Editorial roundup
Excerpts from recent editorials in newspapers in the United States and abroad:
April 6
The Times Reporter of Dover-New Philadelphia, Ohio, on the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth:
The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, who brought a new level of meanness to politics during the 2004 presidential campaign, are back in the news with the appointment of one of the major donors to the group as ambassador to Belgium.
Sam Fox, a St. Louis businessman who has donated millions to the Republican Party over the years, made a $50,000 contribution to the Swift Boat group three years ago.
The group gained notoriety for a series of TV attack ads claiming that Sen. John Kerry, the Democratic nominee for president, exaggerated his Vietnam War record. The ads are widely considered to be a major reason why Kerry lost the election to President Bush.
When Fox appeared before the Senate for his confirmation hearing last month, Democrats made an issue of the contribution. Fox praised Kerry's war record, calling him a hero, but refused to apologize for the contribution.
When it became clear that Fox had no chance of winning approval from the Senate, Bush withdrew the nomination. Then, on Wednesday, while the Senate was out of town, Bush made a recess appointment, naming Fox to the post. Democrats were outraged. ...
We think Bush would have been wise to accept defeat on this issue and move on.
------
On the Net:
------
April 7
The Seattle Post-Intelligencer, on White House e-mails:
A couple of recent scandals have highlighted the possibility that unofficial e-mail addresses have been used by some White House staff in an effort to circumvent the archival process of official records.
There were the e-mails sent to convicted lobbyist and haberdashery fanatic Jack Abramoff by Karl Rove's assistant Susan Ralston, who used a non-White House e-mail address to share internal White House info with Abramoff. White House e-mails, after all, are copied and saved as part of the Presidential Records Act, which requires that presidential records be released to the public 12 years after each president leaves office.
The second is the ongoing investigation into the firings of eight U.S. attorneys, which, it seems, were discussed using unofficial e-mail servers, including ones registered to the Republican National Committee, using domain names such as gwb43.com. The PRA requires that all official business be carried out on an official White House e-mailing system.
President Bush claims not to use e-mail. At all. ...
Public-records chicanery has been standard political practice -- Presidents Nixon, Clinton and Bush Sr. have all been accused of it. And from the get-go, this administration in particular has sought broad authority over how much info the media and general public can access. On Nov.1, 2001, Bush issued Executive Order 13233, which revoked a prior order issued by President Reagan. In doing so, Bush gave himself and former presidents the right to withhold records or delay their release indefinitely. A license to re-write history via incomplete records? You bet. But there's hope yet.
The Senate is currently looking at The Presidential Records Act Amendments of 2007 (H.R. 1255), which seeks to rescind Executive Order 13233. The bill passed in the House, and is now referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. We can only hope that Bush won't veto this bill, as he has threatened to do. Although at least that would be a matter of public record.
------
On the Net:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/310441--emailed.html
------
April 8
The Kansas City (Mo.) Star, on immigration reform:
The second major recent congressional effort to pass comprehensive immigration reform puts the emphasis on the nation's security first. Backers hope that tweak will deflect the backlash that undid previous reform efforts.
The first word in the title of the latest legislation to tackle the nation's immigration quandaries says it all: Security Through Regularized Immigration and a Vibrant Economy Act of 2007.
The bill, introduced last month, is a bipartisan effort sponsored by Reps. Luis Gutierrez, an Illinois Democrat, and Jeff Flake, an Arizona Republican.
Legal analysts are poring over the fine print of the nearly 700-page package, but it appears to include all of the necessary components -- penalties for those who have come to the U.S. illegally, more visas for needed workers and stronger efforts to secure the nation's borders.
The bill sets up an employment verification system for employers to check the immigration status of applicants. It includes civil penalties against employers unwilling to cooperate and criminal penalties if employers hire illegal workers knowingly.
The bill also increases penalties for immigrants associated with money laundering, firearms offenses, drunken driving and gang crimes. And it offers immigrants the ability to eventually gain U.S. citizenship after they work in the U.S. five years, pay fees, meet English language requirements and pass background checks.
Some troublesome aspects of past proposals wisely have been avoided. The bill prohibits a national identification card and clarifies the role of state and local law agencies on immigration enforcement.
The proposal is a starting point. Much work is ahead. Yet, with so many lawmakers seeking a presidential nomination, a fairly small window exists for such contentious issues to be decided before Congress turns a hyper focus on presidential campaigning.
------
On the Net:
http://www.kansascity.com/340/story/62978.html
------
April 8
The Pantagraph of Bloomington, Ill., on campaign fundraising:
Money, unfortunately, is part of the political game.
If initial first-quarter reports are any indication, previous presidential campaign fund-raising records are going to be shattered in the 2008 race.
Is it any wonder that our state and federal budgets are in such terrible shape when the people running the show get accustomed to freely spending large amounts of other people's money?
A week ago the big news was that Sen. Hillary Clinton had set a record for presidential-primary candidates by raising $26 million in the first quarter of 2007.
By midweek we learned that her key rival for the Democratic nomination, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, had raised $25 million.
Poor John Edwards.
The $14 million collected by the former North Carolina senator in the past three months looks anemic next to dollars vacuumed in by Clinton and Obama. Yet it's nearly twice the "old" primary fund-raising record of $7.4 million. That was set in the first quarter of 2003 -- by Edwards.
Of course, Republicans aren't standing around with their hands in their pockets. They have their hands out looking for donations, too.
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney wasn't far behind the Clinton-Obama money machine with $23 million raised in the first quarter. And former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani and Arizona Sen. John McCain were on par with Edwards, raising $15 million and $12.5 million, respectively.
Campaign financing is a lot like the weather: Everyone talks about it, but no one can do much about it.
Whether we like it or not, money matters in politics. It buys advertising, brochures, bumper stickers and signs for rallies. It pays for travel around various states, not only for the candidates but also their campaign workers.
In the end, it's the votes that count. But without money to count, campaigns may not last long enough for votes to be cast. That's not ideal, but that's reality.
------
On the Net:
------
April 9
The Denver Post, on stem-cell bills in the U.S. Senate:
The U.S. Senate is set to take up legislation this week that would lift restrictions on federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research. It is a continuation of efforts that ended in the Oval Office last year when President Bush vetoed a bill passed by the Republican-dominated House and Senate that would have allowed funding for new stem-cell lines.
We hope the current stem-cell efforts will make it into law.
Two bills are expected to be debated in the Senate. One is similar to last year's legislation, which would have allowed funding for research on donated embryos stored in fertility clinics and destined to be destroyed.
The other bill proposes to use stem cells taken from embryos that doctors determine are too deficient to produce a child if they were implanted. The bill sponsor, Republican Sen. Johnny Isakson of Georgia, said his proposal avoids Bush's moral concerns that human embryos have to be destroyed in the name of federally funded research.
Stem cells are a promising area of research that some scientists believe could result in cures for such diseases as Parkinson's and Alzheimer's and treatment for spinal-cord and other injuries.
In 2001, the president banned the use of federal funds for embryonic stem-cell research beyond the 20 or so lines already in existence.
Last month, Bush's chief medical researcher publicly endorsed taxpayer funding for embryonic stem-cell research. "From my standpoint, it is clear today that American science will be better served, and the nation will be better served, if we let our scientists have access to more stem-cell lines," Dr. Elias A. Zerhouni, director of the National Institutes of Health, told the Senate health appropriations subcommittee. He said that the funding limits imposed by Bush have stalled efforts to advance research that could help sick and injured people. He noted that some of the existing stem-cell lines have degraded and are no longer suitable for research. He also said that studies suggesting that adult stem cells and other non-embryonic types are just as promising "do not hold scientific water."
The House has already passed a new stem-cell funding bill, and the public opinion surveys show a majority favors opening the door for scientists to pursue this research.
The president is the odd man out on this critical issue, and we hope the bipartisan support for stem-cell research will prompt him to reconsider his position.
------
On the Net:
http://www.denverpost.com/editorials/ci--5623567
------
April 9
Star Tribune of Minneapolis, on the use of antibiotics in animals:
Wisconsin dairy farmer John Vrieze wants FDA permission to give his cows a powerful antibiotic, cefquinome, that is now the drug of choice and last resort for several difficult-to-treat human conditions. He shouldn't get that permission.
By all accounts, Vrieze is a very good dairy farmer who embraces advanced techniques for keeping his cows happy, healthy and producing. So when one of his cows comes down with bovine respiratory disease, he'd like to treat the animal with a powerful drug, cefquinome. The manufacturer of cefquinome has petitioned the Food and Drug Administration for permission to begin selling the drug for use in animal husbandry.
That has set up a tug of war between those opposed to wider use of antibiotics in animals and those who favor it. In this battle, the opponents are the good guys; they include the American Medical Association, other health groups and the FDA's own advisory panel.
The problem is that the disease-causing microbes which antibiotics attack constantly mutate. The wider the use of an antibiotic, the sooner one of those mutations will defeat the drug.
Widespread use of antibiotics in animals accelerates this process tremendously, leaving humans more vulnerable to diseases once controllable. That's what is behind a movement to reduce the use of antibiotics in animals ....
Enter cefquinome. A close cousin, cefepime, is the only effective treatment available for some serious infections. Worried that using cefquinome in animals puts the efficacy of cefepime at risk, the advisory board at the FDA's Center for Veterinary Medicine recommended against approving animal use.
The panel had two other reasons for voting the way it did: A dozen other, effective treatments already are on the market for bovine respiratory disease, and the incidence of that disease can be significantly reduced if the animals are treated right -- i.e., not frequently moved long distances and not packed tightly together.
Notwithstanding the commonsense judgment that drugs from the cephalosporin family should be reserved for humans, the FDA may still approve it for animals. The reason is one that has become common under the Bush administration: deference to industry.
FDA guidelines have been rewritten so that approval in a case like this is pretty much guaranteed unless opponents can prove a risk to a drug used in humans to fight a food-borne illness. Since that is not the case for cefquinome, dairy farmer Vrieze may get his wish and be allowed to use its close cousin on his sick dairy cows. His "Bossy" may be better off, but someone's very sick Aunt Millie eventually is going to pay the price. Something's wrong with that outcome.
------
On the Net:
------
April 9
The Tuscaloosa (Ala.) News, on Nancy Pelosi's trip to Syria:
The White House can't have it both ways. It cannot condemn a visit to Syria by Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi without also denouncing a trip there by a group of Republicans that included U.S. Rep. Bob Aderholt of Haleyville (Ala.).
Bush accused Pelosi of failing to heed the administration's policy against American travel to Syria, which it ranks as a supporter of terrorism.
It is hypocritical of the president to ignore the visit ... by the group of Republicans a week before the Pelosi trip.
In truth, neither visit should be censured. The bipartisan 9/11 Commission urged our elected leaders to engage states such as Syria that can help achieve a peaceful resolution to the conflict in the Middle East.
The Pelosi visit also included Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and Israel.
A spokesman for the White House National Security Council called Pelosi's meeting with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad "counterproductive." ...
But Pelosi said Assad gave her reassurances that he was ready to resume the peace process by engaging in negotiations with Israel. Those talks collapsed in 2000.
Assad's involvement is important because of his influence on Hamas, whose charter calls for the destruction of Israel. Syria also is influential in the affairs of other Arab nations.
Aderholt, who rarely parts company with the president, said last week that it is important to engage nations like Syria in dialogue and seek common ground on issues.
Bush is wrong to ignore Assad. By default, leaders in Congress are shouldering the responsibility to rekindle Middle East peace efforts.
------
On the Net:
http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/frontpage
------
April 11
The Watertown (N.Y.) Daily Times, on nuclear inspections in Iran:
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's boast about Iran's expanded nuclear program has elicited a skeptical response from several Western nations.
Mr. Ahmadinejad claims that his country is now producing enriched uranium on an industrial scale, a significant step that would violate U.N. resolutions and move Iran farther down the road to a nuclear weapon.
Iran says its nuclear program is directed toward peaceful energy production. The United States and other countries fear Tehran intends to develop a nuclear warhead.
Russia, France and the United States, though, expressed doubts that Iran could have made the technological leaps needed to operate 3,000 centrifuges (nearly 10 times the previously known number) required to warrant President Ahmadinejad's claim. ...
There was also international concern about Mr. Ahmadinejad's comments suggesting Iran could withdraw from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and limit further cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. monitoring group.
The comments were made as two IAEA inspectors arrived in Iran to visit the uranium enrichment plant. If President Ahmadinejad's claims are true, then it could escalate tensions and jeopardize negotiations to resolve the standoff between Iran and the United Nations. It has imposed sanctions to punish Iran for refusing to suspend uranium enrichment.
Uncertainty persists over the nature and extent of Iran's nuclear ambition. President Ahmadinejad's remarks only heightened the doubts and add to the urgency in opening Iran's nuclear program to full international inspection.
----
On the Net:
http://www.watertowndailytimes.com
------
April 8
Asahi Shimbun, Tokyo, on Japan-China summit:
For the first time since October 2000, a Chinese leader is coming to Japan.
More than anything, visits by national leaders raise public awareness in both countries, and are good opportunities for the people to erase misunderstandings and distrust. Such visits also show that actual efforts are being made to improve relations.
If one considers the need for regional progress and safety, including the creation of an East Asian Community, it is all too evident that cooperation, not conflict, should be sought.
Japan needs to further dialogue and cooperation so that China's future will benefit Japan and the region. The other Asian countries, anxious about China's increasing importance, including its military buildup, no doubt expect Japan to play that role.
Japan-China relations were seriously damaged during former Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi's time in office. We would like the Chinese premier's visit to send a message to the world that the two countries are serious about repairing the rift and about taking further steps for better ties.
------
On the Net:
------
April 10
The Hindu, Madras, India, on Special Economic
After a freeze and a review of the policy on Special Economic Zones, a group of Ministers of the Union Cabinet has come out with a partial solution, which nevertheless is welcome insofar as it goes. The main objective of the policy promoting the production of goods and services rather than real estate and commercial development is sought to be strengthened by raising the processing area in an SEZ uniformly to 50 per cent of its extent. Secondly, a ceiling of 5,000 hectares is fixed on the size to keep the administrative and social costs of dislocating people from farms and homes manageable. The third and most significant change is the ban on the exercise of the state's power of eminent domain to compulsorily acquire land in the case of pending applications for SEZs. Compulsory acquisition has been the lightning rod for protests by farmers, social activists, and political parties and the change in policy should serve to defuse much of the opposition to SEZs on the ground. The use of the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 involves the obvious inequity in compulsorily acquiring land at low prices from farmers, ostensibly for a public purpose, and handing it to industries and real estate developers. The change of use invariably saw land values increase several fold, the gains of appreciation going to government agencies, industries, and real estate developers rather than to the farmers. With SEZ developers now having to buy land from willing sellers, possibly at much higher prices, farmers will no longer be uprooted against their will.
Following the experience of China, SEZs were conceived of as a quick fix to get over the problems of lack of infrastructure, multiplicity of controls and clearances, and an unfriendly tax policy and promote productive enterprises and attract foreign investment. ... Still, two major policy areas remain unaddressed. First, income tax concessions and exemption from import duties, service tax, Central sales tax, and State taxes are offered to SEZ developers and units. These result in a substantial loss of revenue and the question arises if such tax incentives-led industrialisation is sustainable. Secondly, rapid growth and industrialisation have brought to the fore the issue of conversion of farmland and wasteland to industrial, commercial, and residential uses. The reform of land use planning laws and regulations to make them more transparent and rule-based and the development of efficient land markets brook no delay. An important component of the policy should be the rehabilitation of farmers and farm labour, who will be unsettled from their traditional avocations.
------
On the Net:
------
April 11
The Daily Telegraph, London, on the captured sailors and Marines:
The fiasco following the release of the service personnel captured by Iran confirms at least one suspicion: that this Government profoundly misunderstands the nature and ethos of the Armed Forces as institutions. While it has been happy, in pursuit of an at times reckless foreign policy since 1997, to send servicemen and women into conflict, it has never properly understood what this means for them, the forces and the country. The present Secretary of State for Defence, Des Browne, seems to have even less of a grasp of these fundamentals than his predecessors. That he could have allowed the 15 captured sailors and Marines to sell their stories to the media caused astonishment when announced a few days ago. On reflection, the decision - taken in full disregard of its consequences, especially for morale - is outrageous and profoundly damaging. By it, Mr Browne has done what no Minister of the Crown has ever managed to do: he has brought our Armed Forces to a point where some right-thinking people might start to hold them in contempt.
This dereliction by Mr Browne is all the more disgraceful given what was, it seems, the reason for permission being granted in the first place. There were no "exceptional circumstances" to be accounted for, whatever was said at the time: those in the Forces risk their lives for their country day in, day out. There was, though, a desire on the part of the Government to look good in the aftermath of its humiliation following the capture of the 15. The sailors and Marines were therefore enlisted as part of a despicable spin operation. Most of them, fortunately, have had the presence of mind to refuse to play this game. Those who have not should be aware that they have done themselves and the Royal Navy no favours.
As a result of the policy of the last decade, our Armed Forces are grotesquely overstretched and therefore exceedingly vulnerable. This Government has made ever more exacting demands on the Services while starving them of resources, equipping them inadequately, and presiding over a recruitment and retention crisis. The Prime Minister in particular has revelled vicariously in the heroism, professionalism and sacrifice of our servicemen and women while doing precious little to ensure that their jobs can be carried out more safely and accountably. Parliament is in recess. When it returns next Monday, Mr Browne had better go to the Commons and give a full and honest account of what led him to sanction the selling of the captives' stories to the media. When he next faces the Commons a week today, Mr Blair should be asked what Downing Street knew about this bizarre and unprecedented interpretation of Queen's Regulations, and when. Mr Blair may not much care: he is in his last weeks in his job. Since Mr Browne manifestly understands so little about the ethos of the Services for which he is politically responsible, it might be as well if he were too.
------
On the Net:
------
April 11
Lietuvos rytas, Vilnius, Lithuania, on the cost of emigration:
A new poll has revealed a shocking truth: more than 20,000 children have been left by parents, who emigrated to work abroad. Most of those children - very lonely and deprived of basic care - are raised by strangers. These children tend to become more absent-minded and aggressive.
We often hear loud condemnation of those who left their loved ones in search of better pay. But before condemning emigrants, we should ask what makes people abandon those who are most important to them and travel to a strange land in hopes of earning more money for their family?
These people are eager to build something they never had: cozy homes and a brighter future for their children.
Imagine those same 20,000 or more staying in Lithuania, existing on an allowance or humiliating pay for odd jobs. For most, leaving was the only choice.
Had they not left, the army of unemployed would be even larger and crime rate possibly higher. There is no reason to be angry with people who decided to sacrifice their children's "today" for better "tomorrow."
You cannot stop people from working abroad if conditions are better there. The answer to this problem is the rapidly growing Lithuanian economy and rising salaries, a fact that makes more and more emigrants come back.
Emigrants are active and skilled part of our society. They know children cannot be left alone too long, and most are returning to Lithuania as soon as possible.
------
On the Net:
------
April 11
Aftenposten, Oslo, Norway, on climate change:
The year's second report from the UN international climate panel is the most clear documentation yet of the impact of manmade climate change.
The climate experts behind the report aren't just predicting the dramatic changes global warming can bring in the coming decades. They also demonstrated that the effect of increased CO2 emissions is already a fact.
Therefore, we know that even large emissions cuts in coming decades will not be enough to avoid the comprehensive consequences of the emissions that have already been released. Glaciers are already melting and the oceans are on the verge of rising because of temperature increase over large parts of the globe.
The political drama of these findings was underscored by the difficult negotiations on the final draft that was signed in Brussels. The United States, China, Russia and Saudi Arabia tried to tone down the content. These are powerful and populous countries that must join in if a future international climate agreement is to work.
These countries' behavior is a result of a reluctant attitude that is will take strong international pressure to change. The steadily more compelling evidence of the damage caused by manmade climate change means that time has run out for downplaying the unpleasant facts as a way of reducing their own obligations.
------
On the Net:
