Editorials from around New York

Recent editorials of statewide and national interest from New York’s newspapers:

___

The Syracuse Post-Standard on snow clearance in Syracuse

Jan. 28

It took more than five years of trying, but the snowiest city in America finally has a sidewalk snow removal program that puts pedestrians on an equal footing with cars.

Starting this week, 40 miles of “priority” sidewalks in the city (that’s both sides of 20 miles of major city routes) will be cleared after a snowfall of 3 inches or more. That’s good news for people who often must walk in the street after a major snowfall, including children walking to school, parents with babies and toddlers in strollers, and wheelchair users.

Credit the Syracuse Common Council, past and present, and Mayor Ben Walsh for their persistence. There were many false starts along the way.

In 2014, then-Councilor Bob Dougherty twice proposed fining property owners who don’t clear their walks, and twice his plan was defeated. We opposed the fines because they would create hardship and be difficult to enforce. Dougherty then switched tactics and successfully got the council and the mayor to approve fining plow operators who pile snow onto sidewalks and crosswalks. The law was rarely enforced, however.

Walsh came into office promising to find a solution to impassable sidewalks. It took several attempts, but City Hall finally was able to find a contractor, JSK of Warners, to take on the sidewalk plowing. The $170,000 contract is being paid out of the Department of Public Works’ current budget. If the pilot program is to continue after this winter, Walsh and the council will have to find a sustainable way to pay for it.

It’s important to note that city property owners are still responsible for clearing their sidewalks. The city’s sidewalk program is just a supplement, and for now, it only touches a small percentage of the city’s estimated 600 miles of sidewalks. People who live and work downtown already benefit from the Downtown Committee’s excellent sidewalk-clearing efforts.

The city’s sidewalk program is a tacit acknowledgement that many city property owners can’t - or won’t - shovel their walks, forcing pedestrians to take their chances in the streets. For their sake, we’re rooting for the city sidewalk plowing plan to succeed and grow.

Online: https://bit.ly/2CWdwOv

___

The Leader-Herald on the Covington Catholic controversy

Jan. 28

So eager have too many Americans become to find people to call evil that we have taken to inventing them. That attitude, a form of aggressive mental laziness, itself is wrong.

Thoughtful people - which represents the overwhelming majority of the nation, in our opinion - were reminded this week of the spreading sickness.

It started with videos posted online, showing a group of boys from a high school in Kentucky who were in Washington for the weekend March for Life. Clips showed one of the boys close to an elderly Native American who was beating a drum. In the background were many other teenagers.

The boy in the foreground was “smirking” at the Native American while his friends made fun of the man, it was alleged by some who posted and re-posted the video. It went viral and the story was picked up by many in the news media.

Condemnations poured in, to the point that officials at the boys’ school vowed disciplinary action would be taken against them. On Tuesday, their campus was shut down over concern for the students’ safety.

Then more videos, along with accounts from some who had been on the scene, surfaced. Things were not as they seemed at first. The situation was much more complex than millions of people had been led to believe. Someone - lots of someones - had jumped to conclusions.

It developed that demonstrators from a black religious sect had been taunting the boys, along with a group of Native Americans at the scene. The man with the drum, Omaha Nation elder Nathan Phillips, stepped between the students and the sect members, obviously attempting to keep things peaceful.

Were the boys making fun of him? Was the one lad really smirking - or merely reacting nervously to the situation?

At some point we may know the answers to those and other questions about the confrontation. But we already know that based on a short, cropped video clip and a few accusations, the teenagers were accused of vile, unprovoked misbehavior. In short, they were wrongly accused.

And no one seemed to pause to reflect on the fact that they were just boys caught in a potentially dangerous confrontation.

Prejudice? Yes, it has been on display this week. What is that advice in the Bible? Something about letting those without sin cast the first stones?

Online: https://bit.ly/2FWBflK

___

The Wall Street Journal on Democratic U.S. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard’s presidential campaign

Jan. 27

The left is ascendant in the Democratic Party, as likely presidential candidates outdo each other with promises of free college, single-payer health care and a guaranteed income. Yet the party’s direction on foreign policy is still up for grabs, which makes Rep. Tulsi Gabbard’s presidential bid more interesting.

Elizabeth Warren says “it’s time to create a foreign policy that works for all Americans,” whatever that means. Kamala Harris vows not to conduct international relations by tweet, while Kirsten Gillibrand promises the opposite of whatever President Trump does.

Ms. Gabbard is different in making foreign policy a focus. “There is one main issue that is central to the rest and that is the issue of war and peace,” said the four-term Hawaii Congresswoman, 37, in a recent CNN appearance announcing her candidacy. Her vision for a more limited American role in the world will be the campaign’s central theme.

First elected to the Hawaii House at 21, Ms. Gabbard steadily climbed the island’s political ranks. Along the way she joined the Hawaii Army National Guard and served in Iraq. She says her time in the military has made her more hesitant to support U.S. involvement abroad.

She is best, or worst, known for bringing the Aloha spirit to Damascus and meeting with Syrian dictator Bashar Assad in January 2017. She says she doesn’t regret the meeting and has since defended the Assad regime. This is part of a consistent skepticism regarding U.S. military missions from Africa to Afghanistan.

Ms. Gabbard opposed the Trans-Pacific Partnership and has worked with libertarian Republicans on legislation to stop the U.S. from supporting Syrian rebels. Her ideas would make the world less safe and prosperous, but at least she doesn’t hide her isolationism as other Democrats do.

Ms. Gabbard’s biggest obstacle to winning the Democratic nomination may be her past as a social conservative, and she spent the first days after announcing for President apologizing for her previous opposition to same-sex marriage. She blamed it on her socially conservative father’s influence. A Bernie Sanders 2016 supporter, Ms. Gabbard now follows progressive orthodoxy on most domestic issues. A proponent of the Green New Deal, Ms. Gabbard has introduced legislation mandating 100% of U.S. energy generation come from renewable sources by 2035.

But her occasional heterodoxy might be useful in questioning some of the identity-politics excesses of other Democrats. In December Senators Kamala Harris and Mazie Hirono criticized a judicial nominee’s membership in the Knights of Columbus, a Catholic social and charity group. Ms. Gabbard, the first Hindu in Congress, wrote in the Hill newspaper that “no American should be asked to renounce his or her faith or membership in a faith-based, service organization in order to hold public office.” A Democratic primary debate moderator should ask whether other candidates agree.

Ms. Gabbard is a presidential longshot, but she’s more than a gadfly. She could be useful in helping voters cut through Democratic talking points to see what they really believe.

Online: https://on.wsj.com/2Ws26uS

___

The New York Post on ending the War in Afghanistan

Jan. 28

After nearly 17 frustrating years of war, the first serious ray of hope has emerged from Afghanistan that could pave the way toward a US troop withdrawal and a political settlement.

Could: Lots of uncertainties and unanswered questions remain. And a straight bugout would risk the same kind of catastrophe that followed President Barack Obama’s unilateral pullout from Iraq, which rapidly produced the rise of ISIS.

Chief US negotiator Zalmay Khalilzad says he’s reached a draft agreement in principle under which the Taliban will guarantee not to let Afghan territory serve as a base for terrorists. That’s vital: The Taliban’s hosting of al Qaeda led directly to 9/11.

And the tentative accord - according to Khalilzad, though the Taliban are already talking otherwise - dictates further conditions before a full US pullout.

In particular, the Taliban haven’t agreed to a ceasefire before any withdrawal, which Khalilzad says is a condition of any deal moving forward. And he admits that just how any agreement is to be monitored and enforced must still be “fleshed out.”

Another issue: The US-backed Afghan government was not a party to the talks, and the Taliban still haven’t agreed to deal with it directly. Afghan President Ashraf Ghani has backed the negotiations, saying he wants “peace quickly” - but warned of the need to “not repeat past mistakes.”

Right. As President Trump noted in 2017 of Obama’s hasty Iraq withdrawal, “Our hard-won gains slipped back into the hands of terrorist enemies.” That’s why Trump set aside his initial instinct to leave Afganistan quickly and opted to make another military effort, based on “principled realism.”

Yet Americans have grown impatient with this war - and even those most committed to the effort understand that we can’t forever prop up a hapless regime unwilling or unable to do its share.

Whether the Taliban will follow through remains to be seen. Certainly, Team Trump must make abundantly clear that the United States won’t tolerate any terrorist resurgence.

This is only a first step toward ending America’s longest war. The hope now is to achieve peace without sacrificing the goals that brought US troops there in the first place.

Online: https://nyp.st/2HBv8oH

___

The Post-Star on Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s proposal to keep arrests secret

Jan. 25

Gov. Andrew Cuomo has included in his 2020 executive budget a proposal to keep arrests secret, which could be the worst idea he has ever had, proposed in the worst possible way.

Important changes in state law - and this change would require amending the state’s Freedom of Information Law - should not be included in the budget. They should be put forward as bills, to be brought up for debate and consideration on their own merits by our representatives in the Legislature.

We have an understanding in this country that arrests are public record, and this is critical for the equal application of justice and for public safety. Allowing the selective release of arrests, which Cuomo’s proposal would do, means allowing favoritism in their disclosure. This happens already, on rare occasions, when police are slow to release details about the arrest of a fellow officer, for example. But Cuomo’s proposal would give police agencies an excuse to withhold information about arrests whenever they chose.

Making arrests and mugshots public may satisfy the curiosity of citizens who want to see if someone they know has been charged with a crime, but it also makes everyone safer. You want to know when a person who lives in your community or your neighborhood has been charged with molesting children, or setting houses on fire, or burglary, or assault.

You want to know what the charge is and what the accused looks like. This is an important part of our system of crime prevention and an important way that citizens stay informed about their communities. The governor should not toss this principle aside just because unscrupulous operators are making money off police mugshots.

These businesses post police booking photos on websites, then charge high fees to take them down. This is a bad business, and if Cuomo wants to go after these operators, we support him.

But you don’t ban $20 bills because, sometimes, they are used to buy illegal drugs. What you do is go after the bad behavior, which is what Cuomo should do with these extortionate websites. Meanwhile, the public’s right to know who has been arrested, and why, must be protected.

We’re not sure how far the governor intends to push this cockamamie idea. Will this affect public access to the state’s sex offender registry, now available online with names, birthdates, criminal convictions, photos and more?

There is a difference between being charged with a crime and being convicted of one. But, frequently, months can pass between arrest and conviction. If the information is not available upon arrest, it will be much more difficult to gather and make public later.

Cuomo has other, better ways to combat the misuse of this information. If he really is as bothered by these abusive websites as he says, then he should direct his attacks at them, not at information that New Yorkers use to keep their families safe.

Online: https://bit.ly/2HFhFw9

___