2014

Scott Ellis, 43, Lafayette: “By not participating in the process, you don’t imply consent with the outcome”

Anonymous — Thu, 18 Dec 2014 20:22:20 +0000

Scott Ellis, 43, Lafayette: “By not participating in the process, you don’t imply consent with the outcome” Anonymous (not verified) Thu, 12/18/2014 - 13:22 Lars Gesing

Scott Ellis’ Facebook page looks different than those of a lot of his social media peers. Ellis, 43, is an administrator of the group “Don’t Vote,” one of many such gathering places on Facebook. His own newsfeed is speckled with notes encouraging his friends to join him in his voting abstinence.

The Texas native is quick to point out that his reasons for not voting go way beyond such common excuses like apathy, a lack of interest or a jam-packed schedule.

“Opting out of the voting process and encouraging others to do it, lowering voter turnout in general is like a vote of no confidence in the system,” he said. “By not participating in the process, you don’t imply consent with the outcome.”

The father of two teenage girls considers himself an anarchist, and he is well aware of the stigma that comes along with that choice.

“That doesn’t mean throwing rocks through windows,” he adds calmly, with a straight face that leaves no doubt that this man is at peace with his manifold critics, who include his own family. “I don’t go to the voting booth for the same reasons I don’t get a mob together and boss my neighbor around just because I have the majority.”

The software engineer, who works in Boulder and lives in Lafayette, can’t remember the last time he voted, or for which candidate. “Probably in my 20s,” he said. Back then, he voted Libertarian because he couldn’t make out a meaningful difference between Democrats and Republicans. “They both envision a role of the state in a person’s life that is way, way too large.”

When he realized that the odds of any given third-party candidate are miniscule, Ellis made a final decision: “I realized I had to withdraw from the process altogether.”

Off

Traditional

White

Personhood USA makes a series of false and deceptive claims about previous legislation

Anonymous — Tue, 04 Nov 2014 13:06:42 +0000

Personhood USA makes a series of false and deceptive claims about previous legislation Anonymous (not verified) Tue, 11/04/2014 - 06:06

One of the main supporters of the personhood legislation on Colorado ballots this November is Personhood USA. The group’s website hosts pages about Amendment 67 in Colorado and North Dakota’s Measure 1, another personhood issue up for vote.

The Personhood USA page about Amendment 67 makes the following statement:

“Last summer, those same lawmakers who opposed Heather’s efforts for justice passed the dishonestly-titled ‘Crimes against Pregnant Women Act.’ Planned Parenthood and pro-abortion politicians who opposed Heather’s efforts to bring justice for Brady, have now passed a law that specifically reinforces that babies like Brady are not persons and eliminates criminal liabilities for abortionists who kill women during an abortion. Governor Hickenlooper signed this law, which says that drunk drivers like the one who is responsible for Brady’s death could have as little as a $2,000 fine.”

Although this is a large statement, CU News Corps will break it down as clearly as possible.

The statement is found to be deceptive for the following reasons:

It uses the propaganda tactic of appealing to emotions:
- Referencing both Surovik and her unborn child by first name
- Using phrases such as “efforts for justice” and “dishonestly-titled”

The statement is found to be false for the following reasons:

It claims that the Crimes against Pregnant Women Act “eliminates criminal liabilities for abortionists who kill women during an abortion,” and
It claims that drunk drivers in similar situations “could have as little as a $2,000 fine.”

Appeal to Emotion: Deceptive

The statement deceives using the common tactic of appealing to the emotions of the reader. This approach is used in order to convince readers to believe something because of how it makes them feel, as opposed to using a valid or compelling argument to make their point. Some valid arguments may involve emotional aspects, but in these cases emotion is used to cloud the logic of an argument for a reader.

“This is done instead of appealing directly to the values and policies being debated,” said Kelsey Cody, a University of Colorado graduate student and writing instructor, for a previous CU News Corps fact check on another statement that used the appeal to emotion.

Because the personhood issue is very emotionally charged all around (women deserve the right to make their own medical decisions vs. an unborn child’s life is worth the same as that of a person of any age), arguments from both sides of the issue embrace the opportunity to manipulate readers’ emotions in order to make a point.

Referring to Surovik and her unborn child by name -“Heather,” the mother and “Brady,” the unborn child – personalizes the reader with the situation, and has the ability to make them feel closer or more attached and therefore less able to make an informed, logical decision. Through putting references such as this in their statements, the organization is equating the unborn child to a fully developed person in the mind of the reader.

Personhood USA’s statement also uses this method by presenting emotional opinions as truth. More specifically, using the phrases “efforts for justice” and “dishonestly-titled” in such a way implies fact, while these are solely opinions.

Stating that Surovik’s efforts are for “justice” strongly suggests that voting yes on Amendment 67 puts a reader on the morally sound side of the issue. According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, “justice” is defined as the quality of being just, and “just” is defined as agreeing with what is considered morally right or good. This phrasing occurs more than once in the statement, and is manipulative in a way often unnoticed by readers.

Labeling the Crimes against Pregnant Women Act as “dishonestly-titled,” although more obvious, presents the current legislation in a negative light. Using this phrase also exempts the website from explaining how the act is dishonest, as it presents a “fact” to the reader. This manipulation could be avoided if the author of the statement explained why the title is dishonest.

Claim about Current Legislation: False

According to Personhood USA’s claim, the Crimes against Pregnant Women Act“eliminates criminal liabilities for abortionists who kill women during an abortion.” The legislation referenced, HB 13-1154, states in the Bill Summary:

“The bill excludes from prosecution medical care for which the mother provided consent. The bill does not confer the status of “person” upon a human embryo, fetus, or unborn child at any stage of development prior to live birth. The bill repeals the criminal abortion statutes.”

Within the actual bill, it is further stated:

“Additionally, nothing in this act shall be construed to permit the imposition of criminal penalties against a woman for actions she takes that result in the termination of her pregnancy; and finally, nothing in this act shall be construed to permit the imposition of criminal penalties against a health care provider engaged in providing health care services to a patient.”

And finally, under the exclusions section:

“Nothing in this article shall permit the prosecution of a person for any act of providing medical, osteopathic, surgical, mental health, dental, nursing, optometric, healing, wellness, or pharmaceutical care.”

These segments are the only pieces of the legislation that reference any potential prosecution for healthcare professionals. To clarify, the act states that medical professionals who perform abortions will not be prosecuted for terminating a pregnancy, provided the woman requested and consented to the treatment.

HB 13-1554 was put in place specifically in order to create new offenses concerning unlawful termination of a pregnancy. Without the above-mentioned additions, the bill would ban abortions by criminalizing the professionals who perform them. Medical professionals are not exempt from prosecution if a woman dies during the procedure. The legislation solely exempts healthcare professionals from charges regarding taking the life of a fetus when performing a legal abortion. Therefore, the claim that HB 13-1154 “eliminates criminal liabilities for abortionists who kill women during an abortion” is entirely false.

As little as a $2000 Fine

The final claim to be addressed is that “drunk drivers like the one who is responsible for Brady’s death could have as little as a $2,000 fine.” The statement is derived from HB 13-1154, section “18.3.5-108. Aggravated vehicular unlawful termination of pregnancy.” Under this section, the bill defines “Aggravated vehicular unlawful termination of pregnancy” as driving while under the influence of drugs or alcohol and causing the unlawful death of an unborn child.

This offense is defined as a class 4 felony under the same section. By Colorado law, a class 4 felony is punishable by a minimum of two years in prison and a fine of $2,000 to $500,000.

A series of crimes fall under class 4 felonies in Colorado, from sexual assault to second degree arson to aggravated motor vehicle theft. On top of that, vehicular homicide – when a person recklessly operates or drives a motor vehicle and this conduct is the proximate cause of the death of another person – is defined as a class 4 felony as well. Therefore under current law, the crime is classified the same whether the fatality in a drunk driving accident is a fetus, an adult, or anywhere in between.

It should also be noted that the drunk driver who took the life of Surovik’s unborn child was sentenced to 20 years in prison, and took his own life shortly after the sentencing. The statement is deceptive through implying that the driver received little to no punishment.

The Personhood USA statement “drunk drivers like the one who is responsible for Brady’s death could have as little as a $2,000 fine,” is false.

Summary

The statement as a whole deceives by appealing to the emotions of the reader, subsequently clouding interpretations of the argument. It is entirely false for the website to state that HB 13-1154, the Crimes against Pregnant Women Act, “eliminates criminal liabilities for abortionists who kill women during an abortion” as well as that drunk drivers in similar situations could have “as little as a $2000 fine.” The referenced legislation solely exempts medical professionals from criminal prosecution resulting from the legal termination of a consenting woman’s pregnancy. Claiming that there would be “as little as a $2000 fine” for similar situations is only half of the story. At least two years imprisonment is also required for class 4 felonies, a category which also encompasses a series of other crimes that may be more appropriately dealt with through smaller sentences.

Overall, the claim on Personhood USA’s page about Amendment 67 is deceptive and false.

Off

Traditional

White

Gardner at odds with scientific consensus on Ebola travel ban

Anonymous — Sun, 02 Nov 2014 06:00:00 +0000

Gardner at odds with scientific consensus on Ebola travel ban Anonymous (not verified) Sun, 11/02/2014 - 00:00

In his campaign to unseat Senator Mark Udall, Republican challenger Cory Gardner has called for a travel ban from the West African countries hit hardest by the recent Ebola outbreak. In doing so, he’s ignoring a strong consensus among public health experts on how best to deal with outbreaks of this kind.

An outbreak distribution map shows the extent of the Ebola outbreak in Guinea, Sierra Leone, and Liberia. (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention)

A press release on the congressman’s website quotes him as saying, “A travel ban would help contain the virus and prevent it from being introduced in new places, as we’ve already seen happen in the United States.”

However, several studies on the subject indicate that this strategy would be ineffective, and potentially counterproductive.

“For every complex problem, there’s a solution that’s quick, simple, and wrong,” wrote Tom Frieden, Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in an op-ed for FoxNews.com. “A travel ban is not the right answer.”

Frieden summarizes the current consensus among public health experts in the piece, arguing that a travel ban would hinder U.S. health officials’ ability to track and monitor potentially infected individuals, and hurt efforts to stop the virus’ spread at its source in Guinea, Sierra Leone, and Liberia. Instead, the C.D.C. has instituted a screening process for incoming travelers from the region, allowing health officials to identify, track, monitor, and, in some cases, isolate at-risk individuals.

Dr. Joseph Amon, an epidemiologist and Director of the Health and Human Rights Division at Human Rights Watch, agrees with the C.D.C.’s current strategy.

“A travel ban is not an effective approach,” he said in an interview with CU News Corps. “There is a clear scientific consensus on the issue of travel restrictions for Ebola.”

Amon was the lead author of a 2008 study on travel restrictions implemented by more than 60 countries in the wake of the HIV/AIDS epidemic. HIV is a useful comparison because, like Ebola, it is not airborne and spreads primarily through bodily fluids.

The researchers found that travel restrictions did not protect public health, and negatively impacted HIV prevention and treatment efforts. “Governments should repeal these laws and policies, and instead devote legislative attention and national resources to comprehensive HIV prevention, care, and treatment programmes serving citizens and non-citizens alike,” they recommended.

Even before Amon’s study, a 1989 review concluded, “The rapidity and extent of HIV spread in any country is primarily determined not by HIV-infected travellers but by the risk-producing activities of its citizens, regardless of whether HIV is introduced by foreign travellers or returning nationals.” The authors found travel restrictions to be “inherently, and often by design, ineffective, impractical, costly, harmful, and may be discriminatory.”

“Banning everyone who has been in a country with Ebola is far too broad and indiscriminate,” said Amon. He believes that such travel restrictions could trigger backlashes from other countries, and points out that ebola-free Rwanda is now screening American travelers for the disease. Amon also worries that travel restrictions could prevent American health workers from returning to the U.S., hurting efforts to stop Ebola in West Africa.

“The question for Ebola really isn’t, will travel restrictions prevent people who are infectious from traveling?” said Amon. “It is, what is the cost of restricting all travel from these countries in order to limit the small number of people who may eventually be infectious but who are currently asymptomatic?”

The current best practice for stemming outbreaks of this kind is called “contact-tracing,” and has been credited as the biggest factor in Nigeria and Senegal’s successful campaigns to stop the virus’ spread. Both countries were recently declared Ebola-free by the World Health Organization, yet neither implemented a travel ban. This allowed health officials to track and monitor incoming travelers from Sierra Leone, Guinea, and Liberia. When a case is found, health officials identify individuals that had contact with the infected individual, monitoring, and sometimes isolating, them until they have been asymptomatic for 21 days. The same practice is being used in Dallas, Texas, where 51 people who had contact with Ebola victim Thomas Eric Duncan were recently cleared.

“We know how to stop Ebola: by isolating and treating patients, tracing and monitoring their contacts, and breaking the chains of transmission,” wrote Frieden in his FoxNews.com op-ed.

While Gardner’s intentions may be good, his claim that a travel ban would help contain the virus and prevent it from being introduced in new places is misleading, and in clear contrast with the scientific consensus on the issue.

“It’s as if you were in a burning house, in your room, and you start putting wet towels under the door to keep the smoke from coming in,” World Bank President Jim Kim told reporters earlier this month. “That is not an effective strategy. We’ve got to get back to putting out the fire.”

Outbreak Distribution Map: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Off

Traditional

White

Gardner’s misleading attack on equal pay illustrates bi-partisan hypocrisy

Anonymous — Fri, 24 Oct 2014 13:06:42 +0000

Gardner’s misleading attack on equal pay illustrates bi-partisan hypocrisy Anonymous (not verified) Fri, 10/24/2014 - 07:06 Lars Gesing

Paying male and female employers the same salary has been a central campaign issue for Democrats up and down the ticket across the country in past years. Sure enough, that discourse also made its appearance in one of the closest Senate races this fall – the contest between Sen. Mark Udall, D-Colo., and his challenger, Rep. Cory Gardner, R-Yuma.

At debates, in TV ads and on social media, Gardner, the GOP and supporting PACs accuse Udall, a co-sponsor of the Paycheck Fairness Act and the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, of hypocrisy.

“You have recently launched a television ad where you talk about your support for equal pay,” Gardner said at a recent Denver Post debate. “I support equal pay. And yet in your office you pay women 86 cents for every dollar you pay a man. Why don’t you live by example in your office?”

And a few days ago, the Colorado GOP tweeted this: “@MarkUdall STILL refuses to pay women on staff as much as men. #COPolitics #COSen”

.@MarkUdall STILL refuses to pay women on staff as much as men. #COPolitics #COSen pic.twitter.com/jciTNsU0KD
— The Colorado GOP (@cologop) 21. Oktober 2014

CU News Corps fact-checked the Gardner and GOP attacks – and found them misleading.

The ad the congressman talked about is a 30-second spot, titled “Succeed.” In it, Sen. Udall says, “… Everyone deserves a fair shot at success – with affordable student loans, equal pay for women in the work force and equal treatment when it comes to what men and women pay for their health care.”

Sen. Udall’s campaign ad, “Succeed.”

Gardner’s campaign staff dug up an analysis done by the conservative-leaning political news websitewatchdog.org, which showed that from October 2012 to September 2013, Udall did in fact pay the 17 full-time women on his staff 86 cents for every dollar his 14 male employers made.

Because those numbers are outdated, CU News Corps did its own analysis of salary data, courtesy of the Congress-oriented non-partisan research organization LegiStorm. You can find our full break-down of the numbers here.

At first glance, the numbers from Oct. 1, 2013, to March, 30, 2014, seem to support Gardner. During that six-month period, Udall employed 20 male and 20 female full-time staffers, and he paid the women only 84 cents for every dollar the men in his Senate office made. In Gardner’s, congressional office, on the other hand, women made $1.09 compared to every dollar paid to men.

But this is where the numbers start to get deceptive and prone to partisan twisting.

The main reason Udall pays women only 84 (formerly 86) cents for every dollar he pays men is that his chief of staff, Mike Sozan, and his deputy – the two biggest assets on Udall’s payroll – are both men. Rep. Gardner’s chief of staff, Natalie Farr, on the other hand, is a woman.

The clue here is this: The Republican calculation doesn’t consider equal pay for equal work – it literally leaves the “equal” part out of the equation.

Gender-specific seniority on the payroll isn’t considered. But the only way to find a completely accurate measure for fair pay would be to compare the wages of a man and a women for the exact same work.

The closest the CU News Corps analysis came to that were the numbers on the paychecks for Udall’s eight full-time regional directors, which mostly only differed by a few hundred dollars.

CU economics professor Jeffrey Zax said Gardner’s 86-cent number is not meaningful and should not be used. But at the same time he hinted at Democratic hypocrisy.

“Democrats in other contexts claim women are underpaid because they make the same calculation across the country.”

Earlier this year the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee pushed the hashtag #GOPpaygap on Twitter.

Despite Democratic hypocrisy: Gardner actively mislead

While Democrats may not like that Republicans now use their own logic against them – Gardner’s statement remains misleading.

His campaign chose not to respond to multiple CU News Corps inquiries. Instead, Republican National Committee spokesperson Raffi Williams defended Gardner and the GOP.

“All Republicans are for equal pay for equal work,” he wrote in an email. “But it’s strange when Mark Udall tries to use one formula for all Colorado women but then cries foul when the same math is used for his own female employees. Which is it, Mark?”

Williams pointed to a tweet Udall’s team had sent out earlier this year: “#CO women earn only $0.79 for every $1 their male counterparts make. We need to bridge this gap & pass #PaycheckFairness Act ASAP. #EqualPay.”

#CO women earn only $0.79 for every $1 their male counterparts make. We need to bridge this gap & pass #PaycheckFairness Act ASAP. #EqualPay
— Mark Udall (@MarkUdall) April 7, 2014

Chris Harris, Udall’s campaign spokesperson, didn’t want to hear any of it.

“Mark knows that when women do well, Colorado does well,” Harris wrote in an email. “[The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act and the Paycheck Fairness Act] ensure that when women are being unfairly discriminated against at the office, they have the tools and information necessary to make things right.”

At The Denver Post debate, Udall retorted Gardner’s attack.

“I’m reminded what Mark Twain famously said about statistics many years ago,” the senator said. “Let me make it very clear: I pay the women on my team the same for equal work.”

That Mark Twain? It’s this one: “There are lies, damned lies and statistics.”

As it turns out, Twain’s logic applies to the equally misleading statements of both candidates.

Off

Traditional

White

VoteNo67 falsely claims that Amendment 67 would ban all abortions

Anonymous — Thu, 23 Oct 2014 13:06:42 +0000

VoteNo67 falsely claims that Amendment 67 would ban all abortions Anonymous (not verified) Thu, 10/23/2014 - 07:06 Peri Duncan

The personhood issue in the upcoming midterms in Colorado is Amendment 67, also referred to as the “Brady Amendment.” This year it is centered on the premise that pregnant mothers and their unborn children need greater protection from violence than Colorado law already provides.

The VoteNo67 campaign, backed by Planned Parenthood Votes, is the main opponent of the legislation. The group’s website promotes the claim:

“Amendment 67 would ban all abortions in Colorado, including in cases of rape, incest and when the health of the mother is in danger.”

CU News Corps finds this claim to be false for the following reasons:

Amendment 67 does not specifically reference abortion at all, let alone specific situations; and
Although Amendment 67 may be further interpreted to impact abortion laws, it would not immediately ban abortion if passed.

Wording

Amendment 67 is worded on the ballot as follows:

“Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution protecting pregnant women and unborn children by defining ‘person’ and ‘child’ in the Colorado criminal code and the Colorado Wrongful Death Act to include unborn human beings?”

There is no mention of the word “abortion” in the amendment, let alone any reference to rape, incest, or situations where the health of the mother is in danger. It also specifies that it will be redefined in the Colorado criminal code and the Colorado wrongful death act, not necessarily the entire Colorado constitution.

The main goal of the amendment, according to the Voice for Brady campaign, is to protect pregnant mothers and their unborn children. However, its main proponents are Personhood USA and Colorado Right to Life, two pro-life organizations with the end goals of banning all abortions, although phrased in various ways.

The risk of Amendment 67 banning abortion in Colorado is in further court interpretation.

Interpretation

If Amendment 67 passed, it could not immediately ban abortion. Several prominent pro-life Republicans such as GOP gubernatorial candidate Bob Beauprez oppose the bill because they say the vague phrasing makes the repercussions unclear.

So what would Amendment 67 do right away?

The immediate impact of Amendment 67 would be exactly as it states: redefining “person” and “child” in the Colorado criminal code and the Colorado Wrongful Death Act to include unborn human beings, under the premise of protecting pregnant women and their unborn children from “wrongful death.”

What would need to happen to ban abortion in Colorado?

Courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, would have to interpret Amendment 67 and possibly overturn standing decisions. Abortion remains a legal right for all U.S. citizens. A federal ban on abortion would require overturning the Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling.

Even the most zealous organizations in favor of banning abortion do not believe that a state personhood measure alone has the potential to ban abortion.

National Pro-Life Alliance, a far-right organization, claims that passing a federal Life at Conception Act is the most effective way to overturn Roe v. Wade. Colorado U.S. Senate candidate and U.S. Rep. Cory Gardner (R-Yuma) co-sponsors the current federal Life at Conception Act. Because such pro-life organizations believe state personhood measures do not go far enough, it follows that their goal would not be reached with solely the passing of legislation such as Amendment 67.

Even if a case challenging Roe v. Wade was brought up to the Supreme Court based on Amendment 67, it would take a significant amount of time and other information before anything became of it.

A personhood amendment added to a state constitution might raise the likelihood that a case challenging Roe v. Wade could be brought to the Supreme Court. However, a ban would come from a court case and not a state constitutional amendment.

The legislation makes no reference to the word “abortion” at all, or any circumstances concerning an abortion. Due to these factors, VoteNo67’s statement that Amendment 67 would ban all abortions including cases of rape, incest, and when the health of the mother is in danger, is false.

Off

Traditional

White

Colorado underreports officer-involved shootings

Anonymous — Thu, 23 Oct 2014 13:06:42 +0000

Colorado underreports officer-involved shootings Anonymous (not verified) Thu, 10/23/2014 - 07:06 Katharina Buchholz

Lacking the digitized system other states use, Colorado struggles to accurately count the number of these deaths

National scrutiny of police shootings has been reignited with the violent protests in Ferguson, Missouri this summer. Still, it is difficult to gauge the impact officer-involved shootings have across the United States. In Colorado, official statistics on legal intervention deaths capture only a fraction of actual shooting deaths.

Stock image

In 2013, CU News Corps counted 20 fatal shootings by police officers in Colorado. Only eight of those appear in death statistics published by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. By switching to the revised U.S. Standard Death Certificate, Colorado could improve on this inaccurate statistic. A new web-based system will assist coroners and medical professionals with assigning deaths to the most accurate category.

“We won’t be the last, but we will be among the last states,” said Ron Hyman, Colorado’s registrar of vital statistics. “The thing that has held us up was primarily finding a funding source. It took us a while to convince the legislature that it was a good idea to raise the fees.”

The state will be the last in the union, along with Alabama, to make the change in early 2015. The new federal standard for recording deaths was implemented more than 10 years ago.

Because state governmental departments can introduce only a limited number of bills per legislative session, Hyman said preference was given to bills dealing with regulating inspections and emission standards for the oil and gas industry.

“Anytime you raise fees, especially fees many families have to pay, people view it as a tax increase and people are very sensitive to that,” Hyman said, adding that he promised to lower fees to from $20 to $18 once the system was paid for.

Death certificates previously cost $17 in Colorado. Hyman said an extra dollar would be kept for system maintenance.

Statistical Flaws Well Known

Statistics on officer-involved shooting deaths are also published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Violent Death Reporting System. The CDC’s system gathers data on officer-involved shootings by reviewing death certificates, coroner reports and police reports, but the process takes time; the latest year on record with the CDC is 2011.

While CDC numbers are generally more accurate, they are still far off. The National Violent Death Reporting System counted 11 people shot and killed by Colorado law enforcement in 2011. In the same year, CU News Corps found news articles on 16 separate fatal officer-involved shootings. The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment lists seven deaths caused by law enforcement in 2011.

Kirk Bol from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Vital Statistics Unit wrote in an email that data inaccuracies were well known.

“It is possible that a death involving law enforcement would not be coded to this category, which would happen if such mention was not made,” Bol said.

The offline system now in use in Colorado leaves it to county coroners to mention the involvement of law enforcement in a shooting death. But a law enforcement database collecting data of civilians killed by police action does not exist on a state or federal level.

“There has been talk for years about doing something like that, but it never gets done,” said Tim Lynch, director of the Cato Institute’s Project on Criminal Justice.

Police Hold On To Information

Cato, a libertarian think tank, has been running the National Police Misconduct Reporting Project since 2012. Lynch said lack of information was affecting many areas of law enforcement activity.

“The information is held by police departments, and they hold on to it very tightly,” Lynch said.

While the new system will be an improvement, training individuals who fill out death certificates remains important. In Colorado, these people are medical professionals, funeral home directors and coroners, who are elected officials.

“It won’t be fool-proof, but it will be a lot closer than where we are today,” said state registrar Hyman.

But late implementation also has advantages, Hyman said.

“The software is now mature. What we are purchasing now has been used by several states,” he said.

Colorado Victims Had Arrests Connected to Guns

In Colorado, people killed in police shootings in 2013 were predominantly white. According to CU News Corps numbers, six of the 20 deceased were Latino and two were black.

Out of the 20, 15 people threatened the police with real or simulated firearms before being shot and killed. Three victims brandished knives. One attacked police with a car. Another reached for the officer’s gun, according to the district attorney decision letter.

Seven people shot at police.

Six had previous arrests for carrying concealed weapons illegally, possessing a weapon while intoxicated or felony menacing with a real or simulated weapon. Not all suspects were charged with an offense.

Anyone charged with a felony cannot legally own a gun in Colorado. But illegal concealed carry and carrying a gun while intoxicated are in many cases a misdemeanor.

Sonny Jackson, spokesman for the Denver Police Department, said every officer-involved shooting had its nuances, and blanket statements should not be made.

“I know officers are trained to stop the threat. No one feels good about having to use a weapon,” Jackson said.

Persons shot by police carried legal guns, illegal guns, dysfunctional guns, pellet guns and even toy guns.

Jackson said that Denver police thought realistic-looking replica weapons “represent issues,” the same as illegal guns carried by people who cannot own a gun under Colorado law.

“If you have something you are not supposed to have, that’s a problem,” Jackson said.

Almost One-Third Were Suicidal

Roughly a third of the offenders had expressed suicidal thoughts or were experiencing mental illness prior to their deaths by the hands of police, according to district attorney decision letters.

Individuals who were shot by police while they were experiencing suicidal episodes often had an arrest record lacking weapons offenses or a clean arrest record and typically did not fire a weapon at police.

“I believe there are indeed people who are suicidal and engage law enforcement in their deaths,” said Jarrod Hindman, suicide prevention unit manager at the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment.

Hindman said his office encouraged calling law enforcement to help with a person who is in danger of harming themselves as a last resort. Before that, friends and family should encourage the individual to see their primary care physician, go to the emergency room or call the suicide lifeline. Lifeline also offers advice to someone who is helping a suicidal individual.

Hindman said that while these individuals were a small group compared to overall suicide numbers, the real toll was on law enforcement. First responders also experience an elevated level of suicide, Hindman said.

“It’s a male-dominated field, and access to lethal means is a component,” Hindman said. “Law enforcement officers are very familiar with firearms and how to use them. It’s something they are trying to change, but it’s still very much a culture of taking care of themselves, and it keeps guys from reaching out and asking for help.”

Concrete Cases Differ

Out of the seven who are confirmed to have opened fire on officers, four had previously been arrested for mishandling weapons, Colorado Bureau of Investigation background checks showed. Two had no felony record.

Sonny Archuleta of Aurora shot and killed his sister-in-law, his father-in-law and a family friend at a residence in Aurora and was shot in a standoff with police at the same location on Jan. 5, 2013. Archuleta had been arrested for prohibited use of a weapon twice and carrying a concealed weapon once in between 2004 and 2012. He had no felony record.
Ronette Morales of Denver exchanged gunfire with police at her apartment when officers tried to serve a warrant on Jan. 30, 2013. Morales was arrested for menacing with a deadly weapon in 2011, but the charge was dismissed by the district attorney. Morales was shot by police in the presence of her two children. She had no felony record.

Two offenders opened fire on police who had no previous arrest record.

Christopher Tavares of Colorado Springs injured Pueblo police officer Michael Slattery in a New Year’s day shooting before being shot by officers. His was the first gun death in Colorado in 2013.
Gerald Rubin of Durango took an overdose of pain medication on April 29, 2013. He fired at officers who were alerted to his suicidal behavior in a Durango park.

If you feel you are in danger of harming yourself or someone else, please talk to someone. Call the 1-800-273-8255 (TALK) or visithttp://www.suicidepreventioncolorado.org/.

CU News Corps is an investigative news project housed in the College of Media, Communication and Information at the University of Colorado Boulder. Currently, graduate students and undergrads are working on two projects: Colorado Gun Dialog and a 2014 election fact-checking project.

CU News Corps has been tracking Colorado gun deaths since January 2013 and has had stories published in several Colorado media outlets during that time. Find archived stories.

Off

Traditional

White

Prop 105 misleads on health, safety of genetically modified food

Anonymous — Tue, 14 Oct 2014 13:06:42 +0000

Prop 105 misleads on health, safety of genetically modified food Anonymous (not verified) Tue, 10/14/2014 - 07:06 Paul McDivitt

While both supporters and opponents of Proposition 105 have centered their campaigns on the question of whether labeling genetically modified food would impose unnecessary burdens on consumers, regulators, and farmers, little attention has been paid to the motivation behind the measure.

Prop 105 misleads on health, safety of genetically modified food

CU News Corps analyzed the “Colorado Right to Know Act” — which would become law if Proposition 105 is approved by voters next month — and found several claims that are at odds with the scientific consensus on the health, safety, and environmental impact of genetically modified food.

The act states, “Labeling of genetically modified food is intended to provide consumers with the opportunity to make an informed choice of the products they consume and to protect the public’s health, safety and welfare.”

This statement implies that genetically modified foods pose a threat to the public’s health, but the America n Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Medical Association, and the World Health Organization have all concluded that genetically modified foods are safe to eat. In fact, the National Academies of Sciences found, “No adverse health effects attributed to genetic engineering have been documented in the human population.”

Pamela Ronald, a geneticist at the University of California-Davis, agrees that the act does not accurately portray the state of the science on genetic engineering.

“Virtually everything we eat has been genetically altered using some method,” she said in an interview with CU News Corps. “National academies around the world have concluded that the process of genetic engineering produces no unique risks compared to conventional methods of modification and that the crops currently on the market are safe to eat.”

Genetic engineering is similar to selective breeding, a conventional method of genetic alteration in which plants with desirable traits, such as sweetness or disease resistance, are selectively bred so that their offspring are more likely to possess such traits. This method has been used by humans for centuries, and is responsible for much of the agricultural abundance we enjoy today.

According to Ronald, there are two key differences between selective breeding and genetic engineering. First, selective breeding mixes large sets of genes while genetic engineering typically inserts one or a few selected genes. Second, while selective breeding only allows gene transfer between closely related species, genetic engineering can introduce any gene into a plant. These two differences are advantageous because they allow for increased precision and variety.

The act also claims, “The long term health, safety and environmental consequences of growing and consuming genetically modified food are not yet fully researched and are not yet well understood by science.”

While the technology is still relatively new, it is not true that genetically engineered foods have not been thoroughly researched. A review by Italian researchers found 1,783 studies published between 2002 and 2012 on genetically modified foods, concluding, “The scientific research conducted so far has not detected any significant hazards directly connected with the use of GE crops.”

Another statement in the act reads, “U.S. federal law does not provide for the regulation on the safety and labeling of genetically modified food.”

In fact, three separate federal agencies regulate genetically modified foods on a case-by-case basis before they are approved for human consumption.

While the state of the science is clear on the health and safety of genetically modified food, the picture is a bit murkier when it comes to the environmental effects. The implementation of herbicide-resistant corn has resulted in the increased use of herbicides, which environmentalists argue is speeding up the development of herbicide-resistant “superweeds.” But other genetically modified foods have yielded environmental benefits.

For example, much of the corn and cotton grown in the United States has been genetically modified to include a gene from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis, or Bt, that produces a protein that acts as a natural insecticide.

“The benefits of many of these crops are significant,” said Ronald. “The planting of Bt crops has reduced the use of sprayed insecticides tenfold over the last 15 years.”

These three statements help to paint a clearer picture of the motivation behind efforts to label genetically modified food. Reports claiming that these foods are unhealthy, unsafe, and bad for the environment have been widely circulated among the American public, but are not backed by thorough scientific analysis.

While there is still much to learn about genetically modified food, the Colorado Right to Know Act clearly distorts current scientific understanding of their health, safety, and environmental impacts.

Photo used with permission from Chris Goodwin at desrowvisuals.com

Off

Traditional

White

Voice for Brady ad deceives and misstates facts

Anonymous — Fri, 10 Oct 2014 13:06:42 +0000

Voice for Brady ad deceives and misstates facts Anonymous (not verified) Fri, 10/10/2014 - 07:06 Peri Duncan

Amendment 67, another personhood issue on the Colorado ballot (Coloradans rejected two similar amendments in 2008 and 2010), continues to produce many deceptive and emotionally charged claims on both sides.

The “Voice for Brady” campaign is the primary supporter of the proposed amendment to the state constitution and the group behind the advertising campaign for its passage. It counts on support from Personhood USA, a pro-life organization, which is also backing a similar measure in North Dakota. Its website hosts pages for Amendment 67 and North Dakota’s Measure 1.

Much of the imagery and wording on the Personhood USA page about Amendment 67 mirrors the “A Voice for Brady” website, including the following statement:

“Because Colorado law doesn’t recognize Brady as a person, there was no prosecution for his tragic death.”

CU News Corps finds this claim to be deceptive for the following reasons:

It uses a trusted propaganda technique, “appeal to emotion:”
- The statement references Heather Surovik’s unborn child in a very personal and emotional way, as “Brady,” his would-be first name.
- The statement refers to the accident as “his tragic death,” an emotionally charged statement.

While these emotional appeals may distort the truth, News Corps found the following piece to be plain wrong:

The statement claims there was “no prosecution” for the death of the unborn child.

Background

Early in the 2012 legislative session, before the loss of Heather Surovik’s unborn child, the Colorado General Assembly attempted and failed to pass HB 12-1130, “Concerning offenses against an unborn child,” which introduced a series of “unlawful termination of a pregnancy” offenses as Class 3 felonies. Later that year, Surovik’s pregnancy ended at eight months when she was involved in an automobile crash.

In reaction to that crash, the legislature in 2013 passed HB 13-1154, “Concerning Crimes Against Pregnant Women,” introducing new offenses similar to those in HB12-1130. The law contained more details and harsher sentencing than its 2012 version, classifying some cases of unlawful termination of a pregnancy as Class 1 and Class 2 felonies. It also added mandatory sentencing for violent crimes, including first- and second-degree unlawful termination of a pregnancy.

In 2014 Colorado passed HB 14-1388, in order to “allow a woman to sue a person who ‘intentionally, knowingly or recklessly’ causes an ‘unlawful termination of her pregnancy’ for her own economic damages, non-economic damages and exemplary damages.”

These laws do not ban abortion, nor do they have the potential to. They also do not give personhood to an unborn child. But they do answer the call for legislation that addresses the loss of a fetus.

Personhood USA opposed all of these bills, and the Brady Campaign says the legislation doesn’t go far enough.

Appeal to Emotion

The tactic of appealing to readers’ emotions manipulates certain responses in place of using valid or compelling arguments. Although some valid arguments may include emotional aspects, emotions can and will cloud the logic of an argument for the reader.

“This is done instead of appealing directly to the values and policies being debated: it is also usually a red herring, since the personhood amendment would do a lot more than just change the circumstances of this specific case,” said Kelsey Cody, a graduate student and writing instructor at the University of Colorado at Boulder.

Heather Surovik was eight months pregnant at the time of the car crash. Referencing Heather Surovik’s unborn child by his given name, Personhood USA and “A Voice for Brady” appeal to the emotions of the reader. This is a significant problem because it is more difficult for readers to detach themselves and logically assess the consequences of an issue when their emotions are being manipulated, Cody said.

“His Tragic Death”

Calling the accident “his tragic death,” the statement once again uses the fallacy of appealing to readers’ emotions.

The first key piece of the phrase “his tragic death” is the word “his.” Using gendered pronouns in reference to the unborn child, despite that the child would have been born a male, is furthering the personification of the fetus and equating the life of the unborn to that of a fully developed human. The reader is likely unaware that this appeal to emotion is happening when reading this statement, as it is presented as fact.

The second piece of the phrase, the words “tragic death,” already puts the incident in a certain light in the mind of the reader. Although situations such as this one are often referred to as tragedies, Amendment 67 is not about the tragedy itself, it is about the protection of pregnant mothers and their unborn children. The use of the word “tragic” plays on the readers’ emotions.

“No prosecution”

The statement claims there was “no prosecution” for the death of the unborn child.

Gary Sheats, the drunk driver who hit Surovik on July 5, 2012, had a blood alcohol level of .292 at the time of the accident. This was his fifth DUI charge, and he was driving on a revoked license. He also suffered from stage-IV Lymphoma, and his father said Sheats only had a short time left to live.

The DUI charge itself is only a misdemeanor, warranting between two months and a year in jail. Stan Garnett, the Boulder County district attorney, charged Sheats with multiple felony charges of vehicular assault involving DUI, as well as leaving the scene of an accident that caused serious bodily injury.

Sheats pleaded guilty in February 2013 to two counts of felony vehicular assault and DUI, facing up to 20 years in prison.

On March 13, 2013, the Denver Officer of the Medical Examiner confirmed that a man found dead the day before in a Denver Motel 6 was Gary Sheats, the drunk driver who caused the death of Heather Surovik’s unborn child.

For these reasons, the statement that there was “no prosecution” is wrong.

“There was a prosecution, and it was quite vigorous. Mr. Sheats was found guilty and would have been sentenced to 20 years in prison. Though it is true that there was no prosecution specifically related to the loss of the fetus, the lack of a ‘personhood’ designation was not the reason, as the statement suggests. Rather, it was due to a gap in the law that has been filled by recent statute,” Garnett said. The statutes he refers to are the above-mentioned Colorado House bills.

To clarify, Sheats, who was dying of cancer, was not prosecuted specifically for the part he played in the death of Surovik’s unborn child. He was prosecuted for multiple counts of vehicular assault involving DUI as well as leaving the crime scene and sentenced to 20 years in prison. Shortly after he pleaded guilty to these charges, Sheats took his own life. Despite the fact that the statement may specifically refer to the lack of prosecution for the loss of the fetus, it is plain wrong because of its finality and lack of detail on the actual conclusion of the case against Sheats.

In summary, the phrasing of this statement from the “Voice for Brady” and Personhood campaigns hardly represents the truth. Although seemingly harmless, referring to the unborn child as “Brady,” along with labeling his death as “tragic” is deceptive through appealing to the emotion of the reader and can severely inhibit his or her understanding of the statement. There is also no clarification or any mention at all of what happened to the drunk driver, aside from the phrase, “no prosecution.” Without further clarification to the reader that the statement references specifically the loss of the fetus, the phrase “no prosecution” is plain wrong.

**Note: Previously, CU News Corps fact-checked a Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee’s advertisement against Cory Gardner. In order to continue balanced coverage, this fact check addresses the opposite side of the issue.**

Off

Traditional

White

Hickenlooper campaign polishes business-creation rankings

Anonymous — Fri, 10 Oct 2014 13:06:42 +0000

Hickenlooper campaign polishes business-creation rankings Anonymous (not verified) Fri, 10/10/2014 - 07:06 Lars Gesing

Colorado incumbent Gov. John Hickenlooper insists his leadership has helped Colorado’s economy bounce back from the latest recession that hit the state hard.

On the campaign trail this fall, Hickenlooper faces a fierce challenge from former Republican Rep. Bob Beauprez, who continuously questions the governor’s policy contributions to the state’s recovery. Beauprez reiterated his concerns during a debate at The Denver Post last week.

“There are still many people in Colorado wondering where this recovery is for them,” the Republican candidate said.

On its website, Hickenlooper’s campaign staff does its own “fact check” of the Beauprez camp attacks. It concludes, “False Claim: Beauprez attacks Gov. Hickenlooper’s leadership on the economy.” As proof, team Hickenlooper brings up an array of economic rankings, among them this one: “Colorado is now ranked [the] second-best state in the country to start a business.”

CU News Corps took a close look at that specific statement and found that it polishes the ranking and lacks crucial context.

Innovation and entrepreneurship only part of the puzzle

The study the governor and his staff cite is the fourth annual Enterprising States report, published by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Foundation. The organization is an arm of the conservative-leaning U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which – contrary to popular belief – is not an agency of the government, but is in fact the largest and most active lobbying group in the country.

The report lists Colorado at number two for innovation and entrepreneurship, second only to Maryland. The two measures take into account half a dozen determinants.

Science, technology, engineering and math occupation concentration
STEM job growth
High-technology businesses as a share of all businesses
Academic research and development activity
Birthrate of business establishments
Growth in full- and part-time self-employment

That ranking is certainly good news for Colorado entrepreneurs and the sitting governor. But it is also only one part of the Chamber of Commerce Foundation’s evaluation and subsequently only one factor that plays into the decision of whether or not to start a business in Colorado.

The same report ranks the state fifth in performance, seventh in business climate and 10th in both the “talent pipeline” and “infrastructure” categories. These sections also provide important and necessary context for 1) a new business to consider before launching and 2) for voters to keep in mind when the governor talks about Colorado’s number-two ranking in business creation.

The Hickenlooper campaign did not return multiple calls and emails, and spokesperson Eddie Stern’s mailbox was full on Friday when NewsCorps tried to reach him one last time.

Although the state’s ranking specifically for innovation and entrepreneurship hasn’t changed from 2013 to 2014, the report notes a trend that is also necessary for context. In the last 12 months, innovation and entrepreneurship have nationally decreased 7.5 percent on average. In Colorado the decrease wasn’t quite as bad, but with 1.7 percent it dropped nonetheless.

The report’s authors write, “Colorado is a leader in measures of technology and entrepreneurship, offering a strong support network for innovators.” They specifically cite the Colorado Innovation Network, which the state’s economic development office launched in 2011 (during Hickenlooper’s first term) to rally industry support for the creation of a startup-friendly business environment.

Venture-capital investors hesitant

In August, COIN published its 2014 annual Innovation Report. It found:

“Colorado has a technically trained workforce and is developing new talent in the fields of science, technology, engineering and math,
Colorado has been successful in undertaking new research into new findings with commercial potential,
Colorado ranks among the highest of its peer-group states (Arizona, California, Georgia, Illinois, Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina, Texas and Utah) for startup creation and job creation, and
Colorado companies are doing well at obtaining federal grants, yet they need to improve their ability to attract interest from the venture capital community.”

Beauprez is trumpeting up and down the campaign trail that access to venture capital is a problem for Colorado’s economy.

Venture capital is money provided to small, high-potential startups early in the creation process. Potential investors hesitating is a central component of Beauprez’s criticism of Hickenlooper’s economic leadership, which the governor’s staff is trying to disprove with its own fact check.

Beauprez’s website states, “Companies, like startups, clearly want to locate in Colorado. But access to venture capital has decreased.” It also quotes a Denver Business Journal story, which reads, “The state comes out on top for startup and job creation, but venture capital investment in the state has been declining steady since 2012, causing the state to lag behind its peers. Nationally, VC has been growing.”

Kauffman Index: Colorado 5th in new businesses started

For more context on Colorado’s position in the national race for business creation, it is worth considering other reports, too, such as the Kauffman Index of Entrepreneurial Activity.

The nonpartisan Kauffman Foundation, a Kansas City-based group working to enhance entrepreneurial activity across the U.S., looks at Census data to determine the number of new business owners in their first month of significant entrepreneurial activity.

The index ranked Colorado fifth in the nation, with 380 per 100,000 adults who started a new business here each month. Montana led the pack with 610 new entrepreneurs per 100,000 adults. The average across the U.S. was 280.

The Kauffman Index serves as a good numeric indicator of how many prospective entrepreneurs each state can convince to actually start a business within its borders. Therefore the report should not be left out of the equation when making statements about emerging-business rankings.

To conclude, Colorado is certainly among the handful of states in the country that are leaders in attracting new businesses. But the Hickenlooper campaign’s sweeping statement doesn’t stand the test of more careful examination. It is overly broad and not representative. Rather, the governor’s staff grabbed the best-looking number they could find and stripped off crucial context.

Off

Traditional

White

Colorado Republicans misrepresent the science on climate change

Anonymous — Tue, 07 Oct 2014 13:06:42 +0000

Colorado Republicans misrepresent the science on climate change Anonymous (not verified) Tue, 10/07/2014 - 07:06 Paul McDivitt

In recent debates hosted by theDenver Post, candidates were asked a series of yes-or-no questions by the moderators. One of those questions was, “Do you believe humans are contributing significantly to climate change?” Republican gubernatorial challenger Bob Beauprez and sixth district incumbent Republican Congressman Mike Coffman both answered “no,” putting them in clear contrast with the established scientific consensus on the issue.

The coal-fired Craig Station power plant in northwest Colorado is the state's largest single source of CO2 emissions. (Wikimedia Commons)

Both tried to clarify their answer later in the debate.

“Are we going to end or alter the path that Earth’s evolution is going to take? I don’t think so,” said Beauprez.

“On the climate change issue, I just think the science is not quite settled,” said Coffman.

While Beauprez’s campaign website does not mention climate change, Coffman’s does. It states, “The role that carbon emissions, from human activity, have on climate change is still a subject of debate.”

In an interview with CU News Corps, Kevin Trenberth, a climate scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, called this statement “emphatically wrong.”

“The human component is so far outside natural variability in many ways,” Trenberth said. “The estimates suggest that any natural variability has, if anything, worked against the warming.”

The scientific consensus that humans are contributing significantly to climate change is well established, and has been for quite some time. In 2006, the American Association for the Advancement of Science concluded, “The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society.” In 2012, the American Meteorological Society summarized, “It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases.” In fact, nearly 200 science organizations from around the world hold the position that human activity is causing climate change.

Furthermore, a 2010 study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found that 97 to 98 percent of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the basic tenets of human-caused climate change. In another study, researchers examined nearly 12,000 studies on climate change between 1991 and 2011 and found that, among those expressing a position, 97.1 percent endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing climate change.

While uncertainties remain regarding exactly how climate change will manifest itself in the coming decades and centuries, there is virtually no debate within the scientific community on whether human activity is the dominant cause of recent warming, putting Bob Beauprez and Mike Coffman’s debate comments firmly out-of-step with the scientific literature on the subject.

Off

Traditional

White