Excerpts from recent editorials in newspapers in the United States and abroad:
------Feb. 9
The Times, Shreveport, La., on the Super Bowl champion Saints:
"Who dat?" seems oh-so two days ago doesn't it?
Then, it was less a question than a jubilant exclamation for a dream season that fans hoped would end in the ultimate NFL fantasy.
It took morning headlines and another quick confirmation with ESPN to allow the plaster to set on reality: "New Orleans Saints, Super Bowl Champions."
Break out one more T-shirt. New Orleans threw a parade that, in keeping with the spirit of the season, would have rolled win or lose. Indeed, amid the pre-game excitement some fans sought emotional self-preservation with a similar sentiment: Just getting to the Super Bowl after 43 years was its own reward, wasn't it? But the resilient Saints team, before the largest TV audience in history, had more lofty aspirations. ...
Is the Saints victory a panacea for all that's troubling New Orleans? Will it make the city impermeable to flood or hardship? Would a win, as one friend speculated, draw more Katrina refugees back to the Crescent City?
We don't know about all that. But we do know that sports sometimes is more than a game. The Saints have given the people of New Orleans a break from four years of rebuilding. The Saints faithful, scattered from Atlanta to Minden to Dallas, finally can bask in a Super Bowl win after decades of seeing their team serve as Sunday fodder for other teams on their way to championships. ...
On the Net:
------
Feb. 10
The Boston Globe, on use of the word 'retard':
In their crusade to purge the word "retarded" from common use, the mentally disabled and their advocates have made some serious strides. The term is on the way out of medical texts and lawbooks. Last March, Massachusetts' Department of Mental Retardation changed its name to the Department of Developmental Services. In December, a Virginia state agency made a similar name change.
But curbing the hurtful term from conversation has proven more challenging. The latest controversy took off after it was revealed that White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel had used the term "retarded" during a closed-door strategy session last year about health care, prompting fury from advocates for the mentally challenged -- and from Sarah Palin, who called for Emanuel's firing.
As the mother of a boy with Down Syndrome, Palin gives valuable voice to the issue. But her critiques would mean much more if she were equally incensed when Rush Limbaugh used the term.
Language is a malleable thing; plenty of slurs that were once commonplace are now considered verboten, and that's a good thing. But the broader issue isn't a single word so much as an attitude. The mentally disabled have always been easy targets, even for people who should know better: President Barack Obama had to apologize for making a derogatory crack about the Special Olympics on "The Tonight Show" last spring. And while political correctness can go too far, there's much to be said for demanding sensitivity -- especially from official and influential corners -- and for an evolution in the standards of personal decency.
The point of the campaign to end the "r" word is, at heart, to give disabled citizens the dignity they deserve. If it works, it will prove that the mentally disabled are gaining political clout, and that our society has the capacity to change for the better.
------
On the Net:
------
Feb. 5
The Paris (Tenn.) Post-Intelligencer, on bipartisan congressional action:
Does President Barack Obama truly believe in bipartisan congressional action, as he repeatedly says? Support by both parties of a new jobs bill will test the president's commitment, because the bill is an alternative to one he has put forward.
"We want to work with the Republicans," Senate majority leader Harry Reid said, "and it appears to me, on the jobs program, they want to work with us."
The measure would extend unemployment benefits for those whose payments have run out. It also would include tax breaks for employers who hire jobless workers, a feature that Republicans support.
That differs from a plan the president has proposed, a tax cut of up to $5,000 for each new worker that employers hire.
Supporters say the bipartisan plan is cheaper, simpler and less vulnerable to abuse than Obama's.
The president has repeatedly chastised Congress for its all-or-nothing approach to politics.
"We're unable to listen to one another, to have at once a serious and civil debate," he said at a prayer breakfast recently. "One side is either always right or always wrong when, in reality, neither side has a monopoly on truth."
Obama is, for one thing, a master politician, schooled in the hard-knocks tradition of Chicago politics.
So here's a two-party effort that challenges his proposal. Let's see what he says about it.
On the Net:
------
Feb. 9
The Rochester (N.Y.) Democrat and Chronicle, on the Senate's job creation plan:
The Senate's new focus on job creation could result in action, rather than just talk, in a matter of days.
That's good, because lawmakers need to prove to voters that they're serious. Even better is that both Democrats and Republicans are voicing support.
Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, released a plan that gives tax cuts to employers who hire people who have been unemployed for at least 60 days. Employers would not have to pay their share of the Social Security payroll tax on eligible workers hired in 2010.
The bill is a better tactic than the tax credits that President Barack Obama has proposed because employers get immediate relief. Under the Schumer plan, employers who keep these new hires on the payroll for 52 consecutive weeks would get an additional $1,000 credit on their 2011 tax return.
It's expected that the Schumer-Hatch proposal will be part of a larger bill the Senate plans to unveil.
That bill would also extend unemployment benefits for people whose benefits have run out, and it would renew the subsidy for health insurance premiums under the COBRA program.
The House barely passed its own jobs bill at the end of 2009. That bill also extended unemployment benefits and the COBRA subsidy, but also had a controversial provision -- taking $75 billion in money earmarked for the Wall Street bank bailout and using it for infrastructure and aid to states.
The Senate bill is the one lawmakers should concentrate on getting to Obama's desk quickly, while recognizing that employers won't add jobs until they feel confident the economy is recovering. That's why Congress must examine other tactics, such as getting lenders to loosen up credit, to improve the business climate.
------
On the Net:
------
Feb. 8
The Daily Sentinel, Grand Junction, Colo., on the latest national unemployment figures:
Don't break out the champagne and confetti just yet, but the employment picture for the nation appears to be improving.
January's unemployment rate was listed as 9.7 percent, down from 10 percent the previous month, after having dipped from 10.2 percent earlier in 2009.
President Barack Obama was appropriately cautious when talking about the figures. They are, he said, "a cause for hope, but not celebrations because far too many of our neighbors and friends and family are out of work," he said. ...
And the official unemployment rate doesn't account for all those who have stopped looking for jobs or who have accepted jobs well below their skill level simply to have a minimal paycheck. Experts put the effective unemployment rate at closer to 17 percent.
Still, the latest numbers aren't just moonbeam. For example, according to the U.S. Department of Labor, the number of Americans with jobs rose by 541,000 in January. The manufacturing and retail sectors both added jobs, with manufacturing doing so for the first time in three years. At the same time, employers cut fewer jobs in the first month of the year than economists had projected.
That doesn't mean we've suddenly turned the corner. Economists still project unemployment will be at or above 10 percent for most of this year. And the continuing economic uncertainty revealed itself on Wall Street, where the Dow Jones industrial average dropped well below 10,000 before eking out a small gain.
Still, the January unemployment numbers are welcome, if somewhat unexpected, news. We only hope the trend will continue.
On the Net:
------
Feb. 8
Chicago Sun-Times, on U.S. hospital infection rates:
Some of the problems plaguing America's health-care system will take big resources to fix.
But lowering the rate of bloodstream infections that occur in hospitals isn't one.
So it was disappointing to see the results of a Consumer Reports Health analysis of infection rates in 926 hospitals nationwide, including 15 in Chicago.
The magazine focused on how well hospitals prevent central-line-associated bloodstream infections, which happen when bacteria contaminate catheters used in intensive care units. About 250,000 of these infections are reported each year, and they account for roughly one-third of infection-related deaths in hospitals.
Consumer Reports found that five of the Chicago hospitals they looked at had infection rates more than double the national average in 2008. And none of the 15 reported a zero percent infection rate, which is the goal for all medical centers.
The good news is that most of the poor-performing hospitals reported better numbers in 2009.
Still, it's troubling that rates were ever that high, considering how easy it is to eliminate these infections by following a few simple, inexpensive protocols.
It has been proven for years that health-care facilities can dramatically reduce rates of bloodstream infections, not to mention patients' hospital bills, if employees do routine things such as wash their hands and properly disinfect the patient's skin before inserting a catheter.
Those are policies that every hospital should emphasize without compromise, if they haven't already.
But it's even more important to make sure that everyone, from the senior management to the nurses and doctors in the ICU, makes it a priority to follow the right procedures with every patient.
Medical professionals who fail to do so fall short of their first responsibility -- do no harm.
On the Net:
------
Feb. 10
San Francisco Chronicle, on President Obama's recent outreach to Republicans:
President Barack Obama's overtures to Republicans leave one point clear: Bad habits die hard. This bipartisanship thing is going to take a little work.
Obama extended his outreach Feb. 9 by inviting Republicans to the White House to discuss how they might find common ground on job creation, deficit reduction and health care. It was the first time in two months the GOP leaders had been to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
Obama talked about transcending "petty politics." The meeting itself was a refreshing change from the way the parties usually speak at each other from behind banks of microphones, instead of to each other in the same room.
The president made clear that bipartisanship did not mean selling out his agenda, and he warned that he would not "hesitate to condemn ... what I consider to be obstinacy." His words packed a bit of an edge, as they did when he called out a Texas congressman who turned a Q&A session into a soapbox at the recent House GOP retreat.
Next stop for the bipartisan express will be a Feb. 25 forum on health care. House GOP leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, has signaled that his members will be reluctant players. He suggested it's "time to scrap the bill and start over."
The chilliness endures, but at least they're talking.
On the Net:
------
Feb. 10
Omaha (Neb.) World-Herald, on Chinese drug rehab:
In China, "drug rehabilitation" doesn't deserve the name, according to a recent New York Times article.
The authoritarian Chinese government apparently allows its police forces to send anyone caught with drugs to one of the country's compulsory drug rehabilitation centers. No trial, no judge, no defense.
The minimum stay is two years, and the rehab is physical abuse and forced labor -- no drug treatment involved. The new "rehabilitation" system "replaces" the government's previous approach: Sending addicts to labor camps with prostitutes and dissidents.
China's Anti-Drug Law of 2008 requires that addicts be sent to detox facilities with professional staffs. Then patients are supposed to be released to (nonexistent) community-based rehabilitation centers for follow-up. Some joke.
Despite the harrowing forced-labor experience, the Times reported, 98 percent of people who leave the drug detention system have a relapse within a few years.
"Chinese drug rehabilitation" is an oxymoron doing no one any good except the police who collect money by renting their drug prisoners to farms and factories.
On the Net:
------
Feb. 9
The Japan Times, Tokyo, on
Toyota Motor Corp. is in a crisis of critical proportions, the worst in its 70-plus-year history. The firm has voluntarily recalled millions of vehicles worldwide, and has suspended the production and sale of several models in the United States. At stake is the firm's credibility in Japan and overseas as a trustworthy manufacturer of safe and reliable automobiles. ...
Akio Toyoda, president of the embattled auto giant, belatedly made his first public appearance since the recall crisis began to emerge in November, and apologized to Toyota users worldwide. Toyota's brand image -- and more importantly, consumer confidence in the quality and safety of Toyota cars -- has been profoundly shaken. Things went from bad to worse for the firm, when safety concerns came to light regarding the braking system of its flagship hybrid model, the Prius.
As Toyoda correctly stated, the automaker should make vehicle safety its absolute highest priority, not sales. Toyota should do everything necessary, at any cost and as swiftly as possible, to fix any mechanical flaws in its vehicles.
Toyota and the U.S. oversight administration will face close scrutiny at two U.S. Congressional hearings on the recalls. ... It is imperative that during these hearings Toyota establish its credibility by squarely addressing allegations it was tardy in its response to customer complaints and attempted to cover up the safety issues. The firm must present detailed, convincing explanations of the measures it takes to ensure the safety of its vehicles.
At the same time, it is hoped that the U.S. government and Congress will address the Toyota recalls in a non-emotional manner, and that the issue will not be exploited for political gain ahead of the U.S. midterm elections in November. Toyota should not be made a scapegoat of any attempts to channel American voters' frustration away from their prolonged economic woes, highlighted by high unemployment.
On the Net:
------
Feb. 8
The Telegraph, London, on U.S. missile defense plans:
The Russians must be wondering what sort of victory America's scrapping of plans for missile defenses in the Czech Republic and Poland represents. Last September, the Obama administration abandoned the idea of interceptors and a radar system in Central Europe for what the President called a "phased, adaptive approach" to the threat of nuclear-tipped Iranian missiles. That approach is translating into a heightened American military presence in the Gulf and an agreement to deploy medium-range interceptors in Romania. Earlier, Moscow argued implausibly that the Czech and Polish projects posed a military threat. It is now pushing the same line over Romania. But the real significance of deploying missile defenses in one of NATO's newer members is political: it binds the host country closer to the West, thus diminishing Russian influence.
Washington needs a good working relationship with its erstwhile superpower rival, whether over the control of fissile material, containing Iran's nuclear ambitions or renegotiating the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty. However, because it is in Russia's financial and security interests that talks on these matters make progress, it is unlikely that the Romanian announcement will seriously affect them.
The Kremlin may complain but it should ask itself what it has offered in return for the hand of friendship extended by Mr. Obama.
On the Net:
------
Feb. 10
The Toronto Star, on banking reform:
In the wake of the global financial meltdown, there has been a certain smugness in Canada about our banking sector. "Canada was not a part of the problem," Prime Minister Stephen Harper boasted in his speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. "No major Canadian financial institutions failed and none required bailouts from the government."
Harper is not alone in this judgment. The Canadian bank system has also received endorsements from the likes of the International Monetary Fund ("remarkable stability amid the global turbulence") and Paul Krugman, the New York Times columnist and Nobel laureate in economics ("a very important role model").
Praise like this has encouraged a view that there is no need for Canada to reform the way it regulates banks. That's why U.S. President Barack Obama's appeal for major changes in American banking regulations was mostly met with a shrug here. As Harper explained in his Davos speech, "In Canada, because our situation has been so different, we don't face such demands and public opinion is much more reflective about what is needed."
That attitude may be too complacent by half. For while it is true that the financial crisis was much worse in the U.S., some of the moves being contemplated by Obama and Congress are at least worthy of consideration here. ...
John McCallum, the Liberal finance critic and a former bank economist, is not so sure. "Canada should not always simply follow the United States and especially not in the banking sector because our system is totally different from theirs," he says. "If it isn't broken, don't fix it. " At the same time, he acknowledges that some American ideas are at least worth a look.
The Commons finance committee was studying U.S. financial regulatory reforms prior to prorogation in December. The committee should resume that study when Parliament returns next month.
On the Net:
------
Feb. 10
China Daily, Beijing, on whether the country is on the threshold of modernization:
Every once in a while, there is talk to discuss when this country will traverse the threshold for modernization, and they seldom fail to make a splash.
A recent statement claiming that the dream will be fulfilled a decade or so ahead of schedule to make China a "moderately developed country" around 2040 excited many. The latest Chinese Academy of Social Sciences report that the country has a slim 4-percent chance of becoming a developed country by the end of the century, however, sounds more frustrating than inspiring.
Our compatriots are into name games. This is but another. It may be unfair to blame our scholars for investing precious resources in such games. But we as a nation would definitely be better off should our scholars concentrate more on refining our approach to development.
For many in this country, the Chinese dream stands more for the nation as a game of catching up with developed countries and realizing the "great rejuvenation of the nation" than mere individual pursuits. And that dream appears more approachable than ever these days.
Yet timing a highly subjective concept, or state of development, is to a great extent a matter of judgment. This is why we prefer seeing more scholarly explorations about what kind of modernity we should be after, and how to achieve it.
In spite of the recent rhetoric about the "scientific outlook on development," the country's three-step modernization strategy, which is the de facto official yardstick for gauging development, is based overwhelmingly on economic indices.
However, higher GDP and national income, gross or per capita are only part of the picture of modernity. Indices of modernity involving human development are embarrassingly underdeveloped in this country. And that is where we have seen the least scholarly focus. ...
The non-economic aspects of the challenge may turn out to be trickier. But without true progress, our picture of modernity will never be complete.
On the Net:
