Robert, this is an honest question.
Do you believe that the Second Amendment ensures the right of the people to own flamethrowers, .50 caliber machine guns and bombs?
I noticed that the mention of a representative wishing to alter The Bill of Rights was not included. Or is this just Gazette bashing again (it is getting old and tiresome CSIndy and also seems very immature). If you want to call yourself a newspaper then try to stick with news, the unbiased kind. Letter writers and commenters who start with "(insert political party here) are doing the bad stuff not mine" assure the reader that anything after that will be utterly asinine, without merit and a waste of time. The plethora of misinformation and misguided biases abound.
Speaking from personal experience, it is obvious that Wayne Laugesen distorts facts and twists truths.
Last year, writing as Ziggy Rainbeaux, I uncovered evidence of serial plagiarism by former state senator Ed Jones. His opinions as a "guest columnist" were often sought and published by the Gazette.
When I showed Wayne Laugesen twelve examples of "appropriations without attribution" from a single Ed Jones column, he expressed concern and assured me a full investigation would ensue. He would speak with Jones while his staff reviewed every column Jones had submitted.
Approximately 24 hours later, Mr. Laugesen assured me that no other columns contained plagiarized phrases, sentences, or paragraphs. He also believed Mr. Jones version of the events and offered me an opportunity to speak with and question Mr. Jones.
I was dissatisfied with Jones' evasive answers and, if possible, believed him less after our 20-minute telephone conversation. When challenged by Jones to prove that he purposefully plagiarized, I started reading his earlier columns.
The following day, the Gazette published a short statement that defended Jones' explanation: The original author's name could not be located (at the bottom of a website).
Thirty-six hours later, I had found evidence of plagiarism in seven other articles. Having been misled by Wayne Laugesen, if not outright lied to about the Gazette's investigation of Jones, I contacted the Independent and the rest is history.
The Gazette deleted every guest column once attributed to Jones. He deleted them from his eponymous website and for months did not have another Gazette column published.
But Laugesen is still around, still ignoring facts and twisting truths.
El producto .... Thanks. I can see my comments on a computer, but not a phone. My bad in blaming the Indy! Glad they are up. Obviously a setting on my phone.
any one really get it that Keith King wrote the recall election bill? Yep, our idiot in charge...big fat republican...
Indy, another question you should have asked of Laugesen: The editorial states "...nearly 25 percent of registered voters...demanded a recall."
He gets the 25 percent by two errors. First, he used the 16,000 signatures rather than the 10,137 verified signatures. Laugesen will give the same nonsense argument on that that he gave you earlier. However, he also used the number of "active voters" (about 69,000) rather than the number of "registered voters" (over 83,000). Even using the 16,000 signature number you get 19 percent of registered voters, not "nearly 25 percent." And using verified signatures from registered voters compared to the number of registered voters gives 12 percent.
Laugesen either doesn't know the difference between registered voters and active voters, or, well, he knew the number was false. Does he want to acknowledge ignorance or mendacity?
Colorado Native. It doesn't seem like the Indy is censoring you. You've left three comments.
Was there something else you wanted to say?
I want to see all comments.
Interesting. My post was deleted. Who has control of the comments for The Independent? I'd say The Independent does. Hypocrites? Absolutely if they delete posts that don't agree with their article. Ill just have to post it again.
Ben - you've been asking that question for a month. I'd think it would be a simple thing to go over, or call, the folks over at a whole lotta people and ask them if your name is on there. If you were that concerned you would already have your answer. But, I'd say you are a hypocrite and fanning the flames making people question the legitimacy of the petition signatures as a whole when enough signatures have already been certified, twice. Morse has lead a party line over reach on many issues, not just gun control laws. He needs to go.
Does anyone know where to see a list of recall petition signatures? I want to make sure my name is not fraudulently on the list.
the geezerette and loggersin are both tin foil hat wearing clueless goofs. they are always for the 1% and are always for screwing everyone else. who still reads that rag? it has become nothing more than a tabloid and mouthpiece for the tin foil hat wearers... yes the teabaggers.
Thank you for this intelligent breakdown of the situation. While I am still a recall supporter, I do not appreciate the misleading writings on the issue by The Gazette over the past weeks.
And the typo (hopefully) on the spelling of "notary" does not concern me so much as the fact that an editor for a citywide newspaper does not know how to pluralize compound nouns...as in "notaries public." Oy.
There is a very important aspect of the proposed Operating Lease Agreement with University of Colorado Health (“UCH”) which has gone completely without notice, explanation or public comment. I have read the proposed Integration and Affiliation Agreement and the Operating Lease Agreement and find no mention of the issue.
Memorial Hospital is currently owned by the City of Colorado Springs. For that reason it enjoys governmental immunity under the statutes of Colorado. Consequently, all persons must file a notice of claim to the appropriate persons as a jurisdictional prerequisite to filing a legal claim against Memorial Hospital. UCS is also a governmental entity which also requires notice of claim to be served within 180 days. No significant change on this issue.
However, what has not been addressed to my knowledge is the potential change in the caps on damages which may be awarded in cases of preventable medical error. The governmental immunity act limits any and all damages against a public entity to $150,000. While this may be sufficient for some cases, it clearly is not sufficient to compensate a person who has suffered a catastrophic injury or death.
According to the Institute of Medicine, preventable medical errors kill as many as 98,000 Americans every year, and injure countless more. If the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) were to include preventable medical errors as a category, it would be the sixth leading cause of death in America. While it is hoped that UCH will operate a better safer system for all patients, it is a fact that preventable medical errors resulting in serious injury and death will not be eliminated. The operation of the UCS system in its present form is proof of that fact.
The City of Colorado Springs has a history of acting responsibly to the citizens of this region with regard to preventable medical errors by adopting a resolution which replaces the $150,000 cap. Pursuant to Resolution 6-99, The City of Colorado Springs has waived the damage limitations set forth in the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act to the extent of recovery available under the Colorado Health Care Availability Act (the same as any non-governmental entity). Memorial Health Systems, Inc. is insured under two liability policies with total coverage in the amount of $11,000,000.00. The City of Colorado Springs decided that this was the right and responsible thing to do to ensure that the citizens of the Pikes Peak Region and beyond are afforded adequate compensation in the event of serious injury or death as a result of preventable medical error.
The citizens of Colorado Springs should carefully consider this aspect of the proposed agreement with UCS and require that, as part of the agreement, UCS makes itself responsible to the citizens of Colorado Springs through the passing of a similar resolution to continue to ensure that claims under the UCS Operating Lease Agreement does not leave the citizens of this region with a completely inadequate remedy if they suffer serious injury or death as a result of a preventable medical error in the Memorial Health System. If not the proposed Operating Lease Agreement should be rejected.
Incidentally, the 1988 Health Care Availability Act (HCAA) [C.R.S.§§ 13-64-101, et seq.] contains several limitations on damages. Recovery against all health care professionals and institutions is limited to a total of $1,000,000, including punitive damages. Within the $1,000,000 limit, noneconomic losses are subject to a limit of $300,000. However, the judge in a medical malpractice case is allowed to enter a judgment exceeding the $1,000,000 recovery cap only in specific instances on good cause shown. For example, the 15 million dollar verdict mentioned in another article was severely reduced before judgment was entered due to the HCAA caps.
Why can't I find anything on how this will affect current employees of Memorial Hospital or what safeguards are in place to ensure jobs will not be lost or employees laid off? Your article says staff will be kept for "6 months" and after that?? Will pay cuts or lay-offs follow in 6 months time? My wife is employed by Memorial Hospital and there is no mention of this in all of the meetings that have been held to "inform" staff of what is happening. Colorado Springs running the hospital system may not be the answer, but a little more transparency on how this will affect peoples livelihoods would be nice.
A fair and balanced review of the referendum. It should be noted, however, that CS has substantial voice in the governance of the future Memorial; they have 140 pages of contract and integration plan locking in how the new Memorial will operate over the next forty years, plus, starting in nine years, there's an annual renegotiation of the lease, meaning there's plenty of opportunity for Colorado Springs to continue to exert its influence over the new merger. What the City gives up in not being on the Hospital Board is the day-to-day management of the hospital. Let's see... maintain the city's control over the financially struggling, market-share losing hospital, or merge it with the #1 ranked hospital system in the state of Colorado? Most taxpayers here in Colorado Springs would see that as a positive, not a negative. Last, you infer that Memorial employees have greater job security under the current situation than they would have under the new UCH agreement. How so? UCH has agreed to do something the City has not, which is guarantee everybody's job for six months. Under current policy, the City could let go tomorrow morning 1,000 employees at Memorial, which they'll probably have to do the morning after the election if it fails.
How are we, as a community, going to allow this from an elected official? What do we need to do to put our foot down? It is a public office that this mayor holds, and as such, he cannot be allowed to continue to act in the pompous way he has been acting.
Everyone wanting to see the purposed lease agreement developed by the committee (I would bet the RFL did it) should look at this link: http://www.springsgov.com/units/communicat…
The board on 2 September 2011 was talking about developing a lease and on 7 September 2011 I got a copy of the lease sent to me by the city dated 9 September 2011. Seems really interesting they were talking about how detailed and depth the lease needed to be and the 5 days later it is released. Those that trust the process would assume they burned the midnight oil, others would say there is something rotten here and everything sure looks preplanned and a fraud. Come on Colorado Springs we can do better than this
All of you need to read the minutes of the meeting from 9/2/11 on the following website. http://www.springsgov.com/Page.aspx?NavID=… It is interesting that NONE of the questions asked by citizens who attended the meeting or the answers provided by the committee were included in the minutes. It seems because of the high level of concern about how the Mayor and the RLF having free reign to have secretive meetings and backroom deals without the requirements of transparency under the Open Meetings act and the Sunshine law the board didn’t choose to make that part of the official record. Sure looks like records tampering to me. They didn’t even record the Mayors childish statement that he would remove himself from the committee if he had to obey the law.
All content © Copyright 2013, The Colorado Springs Independent
Website powered by Foundation