation of the ordinance if the applicant is willing to negotiate without starting the 90-day shot clock. And indeed, Qwest has publicly informed the Greater Metro Telecommunications Consortium that it will seek to negotiate franchise agreements with metro area communities without imposing the FCC shot clock.

Therefore, under the clear language of the ordinance, none of the application requirements apply. Those provisions only apply to companies that insist that the franchise be negotiated within 90 days, and that is only because, in that short time frame, the local governments need the information to evaluate for their evaluations up front.

Qwest knows that under its proposed negotiation plan the ordinance will not apply to it, yet it still complains about alleged negative impaeffects of the ordinance on its operations.

Perhaps most surprisingly is how Qwest addressed a similar (and more restrictive) regulation in Portland, Oregon.

Like our metro ordinances, Portland’s has a provision that waives all requirements if the applicant does not insist upon the FCC shot clock. Portland’s ordinance was adopted prior to the Denver area ordinances. Qwest did not raise objections to Portland’s regulations as it has in metro Denver. Indeed, Qwest informed Portland that it did not intend to impose the FCC shot clock when that shot requirement goes into effect, and the parties have been negotiating a cable franchise agreement outside of the scope of the new regulations.

Why is Qwest attacking the ordinance in Colorado when its actions in Portland prove that the ordinance does not create a problem for negotiations?

Perhaps Qwest’s complaints are less about its ability to obtain local franchises and more about casting local governments in a negative light, as it gears up for next year’s legislative battle where it will again seek to pre-empt local authority and create a special set of rules favoring new entrants that try to compete with incumbent cable companies.
Problematically for Qwest, its complaints about the local ordinances don’t ring true, as demonstrated by Qwest’s own actions in Oregon.

Darryn Zuehlke is the president of the Greater Metro Telecommunications Consortium and is director, Denver Office of Telecommunications. Glendale Deputy City Manager Chuck Line is the vice president of the consortium. Ken Fellman is the group’s general counsel.

By Fran Ricker and Kristen Hannum

It was hot outside and the air conditioning system was acting up when The Lewin Group, a company doing independent analysis for Colorado’s Blue Ribbon Commission for Health Care Reform, gave its preliminary report on the reform proposals submitted to the commission.

By Fran Ricker and Kristen Hannum

It was hot outside and the air conditioning system was acting up when The Lewin Group, a company doing independent analysis for Colorado’s Blue Ribbon Commission for Health Care Reform, gave its preliminary report on the reform proposals submitted to the commission.

The commission’s chair, Bill Lindsay, interrupted the consultants to question their findings.
Lindsay said it surprised him that the Colorado Health Services Program would give Coloradans better coverage than they now have — and at the same time save more than $1.6 billion.
It is counterintuitive that covering everyone would cost less.

That proposal was submitted by Health Care for All Colorado and endorsed by the Colorado Nurses Association. It’s one of four proposals out of 31 submitted that the commission chose for outside, independent analysis. It proposes private health care through a publicly funded system. A single risk pool keeps costs low and guarantees comprehensive coverage.

The other three proposals keep in place our current system’s private insurance companies. Two include mandates that every Coloradan buy private insurance. They also seek to shore up our tattered safety nets for the increasing number of Americans who are uninsured (16 percent) and underinsured (29 percent). The other proposals add cost and give less coverage.

Lewin Group’s lead analyst explained to the commissioners that single-payer systems enjoy significant savings, beginning with lower administrative costs. That’s not just hoping or theoretical. Every other industrialized nation on Earth has guaranteed universal health care for their citizens. They have equal or better outcomes overall and save money, spending a smaller percentage of their GDP and family budgets on health care. They have found that universal health care is good for families and businesses.

True, those systems are human and imperfect. But there are now enough rigorous international studies that we Americans cannot fool ourselves any longer. Our system is broken. Although we have pockets of medical greatness, comparative studies show that ours is not the best health care in the world.

Would such a single-payer system be workable in a single state? If history is a guide, yes. Single payer worked in a single province, Saskatchewan, where Canadian Medicare began.

The fear that a single-payer system would attract sick people from all over the country is far more an indictment of the current U.S. system than of our proposal. It’s just as likely that such a proposal would attract progressive corporations, who currently pay an average of 8 percent to 10 percent to cover their employees’ health care. That’s double the proposed 4 percent payroll tax for the Colorado Health Services Program, which would bill out-of-staters.

Although the Colorado Health Services Plan calls for a 6 percent income tax to pay for health care for all, most Coloradans would pay less because they would trade paying premiums and high deductibles for a lower health-care tax.

Would Coloradans vote for such a tax? That depends partly upon what they now spend on health care. We believe that Coloradans would choose to pay 6 percent of their salary for better coverage for all and never again having to worry about a medically caused bankruptcy.

How about rationing? American insurance companies ration care. Prior authorizations, limiting benefits and denials are examples of rationing under our current system. Europeans don’t have to worry about this. In fact, Europeans don’t worry about health care in general. A Belgian woman recently admitted to us that she had not realized that her country had public, universal health coverage. She just knew that if she ever got sick she’d be cared for.

We hope that Rocky Mountain News readers will take the time to learn more about this issue, and join in the conversation.

All the Blue Ribbon Commission’s meetings are public. Check their schedules at www.colorado.gov/208commission.

Fran Ricker is executive director of the Colorado Nurses Association. Kristen Hannum is program administrator for Health Care for All Colorado.

By Clark Bouton

Colorado has embarked on a complex course of comprehensive health care reform. A successful outcome depends on a fair and factual public discussion of the various reform proposals. The “Single-payer baloney” editorial (RMN, 8/2/2007) was not helpful in furthering that discussion.

This Speakout has not been edited.

By Clark Bouton

Colorado has embarked on a complex course of comprehensive health care reform. A successful outcome depends on a fair and factual public discussion of the various reform proposals. The “Single-payer baloney” editorial (RMN, 8/2/2007) was not helpful in furthering that discussion.

The editorial labels the single payer proposal as “baloney” for three reasons. First, the editorial raises the specter of massive new taxes, while dismissing the savings from eliminating private insurance and other costs. The Lewin Group, independent experts in cost-benefit analysis, calculate that there could be large net decrease in what Colorado residents would pay for health care — even while providing universal health care.

Second, the editorial argues that there would be “big-time rationing.” The writer seems to forget that we already have rationing-big time! We ration by depriving a large part of our population of adequate health care; private insurance companies ration by refusing coverage to some, by setting premiums high enough to exclude high risk members, by limiting what medical care will be covered, and so forth. Medicare and Medicaid also ration. Rationing is unavoidable; the demand for medical care will always exceed the supply. The relevant questions are, “Who do we want to make the rationing decisions?” and “How do we decide what medical care has the highest priority?”

Third, the editorial raises the fear of outsiders coming to Colorado for “free” medical care, even though it acknowledges that enabling legislation could discourage this. Those who raise this fear assume the low-income population is ready to pick up and go and has the means to do so. We have numerous examples of unequal benefits offered by different states, but the editorial provides no evidence that these lead to outsiders taking advantage of the benefits.

The Colorado Progressive Coalition is conducting public health care forums throughout Colorado to learn about the residents’ experience with health care and what they want in health care reform. Our purpose is not to promote any particular reform proposal, but to listen to the public.

The forums have been held in various communities with very different participants, including hospital administrators, insurance underwriters and the uninsured. We have heard an honest and thoughtful dialogue about health reform. We have also encountered an overwhelming support for a single payer system. The proposal should not, and cannot, be dismissed as “baloney.”

Clark Bouton, Ph.D., is a volunteer Health Justice Organizer in the Colorado Progressive Coalition. He is a resident of Denver.

By Paul Danish

Who is responsible for global warming? The usual suspects include Big Coal, Big Oil, Big Cars and living large in America. But there is another, less likely suspect who is at least as culpable as the usual ones.

By Paul Danish

Who is responsible for global warming? The usual suspects include Big Coal, Big Oil, Big Cars and living large in America. But there is another, less likely suspect who is at least as culpable as the usual ones.

The greens. Anti-nuclear environmental activists.

Don’t think so? Well, let’s begin by reviewing what’s been going on in France for the past 33 years and contrast it with what’s been happening on our side of the pond.

In 1974 the French government decreed that henceforth new power plants built in France would be nuclear. Up until then France had generated most of its electricity from burning imported crude oil.

The decision to go nuclear was prompted by the OPEC cartel’s price fixing and the post-Yom Kippur War Arab oil embargo, both of which occurred in 1973. By the end of 1973, the price of crude had passed the then unheard of level of $10 a barrel, a 400 percent increase. “That’s enough,” said the French, and proceeded to go nuclear — with elan, panache and Germanic efficiency.

As a result, today France gets 78 percent of its electricity from nuclear power plants — and has the smallest per capita carbon footprint of any major industrial country.

Electric power production is the single largest source of human-generated greenhouse gases — and the fastest growing one. Thanks to having gone nuclear, when it comes to global warming, France is arguably part of the solution instead of part of the problem.

Target: U.S. nuclear power

Meanwhile, about the time the French were going nuclear American environmental and peace activists were gleefully doing everything they could to destroy the American nuclear power industry.

They combined a sweeping ideological attack on the safety, economics and morality of nuclear power with a rolling thunder of legal and regulatory challenges and mass demonstrations and blockades at plant construction sites — like the 1976 demonstration at the Seabrook plant in New Hampshire.

The campaign succeeded in completely stopping new orders for reactors and in turning the process of building those already on order into a Kafkaesque nightmare. But it failed to shut down the nation’s already operating nuclear plants or prevent the completion of some on order.

The upshot is that today the U.S. gets about 20 percent of its electricity from 104 functioning reactors — the last of which was ordered in 1973 — and about 50 percent of its electricity from coal. That’s because when American utilities couldn’t build new nuclear power plants, they built hundreds of coal-fired ones.

All of which raises an inconvenient question:

How much smaller would the U.S. carbon footprint be if in 1974, like the French, we had required all new power plants to be nuclear?

Well, according to the Energy Information Administration, in 1974 U.S. power plants burned 391 million tons of coal. In 2006 they burned 1.035 billion tons, an increase of about 643 million tons a year. Think of that 643 million tons of coal as the annual “peace bonus” in the greens’ war on nuclear power. It would not have been mined or burned if the U.S. had gone nuclear in 1974.

Burning 643 million tons of coal a year produces roughly 1.8 billion tons of carbon dioxide, which will continue to be produced year-in, year-out decade after decade, even if — and this is important — no additional coal-fired power plants are built. (The working life of a coal-fired power plant is about 60 years.) Burning 643 million tons of coal a year will cause the CO2 content of the atmosphere to increase by 1 part per million every three to four years. When it comes to global warming, anti-nuclear activism is the gift that keeps on giving.

The question of waste

But what about nuclear waste?

The French partially recycle theirs, recovering new reactor fuel and reducing the mass of the waste produced by their nuclear program by 90 percent. American nuclear power plants don’t recycle; the greens targeted that too.

Spent fuel from American nuclear power plants, about 60,000 tons of it so far, is stored in concrete buildings. There have been occasional releases of small amounts of it, and if it isn’t ultimately recycled it will have to be stored for millennia, but the crucial point is that it is being stored.

The CO2 from U.S. coal-fired power plants is not. In the past 20 years alone, 50 billion tons of it (including 28 billion tons of the greens’ “peace bonus” CO2) has been dumped into the atmosphere.

Viewed from this perspective, anti-nuclear activists have plenty of culpability for global warming.

Pardon my French, but J’açcuse!

Paul Danish is a resident of Boulder.

By Lisa Jones

‘Defective or unacceptable.”

By Lisa Jones

‘Defective or unacceptable.”

That’s what California Secretary of State Debra Bowen said about Sequoia voting equipment and software. On Aug. 3, she decertified the use of some products in California elections, and imposed strict conditions on others.

Denver will rely on these questionable Sequoia products during the school board and bond-measure election in November.

According to studies conducted by the University of California for Bowen’s office:

“The [Sequoia] software suffers from numerous programming errors, many of which have a high potential to introduce or exacerbate security weaknesses ... .

“In general, the software does not reflect defensive software engineering practices normally associated with high-assurance critical systems ... .

“Some of these problems lead to potentially exploitable vulnerabilities that we identified ... .
“ ... the presence of such errors reduces our overall confidence in the soundness of the system as a whole.”

The California report might sound vaguely familiar to Denver voters.

After last year’s Election Day debacle, a consultant hired by the city concluded that our vote-center meltdown was caused by custom Sequoia software that was “very poorly designed and fundamentally flawed.”

Sequoia’s voter registration software crashed, causing three-hour lines at the polls last November. Fred Hessler of Fujitsu Consulting reported to the mayor about the software, saying: “It does not meet or even approach professional standards.”

Should Denver voters be worried about the 2008 election?

Beefed-up voting security rules issued by the Colorado Secretary of State last year may offer some peace of mind. Safeguards such as surveillance cameras and tamper-resistant seals on voting equipment are supposed to protect the integrity of elections in Colorado.

But Matt Bishop, principal investigator in the California study, opined that security requires several layers, not just a presumably secure physical environment.

In a report overview, Bishop wrote that implementing external security measures to thwart possible attacks on voting systems “in no way relieves vendors of their responsibility to locate, repair and fix the vulnerabilities in their products that these attacks exploit.”

Some might wonder why Denver continues to use Sequoia as its election-services vendor.
Denver doesn’t have much choice. Other vendors fared as poorly as Sequoia in the California tests.

Also, Denver is “locked in” to the company, having spent millions of dollars to purchase Sequoia voting machines, ballot scanners and associated software. The products are proprietary, requiring the city to use Sequoia for maintenance and service.

Denver plans to spend approximately $360,000 in November on Sequoia services, including software licenses, ballot printing, postage and mailing.

In recent elections, Sequoia has copped to costly mistakes such as misprinting ballots, and embarrassing errors such as miscalculating postage. Yet Denver keeps throwing money at the company.

Prior to last year’s debacle, election officials were preparing to request another $5 million in city funds to purchase updated touch-screen voting machines from Sequoia. These machines will be needed to meet new state rules requiring voter-verified paper trails.

It seems unlikely that the city will reduce its dependence on Sequoia any time soon.

On a bright note, Michael Scarpello will take the helm as Denver’s new director of elections on Monday. In his previous job, Scarpello helped a Nebraska county to program its own election equipment rather than outsourcing the work.

Maybe Scarpello will find cost-effective ways to “in-source” more of Denver’s election functions.
Elections are perhaps only as secure and reliable as the software and machinery running the show. For now, Denver democracy depends on a vendor whose products and services have a shaky track record.

Lisa Jones is a freelance writer in Denver. Reach her at lisa@deardenver.com.

By Rob Clinton

The National Assessment Governing Board has just issued its first-ever Nation’s Report Card (http://nationsreportcard.gov) measuring the level of economic literacy among the nation’s high school seniors.

By Rob Clinton

The National Assessment Governing Board has just issued its first-ever Nation’s Report Card (http://nationsreportcard.gov) measuring the level of economic literacy among the nation’s high school seniors.

The results: 79 percent of students tested at the basic achievement level or higher. Thirty-nine percent scored at the proficient level and 3 percent were advanced. Although a surprisingly good result, the report makes little mention that one in five high school students does not have even a basic grasp of the most important economic concepts.

When one mentions “economics,” most people think about money. But Harvard professor Greg Mankiw explains it most accurately: “ts subject matter is society — how people choose to lead their lives and how they interact with one another.” Economic educators call this the economic way of thinking.

The operative concept is choice. Fundamentally, economics is the study of how people make choices in a world of limits within a particular economic system. Every American needs the basic decision-making tools that economic literacy provides.

Mankiw notes, “conomics is a subject in which a little knowledge goes a long way”; much of what is important about economics can be taught in one or two semesters. This is because economics builds on a handful of core ideas that can be easily understood if presented by a well-trained teacher or professor.

Furthermore, economics lends itself well to classroom activities and experimentation — its study can capture the interest and imagination of students. It need not be wrapped in complex mathematical formulas to convey basic principles.

The national High School Transcript Study found that, between l982 and 2005, the percentage of high school graduates who have taken an economics course has grown from 49 percent to 66 percent, a significant increase.

The figure is probably lower for Colorado because our state is not among the 17 states that require students to take an economics class. Nor is economics offered in each school.
Instead, most Colorado school districts rely primarily upon the infusion of economics content in other social studies, business or personal finance classes.

In 1998 Colorado’s State Board of Education adopted its Model Content Standards for Economics, which Colorado’s 178 independent school districts are supposed to follow. Regrettably, only a handful of forward-thinking Colorado school districts requires students to take an economics class.

Recognizing the important role of K-12 teachers and the multiplier effect of one teacher in a classroom, then-Gov. John Love, with board members from the Colorado Association of Commerce and Industry, founded the nonprofit Colorado Council on Economic Education in the early 1970s.

The council reaches hundreds of teachers each year offering about 9,000 hours of training in economics and personal finance programs for every grade level and tailors programs to meet the specific needs of school districts. The council also provides a free curriculum resource library.

This October, the council will host, for the first time in Denver, the Annual Conference of the National Council on Economic Education, the National Association of Economic Educators, and the Global Teachers of Economics.

Technology, trade and human curiosity have made the world smaller. It is difficult to imagine a set of skills more important for tomorrow’s leaders than “economic decision-making.”

Rob Clinton is the president of the Colorado Council on Economic Education.

By Crystal Bloemen and Penny Glackman

Space is the ultimate classroom — a teacher-student paradise for discovery and learning. Barbara Morgan is experiencing this first-hand while spending time aboard Space Shuttle Endeavour and the International Space Station as NASA’s “Educator Astronaut.”

By Crystal Bloemen and Penny Glackman

Space is the ultimate classroom — a teacher-student paradise for discovery and learning. Barbara Morgan is experiencing this first-hand while spending time aboard Space Shuttle Endeavour and the International Space Station as NASA’s “Educator Astronaut.”

For those of us who teach, Morgan’s accomplishment is an inspiration. She carries with her the aspirations of every teacher to open the minds of a new generation to the thrill of learning and discovery.

We believe America’s commitment to space exploration can inspire a new generation of engineers and scientists.

The Apollo program of the 1960s gave a huge boost to technical education and career opportunities, and changed our world dramatically in the process. America’s current space program — to complete assembly of the space station and develop the systems needed to support a return to the moon and future human missions to Mars — will open a new era of inspiration, innovation and discovery to power our nation and the world into the future.

In addition to her “classroom” duties, Morgan will be helping deploy a truss segment to support electrical power systems required to operate the space station’s science research laboratories. These labs will be used to conduct microgravity research for Earth-based applications, as well as science needed to meet America’s long-term space exploration goals.

While we don’t build spaceflight hardware or participate in breathtaking space walks, our labors in the classroom work hand-in- glove with NASA and its mission. Our students want education with relevance and practical meaning. They want to make the world a better place. Their imaginations know no bounds. Unfortunately, their interest in and mastery of math, science and engineering have waned; the implications for our role as a global leader and our competitive position in the world marketplace are perilous.

America’s space program by itself can’t fix this challenge, but it can help. Space exploration involves programs with real-world technical challenges that students and professionals can sink their teeth into. It creates high-tech jobs and career opportunities. It points a direction for the future, motivating our youth and all humanity to dream big and literally reach for the stars.

For our part, we see the benefits in our classrooms each and every day. We know the challenge of space travel excites our students, and gives meaning to the hard work of science and math studies.

Our hope is to see America follow through with this grand vision. It will take decades to achieve, and each step will result in new questions that call to be answered. Barbara Morgan — and all who teach — are opening another door for learning.

Space really is our classroom for the future.

Crystal Bloemen is a teacher at Webber Junior High School in Fort Collins. Penny Glackman is a teacher at Merion Elementary School in Merion, Pa. Both are board members of the Coalition for Space Exploration.

By Julian Friedland, Ph.D.

After three months of negotiation, Rupert Murdoch finally convinced enough stockholders to sell the Dow Jones, publisher of the Wall Street Journal, to the News Corporation of which he is founder and CEO.

This Speakout has not been edited.

After three months of negotiation, Rupert Murdoch finally convinced enough stockholders to sell the Dow Jones, publisher of the Wall Street Journal, to the News Corporation of which he is founder and CEO. Was this a victory for the marketplace of ideas or a dark day for journalism? The answer is likely to be “yes” to both questions.

Whether this should be of any concern to Americans will ultimately depend on how most of us define Democracy. As the First Amendment to our Constitution reminds us, the success of this form of government requires an educated citizenry reliant on a free press. And the News Corporation, just like every other news company, is free to print whatever it desires. The problem is that it’s funded primarily by advertising. And advertisers in the major media tend to be large corporations intent on preserving their interests.

Furthermore, the Wall Street Journal is run for profit. Up to now, the Journal news staff has done a remarkable job negotiating this conflict of interest between pleasing the bottom line along with upholding its mission to educate the public by publishing a steady stream of hard-hitting investigative reports.

Unfortunately, precious few U.S. newspapers still do this sort of thing as their budgets have been eviscerated largely by competition for advertising and classifieds on the internet. As a result, most have been sold to Wall Street for a bargain and continue to make dramatic cutbacks in their news staffs in the interest of shareholders. But what of the stakeholders? That is to say, the rest of us who have a crucial stake as citizens in the widespread access to reputable unbiased reporting with courage enough to shine light into the darkest recesses of power? Part of what has helped the Wall Street Journal defend the interests of these stakeholders was the Bancroft family, which owned controlling share of Dow Jones for a century, considering it a public trust for the greater social good more than a vehicle for personal profit. Why a sufficient number of these family members finally decided to sell after initially rejecting Murdoch’s offer out of hand is a complex matter that I don’t have space to get into here. But the upshot is that only two national newspapers are left in this country that are still held by such family trusts: The New York Times and the Washington Post. And these are widely considered to be the very best news sources in the country. This is no coincidence.

What Rupert Murdoch has learned and embraced perhaps more than anyone is that in-depth investigative pieces are boring. What’s much more alluring is mixing news with opinion to provide a sense of debate no matter how far removed either position is from actual facts; since they’re under-reported, few really know what they are. What matters is that “some say” one thing as opposed to another. There’s nothing like a good fight to keep people’s attention. And keeping as many people’s attention as possible for as long as possible is what matters to the bottom line.

By using this approach couched in a context of right-wing apologetics, Murdoch’s FOX “News” Channel has managed to win the highest ratings of any cable news service. As a result, all the other news networks now emulate this strategy. Although some networks such as MSNBC do it from a comparatively leftist stance, political debate has drifted steadily rightward across the board with the added help of AM radio and the ubiquitous men’s hard-boiled spy thrillers dripping with reactionary rightist rhetoric. What passes for news in this brave new media plain is less cold hard facts and more opinionizing and soothsaying. One only has to look at the Sunday morning political news programs to see that precious few facts on real issues are revealed. What the discussants provide instead are titillating predictions on which politicians and political parties are likely to win. It’s cheap and thrilling content, which has the added virtue of alienating few advertisers while viewers are soothed with a veneer of fairness (however fake) representing two sides of a debate.

Unfortunately, this sort of pattern hurts us all. The media’s primary mission is to inform, not entertain. Their rights are granted so they may elevate and educate by informing us of what are often difficult, nuanced, and unwelcome truths. As it stands, this public mission is being forsaken in the name of private profit. It thus stands starkly before us as a modern market failure.

But there is a solution. Media represent an essential service like education, firefighting, and infrastructure. As such, media need to be protected from the corrupting influence of private interest, which has finally grown so massive as to exert a crushing grip on journalistic independence. If we look to Europe we can see media independence there is protected by public funds. Take the BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation) for instance, which is mostly funded by taxes, permitting it to hold every corporation and government’s feet to the fire.

In France two out of the three major networks receive no more than forty percent of their operational funds from ads. The rest come from taxes. On our end, we have the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), but its budget pales in comparison to the BBC which has bureaus all over the world.

The CPB, which funds both PBS and NPR has a yearly budged of only 480 million compared to 3.2 billion for the BBC. Still, PBS is widely considered our most trusted news service. Again, this is no coincidence. It’s high time we start putting a lot more money where our mouth is. Our country—indeed the world—hangs in the balance.

Julian Friedland, Instructor, Curriculum Emphasis on Social Responisbility Leeds School of Business University of Colorado at Boulder

By Paul Sater

I believe a response to your July 8 editorial “The South Platte Quandary” is in order. For fair minded people there are many ways to ease the weight that is being placed on the backs of well owners.

This Speakout has not been edited.

By Paul Sater

I believe a response to your July 8 editorial “The South Platte Quandary” is in order. For fair minded people there are many ways to ease the weight that is being placed on the backs of well owners.

But first we should correct the many errors in the above mentioned editorial.

First is the idea that wells are a junior water right. High capacity water wells existed in Colorado as early as 1870, six years before the state constitution was written, yet they were left out of the constitution, why? Because it was then believed that as ground water it belonged to the land where it was found. Until the nineteen seventies a land owner couldn’t have sought appropriation or a decree if he had wanted, yet we are penalized for not doing so.

The editorial said it’s mostly the same water, it’s not. Groundwater is now and has been considered different from surface flows, by law and by science. Wells percolate the aquifer and re-expose water to surface flows. Most well water if unused would never reach the surface and simply leave the state underground. The amounts claimed by the objectors and believed by the courts are either a demonstration of their ignorance or their deceit.

The Supreme Court over-stepped itself in 2001 when it took authority away from the State Engineers Office. In an abuse of power, an activist court found a loophole to carry out this travesty.

The Colorado Constitution charges the State Engineers Office with administering the waters of the state, based on a doctrine of prior appropriation and for maximum beneficial use. From 1876 until 2001 we survived both floods and drought. With the court in charge we will likely survive neither. Just being the Supreme Court doesn’t always make them right, most will remember Dred Scott, a man done a terrible injustice by an ignoble court.

The “time-honored doctrine of prior appropriation” that the editorial speaks of has been messed with many times. The 1969 law that is being used to shut down wells was never intended to eliminate ground water irrigation. Because wells of the time operated outside water law, and current information of the time said there was some limited impact on the stream flows, the State Legislature decided to change the “time-honored doctrine of prior appropriation” and try to integrate wells into the system. In a letter to the current Supreme Court, Fred Anderson President of the Senate in 1969 stated in direct terms that the court had misunderstood the law and was not acting as the law intended. Former Senator Anderson was ignored. If time-honored doctrine is what is sought, just turn the wells loose, as they were for the first hundred or so years of the state’s existence.

Solutions: Grandfather wells completed before the law change in 1969. People constructed these wells with the complete knowledge of the state, legally and in compliance with every rule of the time. Wells completed after 1969 would be subject to the new law, but the state should publish a depletion schedule so as to prevent endless court fights, which do nothing but eat time and money.

Close the loopholes that allowed the court to wrest control of the state’s water from the State Engineer. The courts are too cumbersome and too slow too take advantage of a changing, living river.

If there are any provable shortfalls to the river, the state, not the wells would be responsible. The state got us into this mess and are the only ones that can fix it. We can find new water sources, for example, husbandry along the waterways, thinning the cottonwoods, eliminating parasitic plants such as salt cedar, russian olive, and river maintenance similar to Europe would gain more water than the wells could use, but under current law if well owners did these things they still wouldn’t be allowed to pump. It has to be the state.

All current augmentation plans should be Incorporated into the state as part of a new agency, under the State Engineer’s Office. To be paid for by the creation of a tax collecting district, made up of groundwater irrigated lands and the municipalities that benefit directly from their existence.

Direct the judiciary with the strongest language possible that their role is to settle disputes, not administer the waters of the state. Also to accept the 1969 law as it is written, not as a few individuals would chose to interpret it. The legislature writes law, the court applies law as intended.

Paul Sater is a resident of Kersey.

By Jim Quinten

Where do you have work done on your car? If you are like most folks, once your new car warranty expires, you like to take your vehicle to a repair shop you trust and that is convenient to your home or business. But, imagine if you could no longer do that, and had no choice but to return to the new car dealerships for the entire life of your car. This could happen.

This Speakout has not been edited.

By Jim Quinten

Where do you have work done on your car? If you are like most folks, once your new car warranty expires, you like to take your vehicle to a repair shop you trust and that is convenient to your home or business. But, imagine if you could no longer do that, and had no choice but to return to the new car dealerships for the entire life of your car. This could happen.

Cars are run by computers today. The car manufacturers don’t want to release the computer codes that are required for anyone to determine what is wrong with a car before it can be fixed. Without these codes, the local independent business owner cannot compete.

Would the service be the same? Would the prices be competitive? How convenient would it be? Whether you like your car dealer or not, it doesn’t take an economist to figure out that when there is no competition, prices rise and service suffers. This is truly a consumer protection issue.

In Colorado alone, there are nearly 3.5 million vehicles and only 281 car dealerships. I’m not great in math, but 3.5 million divided into 281 looks like the makings of a disaster for the consumers in our state unless something is done. In addition, there are thousands of businesses in our state that repair automobiles for their living to keep you on the road. Over time, they would be forced out of business because there will be fewer and fewer repairs on an automobile that they could fix.

Many in Congress fully understand the problem, and for the last couple of years have pressed for passage of the Motor Vehicle Owners Right to Repair Act. The bill would require the car companies to share the same information and tools with independent repair facilities that they provide their new car dealers. Last year, the legislation gathered 100 co-sponsors, but Congress failed to pass the bill before it adjourned.

The problem is that the American public does not seem to be aware of this challenge to their choices and its impact on both their pocketbooks and their mobility. However, new-car dealers and the large car companies have been making their voices heard in strong opposition to the legislation. Needless to say, they have very large and organized lobbying organizations in Washington.

While they may be powerful inside the halls of Congress, the motoring public is considerably larger and we can make our voices heard in the voting booth. Fortunately for the people of Colorado, Sens. Wayne Allard and Ken Salazar are in a position to help. But they must hear from you. If we work together, we can pass consumers’ Right to Repair legislation and thus ensure that the motoring public, and not the car companies, determines where its vehicles are repaired.

Jim Quinten is the president and CEO of the Automotive Parts & Services Association of Colorado.

By Ivan J. Miller
“Sicko” is right. The health care system needs fixing. Over 1,000 different payers, with 17,000 different policies leaves us spending almost twice that of other industrialized countries, having one of out seven uninsured, and lagging way behind in terms of positive health outcomes.

This Speakout has not been edited.

By Ivan J. Miller
“Sicko” is right. The health care system needs fixing. Over 1,000 different payers, with 17,000 different policies leaves us spending almost twice that of other industrialized countries, having one of out seven uninsured, and lagging way behind in terms of positive health outcomes. The wasteful insurance industry is the proverbial elephant in the room. Part of the cure is to eliminate insurance and have one system, but the traditional single payer proposal needs work as well. To be acceptable to Americans, a health care system needs to encompass the values of liberals, conservatives and the majority of us in the middle. Conservatives and many Middle Americans fear that a single payer system would have too much government control, which might cause waiting lists, drive providers out of business, and undermine innovation.
There is a way to move beyond traditional single payer proposal and address these concerns-the Balanced Choice proposal. It combines the single payer advantages that lower cost and guarantee complete coverage with market forces that have the advantage of freeing patients and providers from government price controls and micro-management.

What’s Wrong With Traditional Single Payer Health Care?

In spite of its ability to save money and improve health care, single payer systems have not gained traction outside of the liberal base. The fears that prevent endorsement need to be addressed. First, Americans fear government price controls and a government system. Providers fear inadequate reimbursements that jeopardize their livelihood. Both patients and providers fear excessive government regulation and its rigidity. Second, the idea of free health care conjures fear of over-utilization and lack of personal responsibility. And third, Americans endorse the advantages that result from a free-market and for-profit businesses.

What Is the Balanced Choice Proposal?

Balanced Choice is a single payer system with two options (Standard and Independent Options) that allow free market choices. Like the traditional single payer proposal, Balanced Choice establishes a nonprofit trust, single risk pool system that includes everyone. By removing the 3rd-party health insurance companies that add 15-20% to the cost of health care, it lowers the overall cost of health care.

In the Standard Option, out-of-pocket payments are small. Everyone can afford health care because it waives payments for low-income consumers and patients with catastrophic illnesses.

Someone in a health care system needs to watch the costs. The onerous managed care company watches the costs with insurance-driven health care and the government controls costs in public programs. In Balanced Choice, patients watch the costs. When patients have the ability to pay a portion of treatment costs, Balanced Choice makes a base payment, and patients pay the gap between the base and the actual cost. Gap payments, overall, are no higher than out-of-pocket expenses in good insurance policies. Because patients and providers have cost information readily available, they are cost-conscious.

Unlike traditional single payer, there are no strict government price controls. Providers can use an Independent Payment Option under which they can charge more than the Standard Option fee, and patients pay the gap. Providers have freedom to choose which Option is used with each new patient. Consumers have full freedom of choice and can choose to have different providers under either Option.

Unlike any other two-tiered proposals, Balanced Choice assures that the Standard Plan has adequate funds for quality care. A Mandatory Funding Split requires that reimbursement rates are set high enough so that patients and providers voluntarily select the Standard Option for 60% of overall health care expenses.

Balanced Choice incorporates the principles of both single-payer and market advocates and enhances the advantages of each. The U.S. needs comprehensive health care reform that addresses the concerns of liberals, conservatives, and everyone in the middle. Balanced Choice is a paradigm shift in that direction.

For more information on a national Balanced Choice proposal and an example of how Balanced Choice could be introduced in one state, Colorado, visit www.BalancedChoiceHealthCare.org.

Ivan J. Miller of Boulder is the executive director of Balanced Choice Health Care Inc.

By Larry Longseth, IBM senior state executive, Colorado

In June, Denver was one of nine cities selected by the U.S. Department of Transportation as a semi-finalist for a federal program that will provide a total of $1.1 billion to fight traffic jams. Five winning proposals will be announced in August.

This Speakout has not been edited.

In June, Denver was one of nine cities selected by the U.S. Department of Transportation as a semi-finalist for a federal program that will provide a total of $1.1 billion to fight traffic jams. Five winning proposals will be announced in August.

If you’ve spent any amount of time in the Mile-High City’s miles-long rush hour traffic jams, it shouldn’t surprise you that Denver made the list. According to the most recent study by the Texas Transportation Institute, the annual delay per person during rush hour in the Denver-Aurora-Boulder metro area grew from 16 hours in 1982 to 51 hours in 2003.

The annual amount of excess fuel consumed per driver in rush hour during the same time period tripled from 10 gallons to 30. Traffic congestion in the Denver metro area costs drivers $786 per person per year in excess fuel and lost time, according to another study.

Another consequence of all this congestion is the adverse effect on our air quality. Denver may be one of the country’s greenest cities today, but that won’t last for long with all those thousands of idling engines out there.

It should also come as no surprise that this increase in traffic congestion has coincided with the Denver area’s population growth, which increased 38 percent between 1990 and 2003. This trend looks to continue, as the area adjacent to U.S. 36 – the highway on which Denver’s proposal focuses – is expected to see a 22 percent increase in population and a 40 percent increase in jobs by 2030. So it’s clear that something must be done soon or the problems will only get worse.

On June 26 in Broomfield, a collection of state and local transportation officials, politicians and business leaders unveiled two options for decongesting the busy U.S. 36 corridor between Denver and Boulder. Both options, each estimated to cost at least $2 billion, aim to expand the 56-year-old highway by adding a high-occupancy vehicle lane. One option would make the 18-mile express lane free for all motorists, while the other would require drivers who are alone to pay a toll. There is also a third option, known as the “no build plan,” that calls for improvements to Park’n’Ride facilities along the highway, but no new lanes.

The U.S. Department of Transportation says that the winning proposals must be “different, innovative and daring” when it comes to fighting traffic. While the proposals on the table are well thought-out, sound plans, they are also somewhat traditional in nature -- they may not be enough.

If Denver wants a real shot at some of that federal money, it must be willing to go out on a limb and propose some fresh ideas, such as applying innovative new technologies to fight traffic. Why not expand the use of high-occupancy toll lanes, already in use on parts of I-25, which use sensors embedded in the pavement to charge express lane drivers based on the amount of traffic?

Or take a look at an even newer technology, already being piloted in other cities, that acts as a “virtual toll booth” for drivers who enter or leave the city center. My company helped Stockholm, Sweden, develop and use such technology to reduce peak-hour traffic by up to 25 percent. So these technologies are proven and available now.

Denver is doing the right thing by encouraging collaboration between government and business. Now if we can just inject some innovative thinking into the mix we’ll come up with a solution to our traffic woes that will have a positive impact on our time, our wallets, and our environment.

Larry Longseth, IBM senior state executive, Colorado

By Debie Foster

In the past the US Army chose to expand their Fort Carson base for maneuvers to the Pinon Canyon site in Las Animas County, located 150 miles south of Colorado Springs, CO. Many of our area ranchers lost most if not all of their land to this expansion. We had hoped that, true to their word, there would never be further expansion in our area, but here it is 25 years later and the worst of our fears has risen again.

This Speakout has not been edited.

By Debie Foster

In the past the US Army chose to expand their Fort Carson base for maneuvers to the Pinon Canyon site in Las Animas County, located 150 miles south of Colorado Springs, CO. Many of our area ranchers lost most if not all of their land to this expansion. We had hoped that, true to their word, there would never be further expansion in our area, but here it is 25 years later and the worst of our fears has risen again.

At the beginning, when rumors found their way to the locals the proposed expansion site was met with fierce opposition in the southeastern corner of Colorado. Recently, though, that opposition has spread further north and even citizens on the western slopes, and other states, have taken a stand against the expansion.

It is wrong for Las Animas County, the State of Colorado and the United States of America. Taking that much agricultural land out of production will be detrimental to everyone. In my mind, the main reason for the fierce opposition to this expansion is that the area’s farming and ranching, along with all of the related wholesale and retail businesses, would be adversely affected by the proposal. The last expansion never garnered us any benefits, why should we expect any this time?

Local agriculture and ranching would be the most adversely affected. These people who have lived and labored on their land, many for generations, would be told to pull up their roots and leave a lifestyle they love and have chosen to live for a good many years. In my mind MONEY isn’t a question. For me there isn’t enough money in the world that could compensate me for putting an end to a way of life that I love.

People must realize that there are many hardships associated with living in the country and knowing that we still choose to do it. We love what we do, we are happy where we are and we DO NOT WANT TO SELL. Quite frankly, one would have to be CRAZY to sell. At today’s prices you could NEVER begin to replace what you have built up for generations. Who, may I ask, at an older age would want to get in debt, relocate and start over again? Not I.

Area schools would also lose tremendously if this expansion should become a reality. Even if there were students left to attend the schools, after taking all the expansion land off the tax rolls, there would be no tax revenues going to the school districts, causing them to close their doors to students. I fear that not only Hoehne would be affected by this but possibly Aguilar and Walsenburg schools and, following them, Kim and Branson. WHERE will these children be taught? Will the Trinidad school district, and the local Catholic school be able to handle the influx of students caused by the closure of so many schools? As it is, these children are bused many miles to their local schools. Is it fair to ask that they travel hours on a bus to be educated?

I feel we need to look at the whole picture. So many questions need answered and the answers aren’t forthcoming.

Although HB 1069 as well as the Musgrave/Salazar Amendment passed overwhelmingly, I feel the need to ask our State Legislators to withhold their consent for the funding of the expansion or upgrade of the PCMS. I ask you, our friends, neighbors and constituents, please take a stand, and write to your State Senators.

We need to work together to accomplish our goal, which is: No Funding for the Expansion or upgrade to the PCMS.

Debie Foster is a resident of Trinidad.

Robert Pennyfather

A Canadian Company, Powertech Uranium Corp, has acquired the mineral rights to mine uranium on 6,880 acres in west Weld County next to the Larimer County line approximately 14 miles northeast of Fort Collins and 16 miles northwest of Greeley.

This Speakout has not been edited.

Robert Pennyfather

A Canadian Company, Powertech Uranium Corp, has acquired the mineral rights to mine uranium on 6,880 acres in west Weld County next to the Larimer County line approximately 14 miles northeast of Fort Collins and 16 miles northwest of Greeley. The price of uranium has increased significantly in recent years to a current $133 a pound. At this price it is estimated that a profit of over $100 per pound is anticipated and as initial estimates of the uranium yield are some 9.67 million pounds there is a resulting total profit approaching $1 billion. Consequently, Powertech (and other companies in other locations) are extremely anxious to capitalize on their mineral rights. At present Powertech is in the process of applying for the necessary permits.

Powertech proposes to extract the uranium oxide from the ground by “in-situ recovery” (ISR) a process by which numerous holes are drilled 250-600 feet into the ground and a caustic liquid inserted that dissolves the uranium oxide, as well as other heavy metals. The solution is then pumped to the surface for processing after which the “cleansed” liquid is re-inserted back into the ground and is cycled round again. Powertech may, on the southern part of their site where the uranium deposits are 80-120 feet down, also use conventional surface mining.

The Geologists – Report on the Centennial Project, Weld County, Colorado prepared for Powertech on March 28, 2007 Section 4.4 glosses over the potential environmental impacts for both ISR and surface mining devoting a mere half page out of a 41 page report to this most important issue. However, recent history has shown that the mining industry has been extremely unreliable in its environmental practices. ISR mining is prone to regulatory breaches; review of existing and previous sites shows numerous leakage events ranging from hundreds to tens of thousands of gallons of toxic liquids. On June 22, 2007 the Smith Ranch ISR site in Wyoming reported a 198,500 gallon spill of liquid containing 8ppm uranium and two days earlier a spill of 840 gallons of liquid containing 41.2ppm uranium.

The proposed “in-situ recovery” process gives rise to a number of major concerns the chief of which is water quality.