The world’s opinions
Los Angeles Times
on Pope Benedict XVI and condom use
Opaque as it is, Pope Benedict XVI’s statement that condom use might be justified to prevent the transmission of AIDS is a significant development. His fellow bishops, especially those in Africa, should feel liberated to apply the pope’s observation to a public health effort that has been hampered by the Vatican’s dogmatism.
As his critics point out, the pope’s comments in a newly published book of interviews fell short of endorsing widespread use of prophylactics to prevent the transmission of AIDS and other diseases, and they certainly didn’t question the church’s opposition to contraception. But they contrast dramatically with his insistence last year that society “can’t resolve (the AIDS epidemic) with the distribution of condoms. On the contrary, it increases the problem.” No amount of spin by church officials can disguise that change. (The Vatican spokesman said that “the pope is not reforming or changing the teaching of the church.”)
The pope’s actual words were characteristically elliptical ... The pope’s example of a male prostitute is peculiar, suggesting that AIDS is a gay disease or that it is found only on society’s fringes. In fact, in sub-Saharan Africa, for example, AIDS is widely transmitted through heterosexual intercourse, including sex inside marriage. He also seems to be saying that condom use is more acceptable when it’s the first step on the road to abstinence or marriage. The HIV virus doesn’t make such distinctions. It isn’t only in “this or that case” that condoms protect against the transmission of disease.
Still, for all the qualifications, Benedict has acknowledged the applicability to AIDS of the traditional Catholic doctrine of the “double effect” ...
It’s unrealistic to expect this conservative pope to modify the church’s strictures against birth control or to stop pressing for abstinence. But we hope Benedict’s words reflect his recognition that common sense, and Christian charity, require a more compassionate approach than the church has offered in the past.
The Augusta (Georgia) Chronicle
on the stimulus bill
Federal power grabs called “stimulus” bills haven’t worked. Hanging carrots outside banks hasn’t done it. Now the Federal Reserve is going to try to stimulate the economy with a $600 billion bond purchase it hopes will drive interest rates even lower and get people borrowing again. ...
Isn’t excessive borrowing what got us into this mess in the first place?
People who are working don’t know how safe their jobs are. ...
And they think people will rush out to get deeper in debt or that they even should? ...
We don’t need more of other people’s money. What we need is more of our own.
Instead of the Fed spending $600 billion on bonds, and instead of Washington’s nearly $1 trillion stimulus plan that failed utterly to get the economy moving, why don’t our leaders do the sensible thing? Why don’t they let us keep more of our own money?
Rather than enrich the government with borrowed money and let some of it trickle slowly down, why doesn’t the federal government enact a six-month or yearlong moratorium on federal income taxes?
The difference would show up within weeks, if not days and in your pocket, not in Washington. Imagine the stimulative effect of letting Americans keep nearly all of what they earn. ...
Knoxville (Tennessee) News Sentinel on arms control
Sen. Jon Kyl, the Arizona Republican seen as the key to a timely vote on the New START arms control treaty with Russia, has decided to resist a vote on the pact until Congress convenes after the first of the year.
Kyl claims there isn’t enough time in the lame-duck session to hold a vote, even though the Senate Foreign Relations Committee has sent it to the floor with bipartisan support. In a statement, Kyl blamed “the combination of other work Congress must do and the complex and unresolved issues related to START and modernization.”
The minority whip’s foot-dragging could make it tougher for the treaty to obtain the two-third’s majority needed for ratification because of Democratic losses in this month’s election.
Ratification is in the best interests of the country and is important for the future of the Y-12 National Security Complex in Oak Ridge.
Unfortunately, Tennessee’s senators, Republicans Lamar Alexander and Bob Corker, appear willing to go along with Kyl. ...
Support of Republicans like Kyl, Alexander and Corker hinges on President Barack Obama’s commitment to modernization of the nation’s nuclear weapons program, a pledge the president has made. ...
Corker and Alexander should help secure ratification by joining in the call for a vote on this important for national security treaty.
The Times-Picayune, New Orleans, on the Gulf of Mexico oil spill
Like other independent investigators examining the Deepwater Horizon disaster, the National Academy of Engineering is pointing fingers mostly at BP joining the emerging consensus that the oil giant’s errors greatly contributed to the explosion and subsequent oil spill.
In an interim report, prepared jointly with the National Research Council, members of the academy said BP failed to properly assess risks and chose less expensive processes and equipment that led to the disaster.
The academy is hardly the first one to point to those mistakes. Its report did not identify which specific errors may have caused the explosion at the rig. But the engineers placed the responsibility for many of the missteps squarely on BP’s shoulders.
They cited critical errors by BP, including changing key supervisors days before critical well procedures, choosing to line the well with fewer barriers against natural gas seepage and fewer safety devices than recommended, declining important tests that could have warned of impending danger and removing heavy drilling mud prematurely.
The most critical error, according to members of the academy, was the misinterpretation of key tests of the well’s pressure just hours before the April 20 explosion. ...
So much for BP’s self-proclaimed “culture of safety.”
Online:
Nov. 18
The Kansas City Star, on the aftermath of the GM bailout:
The dramatic turnaround story of General Motors has etched another milestone with a successful stock market offering, reducing the government’s ownership share well below the crucial 50 percent mark.
GM’s improved prospects are welcome news for taxpayers, who backed a $50 billion bailout for the company, and a clear sign that the economic recovery remains on track. So far this year, the company has reported earnings of nearly $5 billion.
In 2009, when GM emerged from bankruptcy, its future was shaky. The economy was crawling out of recession, and the recovery has been glacial.
But the company has sliced its debt load, cut its executive payroll, gained a new labor contract, shuttered factories, pared its excessive portfolio of dealerships and eliminated some brand names, such as Pontiac. Remaining are solid performers like Buick, Cadillac and Chevrolet, including the popular Malibu made in the Kansas City area.
Despite GM’s successful return to public trading, the company still owes a hefty amount to taxpayers. ...
Even so, GM is undeniably on its way back, and that’s something to cheer.
Online:
Nov. 22
Chicago Tribune on trial for suspected terrorists:
From the start, the Obama administration made a weak case for trying terror suspects in civilian courts. Last week’s acquittal of Ahmed Ghailani on 284 of 285 counts in the 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania only confirms the folly of that approach.
The mystery is not why a jury reached that verdict. The mystery is why Attorney General Eric Holder thought it was worth the trouble to find out what a jury would do.
In practical terms, it wouldn’t necessarily have mattered if the defendant had been found guilty on all counts. ...
The administration assumed it had a slam-dunk case. It was surprised when the judge barred testimony from the key witness because the government had found out about him only by its harsh interrogation of Ghailani. Deprived of that evidence, prosecutors faced a much tougher fight.
Some of Holder’s critics accuse him of dangerous recklessness in refusing to try Ghailani before a military tribunal. But there is no guarantee that a tribunal would have allowed the evidence either. ...
At any rate, Holder’s decision didn’t put national security at risk because the defendant was assured of remaining behind bars no matter what the outcome. His conviction entitles him to a long stay in prison. An acquittal would have sent him back to Gitmo indefinitely.
The essence of a trial, in civilian or military court, is that it requires the government to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt or let the defendant go free. If the latter option is off the table as it was and should have been for Ghailani putting on a trial is a pointless waste of time and money. Even Holder should be able to see that now.
Online:
Nov. 22
San Francisco Chronicle on China and the Nobel Peace Prize:
China’s thuggish reaction to the Nobel Peace Prize given to a leading dissident dispels the happy-talk belief that civil liberties would blossom along with the nation’s surging economy. If anything, China is more autocratic than ever.
Beijing’s leaders have locked up Liu Xiaobo while muzzling his wife and colleagues after the pro-democracy advocate won the honor last month. The country has pressured a handful of nations to boycott the award ceremony on Dec. 10. If no family member is allowed to attend, the event may be curtailed or called off.
Such behavior shows that Beijing is intent on asserting “total control over the nation’s political order,” according to Phelim Kine of Human Rights Watch. After Burma’s release of Aung San Suu Kyi, who won the same award in 1991, from house arrest last week, China has the billing as the only country with a Nobel Peace Prize winner behind bars.
This conduct sets up a challenge for the White House. When China’s president, Hu Jintao, arrives for a state visit in January, will President Obama avoid the topic of human rights? Or maybe pull out an award he himself collected last year: the Nobel Peace Prize.
Online:
