| NEW YORK TIMES
Jan 10 2019 When I see a woman trudging across the desert carrying her baby, I see a promising new citizen. I see someone with the gumption to pick up and leave her family and friends and everything familiar for an uncertain future in a new land, but with enough faith in herself that she'll stake her life on it. I see a future American. The United States is the exceptional country because we built ourselves with people like that. The ones with backbone and audacity, self-selected from among many others without the courage to try. The best immigrants are not the ones with high skills who can step into success here and know it. Our reinvigoration comes from those with nothing but their resolve and their confidence that they can build a new life here. These are the brave ones, the ones who can proudly call themselves "American". America has remade itself again and again with our O'Malleys, Alberghinis, Huangs, Gottschalks, Cohens, Kowalskis, Singhs, Ortegas and all the others who came here in desperate waves, bringing only the initiative and the boldness that those they left behind could not muster. It is from this varied stock that we have built an exceptional nation, and those now coming across our southern border are just the latest version. We cannot welcome everyone, but the readiness to travel far amid many dangers is a recommendation in itself. It speaks to the essence of what made America, and is our unique national characteristic. Our new arrivals should be celebrated. |
| NEW YORK TIMES
May 31 2017 Re: Trump Expected to Pull U.S. From Paris Climate Accord (May 31) People of 100 years from now will not remember whether our tax rates went up or down, whether Planned Parenthood is defunded, or even whether Obamacare survives. For one thing, though they could cause much misery, those are reversible actions. But 100 years from now those crucial issues of today will be details that only serious students of history will ponder. What everyone then will remember is what we did or did not do about global warming. They will remember because they will be living either in a world that has surmounted this challenge, or one that has descended into chaos because we - the people of today - let this tragedy unfold. Everyone 100 years from now will be keenly aware of our response, and the Paris accord is our best chance to choose the fate of the future world. |
| NEW YORK TIMES
Dec 3 2015 Re "On guns, we're not even trying" (Nicholas Kristof column, Dec 3) According to the TSA, an average of 35 people per week are stopped at airport security checkpoints with loaded weapons. So far, none of these people have been terrorists or had any evil intent; they simply forgot that the gun was in their purse or backpack. Of course, such a weapon is useless for self-defense since the owner didn't even know it was there. But these are the guns that are stolen and go into the criminal underground, or are found by little hands that every parent knows get into everything. The Washington Post recently reported that a toddler age 3 or under shoots another toddler about once per week. With all the warning signs at TSA checkpoints, forgetting that a loaded gun is in a carry-on is indisputable evidence that the holder is careless with weapons, putting the rest of us in danger. An appropriate penalty would be loss of the right to carry a gun for a year. |
| NEW YORK TIMES
Mar 6 2015 David Brooks estimates that redistribution of the excess income gains of the top 1% would produce $7000 per household per year for the bottom 99%. He dismisses that number compared to the potential income gains from more education. But $7000 per year would pay off a lot of student loans and thereby enable many more to get the education Brooks extols, since much evidence shows that cost deters millions from bettering their skills. $7000 per year might seems a small number to Brooks, but widely distributed would have a large multiplier on the economy as a whole: Instead of one household concentrating many $7000s to buy an apartment overlooking Central Park, many households would buy new appliances, eat out more often, take vacations, or make other purchases that would support far more than a few doormen and concierges. Finally, Brooks calls those who highlight inequality "combative and divisive". I am reminded of the "shrill" accusation often used to deflect the substantive arguments of feminists. But when a small group uses its dominance of the political process to reap accelerating gains at the expense of the rest, who is "divisive"? Who is "combative"? |
| NEW YORK TIMES
Mar 17 2014 Re: Billionaires With Big Ideas Are Privatizing American Science As a seagoing oceanographer, I am familiar with the decay of our observing systems described in your article: older ships that cannot be maintained, observing buoys unserviced for lack of ships, and many similar consequences of budget cutbacks that are often unseen by the public. But the solution cannot be to have billionaires take on these tasks that are fundamentally communal and longterm: providing the underlying observational infrastructure that lets society recognize and respond to weather and climate changes. It will not serve us well to depend on the whims of those who - using talents unrelated to scientific challenges - have accumulated the billions of dollars that allow them to make large donations. These whims often tend towards the cute, the engaging and the easily explained. Their philanthropic choices happen almost by chance; who a donor met at an event, which news story caught her eye, what appealed to his personal interest. The scientific judgement of these billionaires is unlikely to coincide with the real needs of research progress. By contrast, publicly-supported science is an admittedly-imperfect system of rational decision-making about research investments. It recognizes that much necessary science is unglamorous and even routine. This is certainly true in my field of climate science. Rather than being based on headline-grabbing "discoveries" that might appeal to impatient billionaires, much of the real work consists of ongoing monitoring of field conditions, work that is essential to discern slow and complex variations in an environment filled with chaotic day-to-day events. By definition, if you are looking for a signal that manifests over decades, you must be prepared for many years of careful observing without immediate reward. This is not a task likely to be supported by a philanthropist, who would in any case find that a "discovery" makes sense only in the context of a much larger research enterprise. It requires longterm public investment that is now sadly shrinking. Other fields of science will have their own examples, but we are long past the day when individual donors can direct the research that modern society depends on. This is inherently a public responsibility in a physically and economically interdependent world.
|
| NEW YORK TIMES
Aug 24 2013 Re: Hedge funds win ruling in Argentina bond case You describe the machinations of some American billionaires trying to extract more billions from a poor country that plainly cannot pay. Buying what was clearly assumed to be near-worthless debt for "pennies on the dollar", they are now trying to get American courts to force Argentina to pay the full face value, plus 10 years of interest. If they continue to be successful in court, the result will be (a) Argentina will be even poorer, (b) the accepted arrangements many such countries have with international lenders will be destabilized, (c) antagonism towards the U.S. can only increase, (d) the hedge fund billionaires will get even richer. Obviously the billionaires think that only (d) matters. Forgive me for not being excited that this is "legal history in the making". The word "vultures" you quote Argentine President Kirchner as using is thoroughly appropriate, in its connotation of "predator", "extortionist", "bloodsucker". I cannot comprehend what compels those who already have more money than they could possibly spend to seek more in such a rapacious and destructive way. As that great New Yorker Jerry Seinfeld famously asked "Who ARE these people?" |
| NEW YORK TIMES
Aug 22 2013 Re: For art dealers, a new life on the fair circuit I pity the art dealers whose business has moved to international art fairs. It must be maddening to spend full time sucking up to the tycoons, plutocrats and oligarchs who are the customers at these events, who can afford the prices inflated by the vast expenses of travel and display you describe. At least when the galleries were in Chelsea, ordinary New Yorkers could browse and discuss art with their friends, or at least window-shop. Even if we usually didn't buy, we contributed to the buzz that drives popularity and sales. As in so many other spheres, more and more of the modern world's benefits become closed off to regular people. When galleries "bring the art to the collector", as one gallery owner is quoted as saying, I know that's not me. |
| NEW YORK TIMES
Aug 10 2013 Re: Japan's debt now looks like this Now that the national debt of Japan in yen is calculated to be more than one quadrillion, which is about 2000 times the number of stars in the galaxy, it is time to retire the old phrase "an astronomical number" used to express a huge amount of something. The modern replacement would be the more meaningful "economical number". For example: "The universe contains an economical number of galaxies". "Health care costs in the U.S. have risen to economical levels". "There are an economical number of metaphors in English". Correspondingly, we could now use the old word "astronomical" to mean "relatively small", or "not many". Thus: "My family has saved an economical amount simply by being astronomical in our daily spending". "I bought an astronomy car but it ended up costing an economical sum on repairs." "It's economically cheaper to fly astronomy". |
| NEW YORK TIMES
Feb 18 2013 The Business Day column "The myth of the rich who flee from taxes" (Feb. 16) shows that, aside from a few noisy examples like French actor Gerard Depardieu, tax rates are not a major factor in determining where high-bracket taxpayers choose to live. Several reasons for this are given, but one not mentioned is that the extremely rich are not constrained by money even with high tax rates. Is there anything Mr. Depardieu wants that he cannot have even after paying high French taxes? If you have enough left after taxes to buy whatever you desire, then your effective tax rate is zero. This is the case for incomes beyond a few tens of millions; adding more millions gives no benefit except keeping score with the other millionaires. If they're paying high taxes too, then your bragging rights remain in force. Although some like Mr. Depardieu may complain loudly, this is nothing more than whining without a practical basis. As the column shows, taxes in the United States are well below the level where they would have a negative effect on revenues or the economy as a whole. |
| NEW YORK TIMES
Jun 15 2012 It is disappointing that a long article about the broccoli analogy to the health insurance mandate (can the government require us to buy broccoli?) never mentioned any of the reasons why the analogy should be rejected. If the nation's economy depended on a well-functioning broccoli market, and if that market was falling apart so as to plainly endanger our future, and if requiring citizens to buy broccoli was a reasonable and effective means to repair that market, then of course the government should and could mandate the purchase of broccoli. How could a responsible government not? In reality, the broccoli market is none of those things, so it would not be reasonable to compel broccoli purchases. But the health insurance market meets all of these tests, and it would be negligence of the worst sort for a government to let it self-destruct. |
| NEW YORK TIMES
Mar 22 2012 Re: "Justices’ Ruling Expands Rights of Accused in Plea Bargains", Front page, March 22 If a Supreme Court Justice says it from the bench, is it English? I disagree with Justice Antonin Scalia on just about everything, but I admit to a grudging respect for his talent as an effective stylist of the English language. I was therefore delighted to see him quoted on the front page as saying from the bench that Wednesday's plea-bargain decision will lead to "further litigation, which you can be sure there will be plenty of". Namely, he ended his sentence with a preposition, violating one of those prescriptive rules that we're supposed to feel ashamed about. Later in the same article, your own reporter wrote that "Justice Kennedy rejected the argument that a fair trial was all Mr. Cooper was entitled to". But neither the learned Justice Scalia nor the equally well-educated reporter Adam Liptak have anything to apologize for. This is how real people use the language; this is the perfectly clear and unambiguous grammar of modern English. Hopefully, Justice Scalia has the courage to boldly and finally finish the task of demolishing these pointless and petty little injunctions (like not splitting an infinitive; not beginning a sentence with "hopefully" when it is the writer, not the Justice, who is hopeful) that do nothing more than proclaim that the speaker went to the right school and understood the social virtue of speaking "correctly". |
| NEW YORK TIMES
Dec 1 2011 Re: "Invitation to a dialogue: Which way on taxes?" (Nov 29) Andrew Roth asserts that "taking capital away from the very people who are most likely to create jobs will naturally result in fewer jobs". But we have done this experiment, twice, and found precisely the opposite result: In 1991 and 1993, under Presidents Bush and Clinton, taxes on the wealthiest were raised substantially; over next the decade we had the strongest economic growth and job creation in our history. Then in 2001 and 2003, under the second President Bush, those taxes were cut. Even before the Great Recession, the economic record was far worse. It is clearly not the case that taxing the rich stifles the economy. We could go further, and argue that when idle rich have idle money they spend it destructively. Much of the Bush tax cuts did not go to useful investment ("job creation") but to ever-more-exotic financial manipulations that Wall Street was happy to provide in lieu of actual production of goods and services. Higher taxes on the rich are not just for reducing the deficit, and not just for simple fairness, but to help ensure that floods of excess cash do not go looking for trouble. |
| NEW YORK TIMES
Aug 13 2011 I read with interest that booming Brazil has "compensation rivaling that of Wall St" (Front page, Aug 13). Now, I am very happy to have a job, and my salary is quite ample. I'm satisfied with my wages, my earnings are enough to support my family, all told it's a decent income. But I yearn to be "compensated"! How much does one have to make before The Times calls it "compensation"? A 10% tax surcharge on anyone who is "compensated" might solve our deficit in one swoop. At least, it would put an end to this absurd class distinction in descriptions of income. |
| NEW YORK TIMES
Jun 9 2010 Re: Daring to discuss women in science (Science Times, Jun 8) John Tierney is probably right that there are facts to be discovered regarding the sex distribution of extreme abilities in mathematics, which may someday be partly explained in genetic terms. But at this point, such facts must be deeply buried under social factors, most particularly by the multi-faceted legacy of centuries of discrimination, which is not easily or quickly undone; certainly not by the passing of a few laws and a couple of decades of attempts to redress. Uncovering the underlying facts is confounded by the statistics of small numbers; we are talking about a very few individuals at the end of the curve. Tierney cites research on the top 0.01% of the 1.6 million 7th graders taking the SAT; that is 160 students, and a 4 to 1 gender gap is a deficit of 48 girls. With a pervasive bias embedded deep in the culture, it is perfectly conceivable that 48 families and teachers of bright girls did not encourage them the way 48 boys' similar abilities were recognized and fostered. Given the resulting uncertainty, an honest appraisal of these numbers would probably conclude that there is no significant difference. That is, absent the legacy of history, it is quite possible that girls' "native ability" (if such a thing even exists) is greater. Rather than trying to split these hairs, it would be far better to concentrate on erasing the legacy, as that would benefit both the girls and society as a whole. |
| NEW YORK TIMES
Jan 3 2009 Re: Early test of Obama view on power over detainees (Front page, Jan 3) The rationale for holding detainee Ali al-Marri is that "Intelligence officials say he is exceptionally dangerous, making deportation problematic". But al-Marri has been imprisoned for seven years, and in solitary confinement since June 2003. Even granted that he is or was a committed enemy of the U.S., in what way is he now more than one man with a deep grudge? Though we can assume that he would rejoin his former comrades, in what way is he different from many thousands of other angry partisans? He can have no current information or knowledge of plots against us; in what way is he "exceptionally dangerous"? Without a convincing demonstration of this assertion, there is no justification for his perpetual detention. Dropping the Bush claim of executive power should be an easy call for Obama. |
| NEW YORK TIMES (PUBLISHED)
Jan 16 2008 Steven E. Landsburg may be right that when the direct costs and savings are summed, "Americans as a group are net winners" from outsourcing, but there is more to it than that. Mr. Landsburg spends his time adding and subtracting, but he has not figured out how to count the corrosive effects of widespread personal insecurity on American democracy. Many products made abroad have become cheaper, but globalization is forcing us to balance those measurable gains against a pernicious vulnerability that undermines the implicit social compact of shared progress. The efficiency-driven economy that Mr. Landsburg extols may produce a large monetary return, but it does not value what it cannot enumerate: the collective benefits that arise from broad optimism and confidence in a secure future for each person. |
| NEW YORK TIMES (PUBLISHED)
July 9 2007 Re: "New York plans surveillance veil for downtown" (July 9): A security camera in a public place is the equivalent of a policeman standing on the corner, unobjectionable. But when the camera feeds license plate or face-recognition software, and that information is stored in a database, the potential for drastic privacy violation is evident. Given that such databases are never secure, are we approaching the day when googling "William S. Kessler" produces a map of my activities? Or when divorce and other civil proceedings routinely subpoena this information to dig dirt? Encroachments like these would have a chilling effect on citizens' ability to enjoy the city. When the Supreme Court can no longer be relied on to protect a right to privacy, such critical decisions must be made in full light of day, not solely by the Police Department, whose record in this area is discouraging. |
| NEW YORK TIMES (PUBLISHED)
Jan 17 2006 You write "no one has come up with any very good ways of deflecting Iran from its nuclear course" (Editorial, Jan 13). But it is obvious that Iran seeks a bomb principally to counter the barely-concealed ambition of Bush administration hardliners to force "regime change" there. After seeing what has happened in Iraq, and listening to the "axis of evil" rhetoric, any patriotic Iranian military leader must be advising his government that only a bomb will deter the U.S. As long as we refuse to deal with this paramount reality, efforts to deflect Iran cannot succeed. The only way to slow or stop this momentum is for the U.S. to conclude a convincing non-aggression treaty with Iran, finally accepting Iranians' ability to determine their own destiny. |
| NEW YORK TIMES
Mar 18 2005 It is surprising to read the destructive lengths soldiers go to avoid duty in Iraq ("Un-volunteering: Troops improvise to find a way out". Friday, March 18). As they must be aware, publicly announcing the two little words "I'm gay" produces a rapid discharge without further ado. Unlike the highly-prejudiced days of 1970, when I evaded the Vietnam draft this way, the present climate is much more tolerant of gays and the social consequences not as profound. The combination of modern youth's open-mindedness with the military's lingering homophobia makes the draft virtually impossible to resurrect today. (aka Pat Chenoweth) |
| WASHINGTON POST (PUBLISHED)
Mar 9 2005 David Ignatius ("Rendition Realities", column, March 9) asks us to picture the capture of Mohammed Atta before Sept. 11, 2001, and raises the hope that his "rendition" (probably to include torture) might have prevented the World Trade Center attacks. But this has the crucial virtue of hindsight. In reality, we can never know in advance who poses such a danger, and thus must spread a wide net. How many innocent Maher Arars* is Ignatius willing to torture to find his needle in the haystack? The inevitable answer, once such tactics are permitted, is many such innocents, and that is the sorry state we find ourselves in now. * Maher Arar is the Canadian who was seized while changing planes in New York, then taken to Syria to be tortured for 10 months before being released as apparently innocent. |
| NEW YORK TIMES
June 7 2004 Re: "An impact seen, and felt, everywhere" (June 7 article about Reagan). Former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher says that President Reagan won the cold war "and he did it without a shot being fired". But it is unlikely that the Angolans, the Afghans, or the Nicaraguans would agree. Mr Reagan's "freedom fighters" fired many shots and inflicted much destruction across those lands unlucky enough to have rebel groups that saw advantage in appealing to his single-minded anticommunism. In pursuit of Reagan's proxy wars against the Soviet Union, they strewed mines that continue to kill even today. |
| WASHINGTON POST
Feb 1 2004 George Will says that "Democrats are now largely a party of providers of government services ... and people dependent on those services" (Column, Feb 1). But the Democratic pluralities in the last three presidential elections suggest that there are a lot of dependent Americans. Will is right, most Americans do require government services of diverse types: from environmental protection, to food safety, to our social safety net, among many others. Americans recognize that Republican policies "enhancing the individual's competence and responsibility", as Will puts it, would place all of us under the pitiless mercies of the market, and cannot deliver the prosperity, stability and security gained through democratically-determined governmental action. |
| WASHINGTON POST
May 8 2003 Jonathan Chait says that Iraq war opponents are so "Blinded by Bush-hatred" (Op-Ed, May 8) that we cannot see the good that has come out of overthrowing Saddam Hussein. It is true that many observe the President's disastrous economic and environmental policies and fear his ability to ride a military triumph to enhanced political power at home. But for true lack of vision we must look to the Bush administration, so blinded by Saddam-hatred that it was willing to take the nation to war under deceitful justifications, to profoundly weaken the United Nations and the international legal structure, to alienate much of the population of the world, and to kill many thousands of Iraqi civilians and conscripts. The administration, unable to see the fate that hubris brings to empires, thinks that demonstrations of military prowess will bring peace and security to the United States. That is the real blindness afflicting the world today. |
| NEW YORK TIMES (Op-Ed submission)
Mar 6 2003 Why is it controversial to seek the overthrow of one of the worst dictators on the planet today? Saddam Hussein is high on any list of ruthless tyrants, and his many crimes are widely recognized. Yet President Bush's project to remove him has sparked only broad condemnation from our traditional allies, with substantial majorities across the western world deeply opposed to our actions, to the point where last month's unprecedented worldwide protest engaged many millions. Diplomatically we are isolated as perhaps never before in our history. Since most of these opponents are fully aware of Saddam's brutality, his invasion of Kuwait, his gassing of the Kurds, and his efforts to perfect chemical weaponry, how can it be that the protests are all against the United States? What have we done to arouse such hostility? The public debate over Iraq has turned on the specifics of the coming war: how many will be killed, how much it will cost, the control of Iraq's oil, the possibility of undermining nearby governments and breeding further terror haunts. While important, none of these are the kind of issues to bring millions into the streets of Europe, nor to induce friendly governments to signal a profound rupture in the alliances that for half a century have brought security and prosperity in a dangerous world. For others such as Russia, China, Mexico and many smaller countries, the break with the U.S. interrupts their paramount goals of building their economies through increasing ties with America. It seems clear that nothing in the specifics of the Iraq situation or President Bush's plans there could produce the fracturing of world consensus that we see today. The problem is much more fundamental, and recalls the founding wisdom of the United States. The problem is the rise of an unchallengeable superpower, and the deep-seated anxiety this raises among citizens and governments alike. There is no such thing as benevolent domination. The genius of the American Constitution is its division of sovereignty, proclaiming the Founders' intuition that power needs balance or it will inevitably lead to abuse. For the same reason, the unchecked world dominance that President Bush and his advisors seek is correctly seen as a menace, above and beyond the merits of any particular cause they espouse. That is why so many people worldwide, who detest Saddam Hussein, fear the enhancement of U.S. power that will be a result of Mr Bush's Iraq war more than they fear the Iraqi dictator. And they are right. With a lifestyle requiring a disproportionate share of the world's resources, a preeminent America is likely to resist calls for changes in our behavior; the Bush administration's refusal to take any action to reduce CO2 emissions is a case in point. And since our recent history shows a distinct lack of attention to oppression by our allies of convenience (including Saddam Hussein in the 1980s), we give the world no reason to think that our dominance will serve anyone's interest but our own, narrowly defined. It is not surprising that Mr. Bush's America appears to the world as a greater threat than Iraq, which can truly endanger only its neighbors. While our gigantic military prowess can overthrow governments at will, it will gain us nothing if we place ourselves in a continual battle against desperate foes whose aim to weaken us will find wide support and approval. An imperial peace imposed by one nation's mastery cannot endure. It was for good reason that the Founders sought liberty in the checks and balances of competing power centers, and we ignore this sage advice at our peril. |
| NEW YORK TIMES
Sep 17 2002 It is not surprising that prisoners held indefinitely by hostile forces, far from home and incommunicado, should be depressed ("Guantanamo Bay faces sentence of life as permanent U.S. prison", Sep 16). But I wonder if it is for altruistic reasons that "many are taking anti-depressants", as you report. While old-fashioned torture is apparently not part of the regime at Guantanamo, are U.S. interrogators using psychoactive drugs to break prisoners' wills? If so, then perhaps the Bush administration's fear of the International Criminal Court at The Hague is well-grounded. |
| NEW YORK TIMES (PUBLISHED)
June 28 2002 Re "Justices allow schools wider use of random drug tests for pupils", Front page, June 28: Perhaps the worst result of this ruling is that it will teach schoolchildren that intrusive personal searches with no basis in evidence or even suspicion are a normal part of life in the United States. A citizenry alert to its rights is the only bulwark of democracy, but what our future citizens will be learning instead is acceptance of regular government snooping. As the father of two teenagers I worry plenty about drugs in school, but I worry more about the loss of freedom inherent in a population that becomes passive about its rights. |
| WASHINGTON POST
Dec 16, 2001 Bradley Graham weighs the Bush administration's plans for anti-missile capability as if the issue were only defense against hostile fire aimed at us ("Missile Defensiveness", Outlook, Dec 16). But Bush's aims are far beyond defense, extending to various forms of offensive war-fighting, and planning the ability to attack anywhere on earth with futuristic weapons from space. The question other nations are facing is not whether they can feel secure through their ability to overwhelm a defensive system (as we argue that Russia can), but whether they are willing to cede control of the sky to the U.S. No nation with great-power aspirations can accept such a unilateral domination of space, and will be forced to develop its own competing weaponry. Given that powerful motivation, we should not underestimate their ability to do so, as exemplified by the speed with which the technologically-backward Soviet Union matched us bomb for bomb, missile for missile in the 1950s. Such an arms race would be a decades-long boon for the arms makers of the world, as nations empty their treasuries to keep up. For the rest of us, the question is not whether a particular anti-missile technology is feasible, but whether it enhances our security to promote the use of space as a battleground. Framing the question as defense against a desperate Third World state, as Graham does, misses the point and allows the project to appear to safeguard American lives. But our oppponents are more likely to be countries with ambitions of equality, such as China, leading to rival satellite-based weapons flying over our own heads. Then this choice will have tightened the hair trigger and forfeited long-term security for short-term advantage. |
| SEATTLE TIMES
Feb 18, 2001 A Feb 18 letter writer argues against the estate tax, expressing a common view in saying "The government didn't work the long hours in the office ... to make ends meet, day in and day out. I did. Every penny I make is the result of hard work". I have no doubt that Mr Carty works hard. But even those who built a business from scratch should recognize that their hard work did not occur in a vacuum. A big part of the reason for such success is the simple fact of being a citizen of this great country, with its many opportunities to get rich. These opportunities would be greatly lessened if the government did not provide schools and world- class universities to educate the employees his business needs, safe highways and transit to get them to work, environmental protection and great parks so he and other employers can attract top people to live in this area, a social safety net so the elderly are not dependent on their working children as they once were, and a myriad of other government benefits that Mr Carty takes for granted. The government DID work the long hours, day in and day out, and Mr Carty has gained greatly from it, whether he realizes it or not. Those who have become rich through their "own efforts" stand on the shoulders of many, and paying a decent share towards the common welfare is fair recompense for their good fortune to be a member of this society that offered them the opportunity in the first place. |
| NEW YORK TIMES
Dec 9, 2000 Peter J. Wallison (Op-Ed, Dec 9) argues that "assuring Florida's participation in the election of the president" should be the "transcendent goal". But there is no point to such participation unless Florida's electoral votes can be reliably cast for the candidate the state actually voted for. Certainly worse than not having the votes count at all would be to have them counted for the wrong man. The one thing that everyone can agree on is that Florida's popular vote split more evenly than can be measured. Therefore, the most accurate enfranchisement of Florida's voters would be for an equal electoral gain to accrue to both Bush and Gore. That would be precisely accomplished by Florida reporting no electoral vote at all. Far from being a disenfranchisement, such a resolution would authentically realize the will of the people of Florida. |
| NEW YORK TIMES
Sep 19, 2000 A correspondent (Letters, September 5) writes regarding smoking related illness "surely those who choose unwisely should bear the cost of any resulting ill health". But the problem with people is that we are, well, human. People make unwise choices in the nature of being people. Some of us bring on heart disease by a fatty diet. Others practice unsafe sex. Many jaywalk. Some become addicted to tobacco at an early age. Is all illness brought on by unwise choices to be excluded from coverage? Where would the line be drawn? Then there is the question of how culpability would be determined. Not every case of lung cancer is due to the sufferer's smoking. Who would decide whether a particular illness was the patient's "own fault", and thereby cast the unfortunate out of society's protection? There is no alternative but to accept the fact that people are imperfect and make unwise choices. For better or worse, in sickness or in health, we are all in this together. |
| NEW YORK TIMES (PUBLISHED)
June 20, 2000 I entered Yale as a freshman the year George Bush was a senior ("Ally of an older generation amid the tumult of the 60's", front page, June 19) and did not know him there. As a Jewish kid from New York I was far removed from his social circle. But the smug complacency you describe was familiar at Yale in those days, and the significance of his C average is not lack of intelligence but that when presented with the opportunity of a Yale education he felt free to squander it. Yale was just one of the many amenities those of his background expected as a matter of course, not necessary to take seriously. The attitudes Bush showed then have apparently continued in his cavalier stands towards those less fortunate, and are far more relevant in choosing a President than intelligence.
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
|
| SEATTLE TIMES
May 14, 2000 A Yakima County Superior Court ruled this week that the state must pay a lumber company for the value of forest land that cannot be cut because it would endanger a nesting pair of spotted owls ("More suits likely over owl-habitat protection", May 13). The decision said that the lost logging rights constituted a governmental "taking" of property without compensation. But think what our region would look like if the state had to pay for the lost value of property every time we made an environmental regulation. Consider, for example, Lake Washington and the Ship Canal. Until the late 1950s, it was legal to dump just about anything into the Lake, and many businesses were located on the lakeshore for exactly that reason. The right to dispose of effluent in the Lake was a valuable asset. Of course, at that time it was common for Lake Washington beaches to be posted "No swimming" because of the resulting pollution, and owning a lakeshore home was not nearly as desirable as it is today. According to the doctrine proposed by the timber companies and now supported by the Court, when the public demanded cleaning up the Lake, we should have had to buy out all those businesses (and potential businesses) if we wanted to forbid dumping. Imagine the cost! Such a doctrine would make most environmental improvements impossible, because those usually involve limiting someone's ability to make money by polluting or degrading the environment. The timber companies are, in effect, arguing that because they used to be able to log without restriction, they should be able to continue to do so unless the public buys their land. But as Washington becomes more crowded, and as we learn more about threats to the environment, it is perfectly reasonable for the public (through an imperfect but freely-elected government) to impose evolving requirements for activities such as logging. This is no different from the need to add stop-lights at an intersection where traffic has increased. The effect is to improve the environment for everyone, just as prohibiting the use of Lake Washington as a sewer improved the value of living here (especially for the owners of lake-front property). The ability to make and enforce collective decisions to advance the general welfare is precisely the definition of civilized society. |
| NEW YORK TIMES (PUBLISHED)
Apr 19, 2000 We must be doing something right to get both Paul Krugman and David Frum all lathered up on the same day (Op-ed, April 19). Though Krugman lauds the World Bank, the preeminent fact about global capitalism today is the growth of inequality: a few new millionaires but also many new millions crowding into the slums of Sao Paulo, Cairo, Jakarta and Mexico City, driven off their land by Bank-financed export agriculture schemes. And while Frum is right that state-owned-industry socialism is dead, socialized medicine is alive and much healthier in Canada and much of Europe than our insurance-company run system. "Seattle Man" may not have a complete blueprint for a better society, but the evident changes in emphasis at this week's World Bank/IMF meeting are already a victory that would not have happened without the protests. And it is surely progress for the protestors to have put the issues of inequality, labor democracy and the environment front and center in any discussion of the global economy. |
| NEW YORK TIMES
Jan 23, 2000 Paul Krugman is surely right that globalization has brought growth and wealth to many people (Op-Ed, Jan 23). But under the emerging domination of the world economy by the giant transnational corporations, decisions with far-reaching consequences for our working conditions, environment, food supply and other essential aspects of life are made at elite invitation-only gatherings like this week's Davos conference. These decisions used to be the province of governments, which is to say that ordinary people had a voice in them, at least in democratic countries. The loss of a popular voice in these fundamental matters is more than an "image problem"; it is a structural defect that transfers sovereignty from voters to unaccountable corporate managers. For those of us not invited to Davos, the wealth that trickles down is a weak substitute for the sacrifice of independence. |
| SEATTLE TIMES (PUBLISHED)
July 8, 1999 Count me as one white person who does not, as your front page story says most whites do, "believe all Americans now have equal opportunity to succeed, and if they don't succeed it is probably their own fault". Count me as one white person who remembers that when I went to public school 35 years ago segregation was legal and customary, and my school was all white. My black contemporaries went to segregated and unequal schools; count me as one white person who knows very well that those kids did not have half the opportunity that I did. Even though I did nothing myself to create or perpetuate segregation, count me as one white person who knows he benefitted from segregation and unequal opportunity by not having to compete for college scholarships or jobs against those black kids my age who never had a chance. Count me as one white person who knows that my people came here by choice. That my people were not dragged from their country, enslaved for 200 years, with their religion and entire culture whipped from them, families broken up and scattered, and women raped so routinely that few are now left without white genes. For another 100 years segregation law and practice meant little or no schooling, constant indignity and humiliation, most jobs absolutely closed to them and consequent horrible poverty. Count me as one white person who does not close his eyes to that history and say that blacks' difficulties are "probably their own fault". Given that dismal and still-fresh history, can any fair-minded person argue that white America does not owe the blacks anything? Given those abuses that shaped the growing-up of most blacks, can anyone think that simple removal of the segregation laws means equal opportunity? Count me as one white person who knows that history, recent history, well-within-living-memory history, does not vanish overnight. Count me as one white person who is humbly grateful for having been born in the right place and the right time, for having the "right" skin color so I did not have to endure the echoes of that bitter history. If we are ever to get past the America of de facto segregation, two separate communities and a people forced into a third-world existence in the midst of plenty, affirmative action will be a necessary part of life. We must create real equality of opportunity or we will be fated to have this conflict on our land forever. |
| SEATTLE TIMES
February 5, 1999 Today a man who spent 16 years on death row in Illinois was freed after evidence showed another man committed the murder he was accused of ("Death row inmate freed after students find evidence", page A9, Feb 5). The case is not unique, as another four men were similarly released in Illinois in 1996. And these people were not freed on "technicalities", but because they were actually innocent. Such cases are inevitable, given the imperfections of the court system and police, so death penalty advocates must squarely face the question: "How many innocent people are we willing to kill?". No matter how strongly one believes that the death penalty is a deterrent to crime, that question haunts a society that still chooses to execute convicts. If the answer is "none", then clearly the death penalty must be abolished, since its imposition can never be perfect, as these cases attest. And for those who seek to stifle appeals by death row inmates, consider that this Illinois man was scheduled to die last September, and the execution was only postponed by one of those pesky "technicalities", thereby allowing time for discovery of the evidence that freed him. One need not be a liberal to oppose the death penalty, just unwilling to be party to the killing of innocents. |
| NEW YORK TIMES (PUBLISHED)
Nov 23, 1998 The article "Larger vehicles are hampering visibility" (National Report, Nov 22) illustrates the dilemma of public-spirited citizens in a laissez-faire society. The article reports that the headlights of late-model sport utility vehicles are mounted so high as to shine directly into the wing mirrors of regular cars. The height of these vehicles also impedes car drivers' visibility in traffic and in parking lots. Other recent articles have noted the increased death and injury rates for riders in cars involved in crashes with sport utilities and full-size pickups. However, the same height and weight that endanger others also provide increased visibility and crash security for the occupants of the sport utilities themselves. As a citizen I am thus faced with a choice: I can protect my own family by driving a sport utility vehicle, or I can advance the general welfare by sticking to a regular car, at the cost of risking my own security. It is clear that as a community and nation we are better off without sport utilities, but on the other hand the sum of each individual's self-interest promotes degrading our common environment with ever-larger vehicles. Have we no alternative but to continue down this self-destructive path? |
| SEATTLE TIMES
July 16 1998 Letter-writer Scott Frost (July 14) rants against taxes to pay for a government that "produces nothing". This is an extremely short-sighted view of what constitutes production. Modern production is not just a guy turning out widgets, but requires the infrastructure to back him up. A secretary or accountant or computer programmer at Boeing does not him or herself "produce" or ever touch a single piece of an airplane, but their contribution is indisputably part of Boeing's production. And the infrastructure goes much deeper than that. Any businessman will tell you that U.S. superiority in science over the past half-century has been an essential element of our present position of world economic leadership. Of course, American science is virtually entirely paid for by federal taxes. Is our scientific prowess not part of what enables us to be such a great producer? Similarly, the internet and the interstate highway system, both conceived and executed by the federal government, are the backbone of a modern productive economy. The list could go on indefinitely, and there is no doubt that government and the taxes to pay for it are crucial factors in any accounting of U.S.productive capability. In a larger sense, though, government is nothing more than how a large community makes decisions. Do we as a community want clean air and water? Experience clearly shows that unregulated industry pollutes, since in the absence of community demand it is unprofitable for one company to spend resources to clean up when their competitors are not. We are not a small town anymore, and our industries are not one-man workshops either. The only way to express community demand is through government regulation, decided upon by freely elected and therefore accountable officials. The process can be messy, inefficient, even corrupt at times. But is there an alternative? It is not acceptable to go back to the days when it was legal to dump anything at all into Lake Washington (and the beaches were all posted "No swimming"). Therefore we must have government and regulations and courts and taxes to pay for investigation and enforcement. Mr Frost calls government "coercive". But which is more coercive: a regulation that restricts pollution or a "No swimming, polluted water" sign at the beach? The ability to make and enforce collective decisions to advance the general welfare is precisely the definition of civilized society, and when there are millions of people involved there is no alternative to government and taxation. |
| NEW YORK TIMES
March 12, 1998 Researchers report that underarm secretions include air-borne compounds (pheromones) that influence human biology and behavior (news article, March 12, pA18). Since it has long been known that animals are so influenced, this is no surprise. The findings imply that the retention of underarm hair in modern humans serves the purpose of transmitter for this means of interpersonal communication. Seen in this light, socially- sanctioned underarm shaving and the near-mandatory use of deodorant are the Western equivalent of the burka in Middle Eastern societies that fear the full expression of women. One can further speculate that some of the widespread sexual dysfunction in American society is due to the absence of important social cues that have been blocked by these malignant practices. |
| NEW YORK TIMES
Feb 4 1998 In detailing the horrors of the Liberian civil war (news article, Feb 4, page A3) your reporter repeatedly emphasizes that "the signal distinction of the Liberian war, and its most disturbing legacy ... was the notion that combat may, or even should, be waged against unarmed civilians." But deliberately waging war on unarmed civilians is by no means a distinction held by Liberians. How else would one describe United States fire-bombing of cities in Germany and Japan during World War II? And U.S. nuclear doctrine through the Cold War to the present day is based on killing unarmed civilians by the millions in enemy cities. The only difference between our "modern"warfare and that practiced by the Liberians is that we do our killing of unarmed civilians from the air, where our soldiers do not have to see the blood and misery they cause. But from the point of view of the unarmed civilians, that is really no distinction at all. |
| NEW YORK TIMES
Dec 13 1997 The news analysis "Close-up: Drug trafficking threatens Caribbean" (page A2, Saturday Dec 13) reports that more than 60% of the cocaine sold in the U.S. and Europe now moves through the Caribbean. The attendant violence, as well as the widespread corruption of police, politics and banking institutions is familiar from many Latin nations touched by the drug trade. Apparently South American drug gangs are shifting smuggling operations from Mexico. The crucial aspect of this story that was left out of your article is that earlier this year the U.S. successfully brought suit in the World Trade Organization against the agreements under which Caribbean nations sold bananas at preferred prices to their former colonial rulers in Europe.Since the banana trade has been the mainstay of many of the island economies, the resulting crash has left unemployment soaring and bankruptcies of businesses large and small. In these circumstances, is there any wonder that the drug barons would see a great opportunity? Now we should ask why the U.S. went to such lengths to oppose the banana deals, when the result could easily have been foreseen. After all, we do not produce bananas ourselves, and there were few if any U.S. jobs at stake. Could it be because of the heavy political donations to both parties by Carl Lindner, head of Chiquita Bananas? Since 1993, Lindner has given $460,000 to Democrats (he spent a night in the Lincoln bedroom) and $648,000 to Republicans, in addition to providing a jet for many of Bob Dole's campaign trips last year. However, even those large donations were small potatoes compared to the profits Lindner might expect to gain by destroying his competition for the European market. It is a pity that your "close-up" did not get close to the real story, not even mentioning the banana crash, let alone the connection to the U.S. campaign finance scandal. A reader who was not otherwise informed would get the impression only of devilish drug gangs fighting for turf. But who are the real devils here? |
| NEW YORK TIMES (PUBLISHED)
October 20 1997 Yesterday in Argentina, President Clinton advocated ending Latin American arms races through "open and honest" conversation (Front page, Oct 17). But his administration is now taking a giant step towards opening South American markets to sales of U.S. high-tech weapons. Advanced fighter jets serve no purpose in Latin America but to extract money that could be used for desperately needed infrastructure and social services. Yet President Clinton is now proposing to permit and encourage (with Export-Import Bank credits) McDonnell-Douglas to sell F-15s to Chile. Then Argentina and Brazil will face great pressure to do likewise. The cynical twist is that McDonnell-Douglas and Lockheed are using the expanding list of countries with F-15s to argue that the U.S.' own military needs something better, namely their new F-22 fighter, to counter the threat that they themselves have created. Thus the U.S. taxpayer joins the Latins in being soaked so the arms merchants can grow richer. Since these companies are now applying for export licenses for the F-22, we can expect the whole cycle to repeat in another decade or so. Only the U.S., as the world's largest arms exporter, can stop this senseless, unending drain on the world's peoples, and maintaining the ban on Latin sales is a necessary first step. |
| NEW YORK TIMES (PUBLISHED)
Jan 8 1997 The Economic Scene analysis (Business Day, Jan 8) shows how the international banks whose easy-lending policies contributed so much to the Korea crisis will be paid in full, giving them no incentive to avoid the same ruinous mistakes in other arenas. But your analysis makes little reference to those who will really suffer under the international "rescue effort". It says only that "South Koreans will pay long and dearly for their financial transgressions". "Their"? Surely this does not refer to any financial transgressions of machinists at Hyundai, or secretaries in a hundred office buildings in Seoul, or any of the many other thousands of Korean workers who will now be laid off to face a grim future. A more accurate description would point to the financial transgressions of a tiny Korean elite, which, like the Japanese, European and American bankers, is insulated from any consequences. After decades in which the skills and dedication of Korean workers created the wealth on which investors in Korea and worldwide built fortunes, the workers are the ones who "will pay long and dearly" for the transgressions of others. |
| SEATTLE TIMES
3 June 1996 John Baden devotes fully half his May 29th column to railing against parking spaces reserved for top officials and bureaucrats. His all-purpose free-market remedy is to sell close-in spaces to the highest bidder. People who cannot afford the nearby spaces can "enjoy walking", as he puts it. As Baden frequently points out in The Times, market-oriented reforms such as this lead to greater efficiency, since the free market determines the true value of goods and services. I agree, but I think Baden does not go far enough. In addition to good parking, why should senior officials of universities, government agencies and corporations have unchallenged claim to the best offices in their buildings? These should be put on the market as well. If a worker is feeling pinched by, say, the high cost of health insurance, perhaps he or she would be satisfied with a basement cubicle. Maybe a file clerk really pines for a prime window office and would sacrifice some discretionary income to get it. But why stop there? Some people highly value the use of a clean, tiled bathroom at their office or worksite. Let them pay for it. Others might appreciate the savings gained by using an outhouse. The point is to let the free market decide, then we find the true value of things to real people, instead of having bureaucrats make these decisions. An obvious extension is to the quality of toilet paper in public bathrooms. Each stall should have a coin-operated dispenser. Some would choose the most expensive brand; for those of us struggling to make ends meet, shreds of newspaper would have to do. (Personally I prefer the comfort of a Baden column, unparalleled for soothing, cleansing, market-oriented banalities). Free-market ideologues such as Baden worship at the altar of efficiency. In reality, they offer us only the law of the jungle: no one has any responsibility other than to make money, and there is no value higher than the profit motive. Baden has no place for community in his world-view; that would be inefficient and bureaucratic. But if one measures the success of society by something other than the latest peak in stock prices, it is excessive reliance on the market that is truly inefficient in advancing our common aspirations. |
| SEATTLE TIMES (PUBLISHED)
22 October 1995 Reader Bill Muse writes (20 October) defends big business over big government, saying that government can legally use coercion, whereas businesses "conduct their dealings through voluntary transactions". He quickly dismisses the fact that government officials are regularly and freely voted in and out of office, but argues that businesses are responsive to their customers, since otherwise they would fail. This view of business sees no difference between a corner grocery store (which indeed must be responsive to its customers), and the giants which dominate today's landscape, manipulating governments at their will. For example, where in Muse's scheme do the forest product giants fit? Able to shift operations from Washington to Georgia to Indonesia, these companies make or break rural communities far more effectively than anything government ever does. When they decide that it is more profitable to ship raw logs than to produce finished wood products in Washington towns, mills close and towns die. These decisions have had much larger effect on our state than any government environmental regulations. Are these the "voluntary transactions" Muse refers to? How would he propose that we, the people of Washington, get a voice in these vital matters? Government is frequently seen as the villain these days, but really government is nothing more than the means by which a community makes collective decisions. Do we need a transit system? a clean Puget Sound? a strong social safety net? a great university at a price most can afford? How else to do those things but through government? If you don't like the present leadership then work to change it, but don't pretend that we can be a great nation without it. Those who seek to destroy government today are playing into the hands of the powerful few who do not want communities to have the power to make decisions. It is not progress to go back to the days of a century ago, when the robber barons controlled our transportation, our food, and our conditions of work. Why should anyone think unrestrained kings of business and industry would act any differently today? |
| SEATTLE TIMES (PUBLISHED)
24 December 1994 I couldn't miss your heartwarming Christmas Eve story about the legislation drafted by congressional Republicans to cut off money for childhood immunizations and subsidized school lunches for children of legal immigrants. This is typical of their Scrooge-like ideas: attack the very weakest members of society (the ones who can't fight back), take the last few crumbs from their table, and give it to the richest. I can see the conversation now:"And the beauty of it is, Mr Speaker, that these people can't vote!". As far as I am concerned, any government policy to deliberately make children miserable (as a means of punishing their parents) is an abomination unworthy of a civilized people. And let's be clear, that is the exact intent of this proposal. Children will be hungrier, children will suffer from measles, diptheria, polio, to save a few pennies, most of which will then be distributed to the wealthiest few via a capital gains tax cut (why investment income should be taxed at a lower rate than wage income I don't understand either). If that isn't mean-spirited then the word has no meaning. You would think the Republicans would be embarrassed to announce such a plan on Christmas Eve, but apparently they are so blinded by their recent victory as to miss the significance. Looking around at all the wealth we have on display: the cars, boats, fine homes, recreational vehicles, beach houses, ski trips, etc., it is simply unbelievable that this nation is in such desperate straits that our only choice is to let children be hungry and sick. I have some of that wealth myself, but I am humbly grateful for it, and recognize that but for the wonderful luck of having been born in the right place and the right time, of having white skin and knowing how to take advantage of opportunity, my children might be hungry and sick and needing a helping hand. The Gingrich approach is pure selfishness, and about as far from Christmas spirit as you can get. Yet these are the people who brag of their "family values". Who are they kidding? |
