Excerpts of recent editorials of statewide and national interest from New England newspapers:
The Providence Journal on immigrants in peril.
April 24
A perilous imbalance exists when one man is free to eat, work, and walk safely down the street; while a short distance away, another is starving, jobless, captive or fearful.
For the fearful, destitute man, if he knows anything of the world, will seek to flee his captivity, even at grave personal risk. He will strive to go where people are free- or freer -from want and peril. He will brave hardships, smugglers, militias and unsafe vessels to do so.
And if he perishes in the attempt, as some 1,600 people seeking Europe are believed to have done so far this year, he makes the world ponder its obligation to these poor souls.
The grim toll this week- some 900 drowned when the boat in which they sought to flee to Italy capsized -illuminates again the powerful lure of liberty and economic opportunity to those who don’t have it. And it highlights the perils of policies intended to deter people from coming across.
The nations of Europe are struggling to respond humanely to this rising wave of refugees. Last fall, human rights activists condemned the British government’s decision to stop rescuing people trying to cross the Mediterranean and focus instead on human traffickers who reap profits by selling perilous and illegal trips. Foreign ministers explained such rescues only encourage more people to make the attempt.
This is the coldest possible calculus, to refuse a drowning man the use of a lifeboat on the grounds that it will only lead to more drowning men. Surely free nations can do better than this.
The problem is bigger than any single refugee or any single boat, but that doesn’t mean Western nations shouldn’t seek to pluck each refugee from the water. They seem to lack the collective will to adequately address the violence in Syria or the poverty in Eritrea, but they should not fail to address the suffering that arises from these conditions.
The West can prosecute captains who overload their ships. It can imprison those who seize refugees for ransom. It can step up search operations.
But it should not stand by and watch drowning people sink beneath the waves.
___
Online:
https://bit.ly/1HzIfxt
The Brattleboro Reformer on Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign.
April 21
With Hillary Clinton’s announcement that she is running for president of these United States, the 2016 election season is officially underway.
Her announcement was not much of a surprise for those of us who even remotely follow politics; in fact, following her defeat in 2008 to then Senator Barack Obama in the Democratic primaries, we knew we hadn’t seen the last of her and her omnipresent husband. Apparently, those opposed to Hillary Clinton’s candidacy have been waiting in the wings, sharpening the knives. It was only minutes after she made the announcement that she was running for president that political action committees backed by dark money began popping upon the scene like mushrooms after a rainstorm.
The Stop Hillary PAC hit the airwaves and social media in Iowa and New Hampshire to remind people that “Her legacy of corruption and scandals go back for more than 30 years.”
A 60-second, black-and-white spot aired on local television stations mention her time as an attorney investigating Watergate, the Whitewater real estate scandal, Travelgate, Benghazi, donations her foundation has received from foreign governments, and her private email account kept as Secretary of State.
“We want to make sure that we are reminding the voters who Hillary Clinton is and what her history of corruption and obstruction of justice is,” Stop Hillary PAC Chairman Ted Harvey told The Daily Caller News Foundation. “We want to ensure that the mainstream media is not successful in defining who Hillary Clinton is and what her past is all about.”
Harvey is a former state senator from Colorado. Stop Hillary PAC was founded by Dan Backer, who serves as a lawyer, treasurer and strategist for the Conservative Action Fund and 14 other PACs, according to Politico.
Meanwhile, America Rising, another conservative super-PAC, has been popping up on social media feeds in New Hampshire a two-minute video entitle “Trustworthy?”
“We are completely neutral in the GOP primary, and since Clinton appears to have no serious primary at this point, we are going to spend the next year and a half making sure she doesn’t enter the general election unchallenged,” said America Rising’s executive director Colin Reed, the former campaign manager for 2014 Republican U.S. Senate candidate Scott Brown. America Rising was founded by Tim Miller, former Mitt Romney campaign manager Matt Rhodes and former Republican National Committee communications aide Joe Pounder.
Before Clinton’s announcement, Karl Rove’s American Crossroads began airing an ad with quotes from Sen. Elizabeth Warren to the effect “Powerful interests have tried to capture Washington and rig the system in their favor. The power of well-funded special interests tilts our democracy away from the people and toward the powerful.”
The advertisement goes on to say the Clinton Foundation “took millions from foreign governments,” including up to $5 million from the United Arab Emirates, up to $25 million from Saudi Arabia and “potentially millions from Qatar.”
And at a two-day event in New Hampshire last weekend, more than a dozen Republican hopefuls wooed potential supporters by uniting in their distaste for Hillary Clinton. But it’s only a matter of time before those knives, dulled from attacks on the all-but-inevitable Democratic nominee, will be turned back on themselves. The biggest question that will come out of the Republican primaries is whether the eventual nominee will not be so bloodied that he will stand a chance against Clinton.
If, as expected, Clinton wins the Democratic nomination for president, we have 18 months of attacks to weather and we can expect they will get nastier and nastier as we get closer to Nov. 8, 2016. But one thing is sure about Hillary Clinton and being in the spotlight for the past 40 years or so- everything thrown at her will be old news and more than likely, except for the rabid members of the electorate, not likely to stir much emotion. We would rather see a discussion on her potential agenda and whether she is serious about addressing income inequality, the nation’s crumbling infrastructure, climate change, corporate control of the reins of power, out-of-control college tuition and Common Core. This upcoming presidential election is vitally important. Let’s not waste the run-up to election day on the so-called “Clinton Body Count,” her husband’s infidelity, witch hunts undertaken by Ken Starr, “email-gate” or Benghazi. Those attacks are nothing more than sound and fury signifying little. We need a real debate over the next 18 months, not mudslinging.
___
Online:
https://bit.ly/1HxAmsn
The Republican of Springfield on the Supreme Court ruling on traffic violations.
April 23
Sometimes a traffic violation is just a traffic violation.
Not everyone who inadvertently rolls through a stop sign or exceeds the posted speed limit is a drug kingpin moving vast quantities of illegal substances to parts unknown. He might just be a guy out on the road, going to work or heading home.
This is why the U.S. Supreme Court was right on target in ruling, 6-3, that police who stop someone for a routine traffic violation cannot detain that individual longer than necessary so that drug-sniffing dogs can see if there might be more inside the vehicle than meets the eye.
The Fourth Amendment to our Constitution forbids “unreasonable searches and seizures.” Those are the words that routinely get quoted, anyway. But it’s important from time to time to remember the reasoning behind the amendment.
It states: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects … shall not be violated.”
It goes on to state that a search can be conducted only after a warrant has been issued because of “probable cause.” Such warrants must describe “the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
The Fourth Amendment, like its compatriots in the Bill of Rights, was intended to empower the people. It was seeking to secure the rights of an individual citizen in our free society against abuses from the authorities.
If a cop wants to have his dog sniff around someone’s car, he’s got to have good reason. Something way beyond a motor vehicle violation.
Two years ago, the Supremes, in another Fourth Amendment case, said that police cannot bring a drug-sniffing dog onto someone’s porch without first obtaining a warrant. That 5-4 decision, while somewhat more nuanced and complex than the ruling in the recent case, was nonetheless on the side of the people.
Let freedom ring. And let the people, protected by the Bill of Rights, reign.
From its very creation, our nation has had a healthy suspicion of authority. In a land where power flows uphill, from the people, keeping the powerful in check is a constant battle. Thankfully, the Supremes have been doing their part of late.
___
Online:
https://bit.ly/1PuXRVH
The Stamford Advocate on distracted driving.
April 22
For every 10 vehicles cruising along city and town streets, at least one is driven by someone texting or talking on a hand-held cellphone.
That frightening statistic is nearly enough to keep everyone off the road. Except those who still recklessly do it.
It is impossible to keep eyes on the road and on a mobile screen at the same time.
These drivers are a menace not only to themselves, but to every other driver and passenger in the vicinity, and to pedestrians. They account for 11.1 million instances of distracted driving every day, and that’s just in Connecticut. It also doesn’t count state highways.
A report developed for the state Department of Transportation and released April 21 found that 9.6 percent of drivers are texting or using a hand-held cellphone at any given time. It’s likely that more than 10 percent of drivers do this, as it’s not always the same people getting caught.
The methodology placed trained observers in seven municipalities and applied average daily traffic numbers to the sample, which certainly would have been higher if interstates were included.
The trained observers verified what anyone can all-too-easily see -drivers holding a cellphone to their ear.
They should know better by now- distracted driving has been against the law in Connecticut for a decade.
To make drivers take notice, fines have increased for texting or using a hand-held cellphone- $150 for a first offense, $300 for the second and $500 for three or more.
Yet nearly one in 10 drivers continue to break the law.
This month several police departments, along with the state police are participating in a crackdown dubbed “U Drive, U Text, U Pay.” Hundreds of tickets have been issued already, compounding the more than 7,000 tickets given in a similar effort in September.
Both concerted efforts were through grants from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
We would hope police departments will continue to enforce the law even without grants.
While police are trying to change motorists’ behavior, similar to earlier efforts with seat belt laws, distracted driving has serious consequences for others on the road.
Distracted driving is a factor in nearly six out of 10 moderate-to-severe accidents by teen drivers, the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety reported. In 2013, 3,154 people were killed in this country and 424,000 injured in accidents involving distracted driving.
Distracted driving is not on cruise control with the General Assembly in Hartford. The Transportation Committee unanimously passed a bill last month (HB-6721) to create a task force to study whether current prohibitions are effective and to recommend improvements. It is now on the House calendar and should pass.
The state has done a good job in ratcheting up fines while cracking down on enforcement. But distracted driving also is a matter of individual responsibility- and we should all know that by now. Pay attention.
___
Online:
https://bit.ly/1DY7B5N
The Nashua Telegraph on the politics of paper currency.
April 24
The effort to dump Andrew Jackson from the $20 bill in favor of a woman got a boost last week when Sen. Jeanne Shaheen introduced the “Women on the 20” act, a bill which would require the Secretary of the Treasury to convene a panel to make a recommendation on which famous American women should be honored to replace the out-of-favor seventh president of the United States.
“I think there are a lot of opportunities that we sometimes don’t think about to point out the significant contributions women have made in U.S. history,” Shaheen said. “And this is one of those opportunities.”
Advocates of the change target 2020 as goal because that marks the 100th anniversary of the constitutional amendment guaranteeing women the right to vote. And that ties in with Susan B. Anthony, who graced a redesigned dollar coin that was minted from 1979 to 1981. Because it was easily confused with a quarter, the Anthony dollar never became popular except as change spewed from vending machines.
Of all the nation’s currency and coin in circulation today, the only woman featured is Sacagawea, the Lemhi Shoshone guide and interpreter who accompanied Lewis and Clark during their expedition. Alas, like her predecessor, she adorns the dollar coin, which remains even less popular than the $2 bill, which features Thomas Jefferson.
On the contrary, with more than eight billion in circulation, the $20 bill is the third most prominent behind the $100 bill ($10 billion) and the $1 bill ($11 billion). A woman on the $20 would call much greater attention to and reflection upon the causes and accomplishments the winner represented. With all due respects to Anthony and Sacagawea, being featured on a coin isn’t the same as being on a bill. As Shaheen points out, “Paper currency is still really the currency of choice . so I think this is an important way to recognize women’s contributions just as we recognize men’s contributions.”
Helping fuel the change to a woman on the $20 bill is a growing sentiment that Jackson doesn’t deserve to honored on currency because of his advocacy for and enforcement of the Indian Removal Act of 1830, which forced several southern Native American tribes to give up their ancestral lands to white farmers and move to Oklahoma.
These relocations are referred to as the “Trail of Tears” because tens of thousands of Native Americans suffered from exposure, disease, and starvation while being marched to the newly designated territories.
Even so, Jackson has his admirers. He certainly wasn’t alone in efforts to remove Native Americans from their homes and supporters point to his efforts to preserve the union against forces of southern secession. Like those of many of this country’s founding fathers, the Jackson legacy is complex and conflicting.
In one sense, Shaheen’s bill is superfluous. The Treasury Department has the authority to change the nation’s currency without the approval of Congress. If he wanted, President Obama could order the change today. But he is unlikely to do so because of the controversy it would create over the dissing of Jackson. Besides, there are far more important issues for him to deal with right now.
The value of Shaheen’s legislation is that it will spark a broader debate on the issue that could eventually lead to a consensus. Having a woman represented on a paper bill is a wise and noble cause. What’s unclear right now is the best way to get there.
___
Online:
https://bit.ly/1HwW41e
The Boston Globe on the controversy surrounding Ben Affleck.
April 22
THERE SHOULD be no Oscars for this performance. Just Razzies all around.
PBS is conducting an internal review after learning that producers of “Finding Your Roots” left out family history that actor Ben Affleck was unhappy to find he had. The actor is now expressing regrets for his role in pressuring the program’s host, Henry Louis Gates Jr., from revealing that there was once a slave owner in the Affleck family tree.
The whole mess shows what happens when actors and their acolytes confuse Hollywood with real life.
In Affleck’s regular line of work, artistic license is accepted and, indeed, rewarded. “Argo,” the film he directed and produced, won an Academy Award for Best Picture in 2013, even though the script distorted actual events. “If it seems too Hollywood to be true, that’s because it is,” wrote NPR critic David Edelstein at the time.
But taking artistic license with family history is a different matter. That’s what Affleck sought to do when he asked Gates to leave out the revelation that he had a slave-owning ancestor. Affleck’s effort, first reported by the Daily Mail, became public after WikiLeaks published emails that were part of the Sony Entertainment hack.
Seeking advice from Sony Pictures chief executive Michael Lynton, Gates wrote that “one of our guests has asked us to edit out something about one of his ancestors- the fact that he owned slaves… . We’ve never had anyone ever try to censor or edit what we found. He’s a megastar. What do we do?”
Responded Lynton: “I would take it out if no one knows, but if it gets out that you are editing the material based on this kind of sensitivity, then it gets tricky.”
Gates writes back, “To do this would be a violation of PBS rules, even for ’Batman.’ “
Gates and Lynton both seem to agree it would be a bad idea. Yet when the segment aired on Oct. 14, it did not contain the information about Affleck’s slave-owning ancestor. Instead, it focused on a Revolutionary War ancestor, a great-grandfather who was an occult enthusiast, and Affleck’s mother, who was a civil rights “freedom rider” in 1964. In initial statements, Gates and PBS both denied any censorship was involved.
Now Affleck has come forward, via his Facebook page, to acknowledge that he lobbied Gates “the same way I lobby directors about what takes of mine I think they should use.” Gates’s documentary series, he argued, “isn’t a news program. You voluntarily provide a great deal of information about your family, making you quite vulnerable. The assumption is that they will never be dishonest but they will respect your willingness to participate and not look to include things you think would embarrass your family.”
This Cambridge homeboy needs a reality check. You can edit truth out of movies, but not out of family history.
___
Online:
https://bit.ly/1z1p1zS
Please read our comment policy before commenting.