Archive: April 15, 2007 - April 21, 2007
More opinions pieces from other papers across the nation: The Boston Globe argues that it's "difficult to say which version of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales's role in the firing of eight US attorneys more disqualifies him as the nation's chief law enforcement officer": one that suggests "he allowed unsupervised underlings...
By Rob Anderson | April 20, 2007; 7:15 AM ET | Comments (7)
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales did little during his Senate testimony on the U.S. attorney firings scandal yesterday to boost his rating among the nation's editorialists. After the testimony, the editors of the NYT write that they can't figure out "whether Mr. Gonzales is merely so incompetent that he should be fired immediately, or whether he is covering something up": If we are to believe Gonzales's testimony "that neither he nor any other senior Justice Department official was calling the shots on the purge," the editors write, "then the public needs to know who was."
By Rob Anderson | April 20, 2007; 6:19 AM ET | Comments (16)
In the LAT, Cass Sunstein argues that the dissent written by Ruth Bader Ginsburg in the Supreme Court's ruling on "partial-birth" abortions this week may ultimately prove more influential than Anthony Kennedy's opinion for the majority: The dissent, "which attempts, for the first time in the court's history, to justify the right to abortion squarely in terms of women's equality rather than privacy," may one day become the Court's majority opinion, Sunstein writes.
By Rob Anderson | April 20, 2007; 6:13 AM ET | Comments (7)
The NYT applauds two separate organizations -- a U.S. panel composed of 11 retired admirals and generals and the U.N. Security Council -- for issuing warnings about the "persuasive connections between climate change and the very real potential for regional upheavals." The reports offer "yet another reason why Congress should be moving ahead with legislation to curb and reverse America's production of greenhouse gases," the editors write.
By Rob Anderson | April 20, 2007; 6:08 AM ET | Comments (1)
More opinions pieces from other papers across the nation: In the Boston Globe, Barry Posen outlines six arguments supporters of the Iraq war use to argue for a continued U.S. presence in Iraq, and writes that not one justifies the costs the United States will incur if we stay ......
By Rob Anderson | April 19, 2007; 7:34 AM ET | Email a Comment
For the first time since the Supreme Court made abortions legal under Roe v. Wade 34 years ago, the Court upheld a federal ban on "partial-birth" abortions yesterday in a 5-4 decision. The NYT chastises the "five male justices" who voted to uphold the measure -- as "far as we know," the editors write, "Mr. Kennedy and his four colleagues responsible for this atrocious result are not doctors" -- and argues that the decision "is so at odds with jurisprudence" that it "should not have staying power."
By Rob Anderson | April 19, 2007; 6:44 AM ET | Comments (8)
In the WaPo, David Broder argues that the media's roles in the Don Imus and Duke University sexual assault scandals have gravely diminished news outlets' credibility: "When will we start to think about the people who are hurt by our coverage?" he asks. "And when will we take our responsibilities seriously?"
By Rob Anderson | April 19, 2007; 6:28 AM ET | Comments (3)
The NYT encourages President Bush to impose tougher economic sanctions and an arms embargo on Sudan, and argues that the Darfur genocide will not end until "a large and well-armed peacekeeping force" is sent to the country.
By Rob Anderson | April 19, 2007; 6:09 AM ET | Email a Comment
More opinions pieces from other papers across the nation: Virginia Tech: In the Chicago Tribune, Clarence Page notes that Cho Seung Hui "defied our expectations in the worst ways": "We have a lot to be afraid of in this era of global terrorism and high school shootings," Page writes. "But...
By Rob Anderson | April 18, 2007; 7:50 AM ET | Email a Comment
Today, the nation's editorial boards and columnists do their best to analyze -- and make sense of -- the Virginia Tech massacre. Some jump to defend or attack America's gun-control laws, while others call for an unofficial moratorium on political punditry surrounding the tragedy. In the WSJ, David Kopel argues that university gun bans make campuses "attractive havens for mass killers": "Virginia Tech's policy only made the killer safer," he writes, "for it was only the law-abiding victims, and not the criminal, who were prevented from having guns."
By Rob Anderson | April 18, 2007; 6:44 AM ET | Comments (18)
In the NYT, Thomas Friedman notes that "the strongest case one could make" for Barack Obama in 2008 is "rarely articulated": In the wake of eight years of George W. Bush, Obama has the "potential to repair the broken relationship between America and the world."
By Rob Anderson | April 18, 2007; 6:16 AM ET | Comments (3)
WaPo highlights the results of a recent study that shows abstinence-only sex education to be "like chicken soup for a cold: It doesn't hurt, but it doesn't provide a cure, either," and argues that young people need programs that encourage them to "delay having sex until they are ready to handle the risk and responsibility and that encourage sexually active youths to use contraception."
By Rob Anderson | April 18, 2007; 6:12 AM ET | Comments (3)
More opinions pieces from other papers across the nation: Virginia Tech: The Chicago Sun-Times argues that in the wake of the Virginia Tech shootings, "our self-security as a nation is what is being called into question most." The editors add: "We know all about defending ourselves from outsiders. But what...
By Rob Anderson | April 17, 2007; 7:00 AM ET | Email a Comment
Virginia Tech: The WaPo asks a litany of questions concerning yesterday's massacre at Virginia Tech, the deadliest mass shooting in American history: "Under what circumstances, and where, did the gunman obtain his weapons? Would the university have suffered the same tragedy if Virginia law did not prohibit the carrying of guns on campus? Should metal detectors be ubiquitous in American classrooms and dormitories? And why are gunmen so apt to carry out their lethal rampages at American schools?"
By Rob Anderson | April 17, 2007; 6:20 AM ET | Comments (29)
In the LAT, Ruth Wedgwood defends World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz, arguing that those who are accusing him of showing preferential treatment toward his girlfriend "have recklessly ignored a written record of bank documents that serves not to condemn but to exculpate Wolfowitz."
By Rob Anderson | April 17, 2007; 6:13 AM ET | Comments (2)
The WaPo notes that while much of the attention of the U.S. attorney firings scandal has been focused on Attorney General Alberto Gonzales's role in the ordeal, the focus should move on to the White House, "which inspired the plan, prodded it along and may well have selected at least one target more because of partisan politics than performance."
By Rob Anderson | April 17, 2007; 6:06 AM ET | Email a Comment
More opinions pieces from other papers across the nation: In the Boston Globe, Eric Reeves accuses director Steven Spielberg of abetting the Darfur genocide by supporting the 2008 Summer Olympic Games in Beijing. Asking, "What are the obligations of artists in the face of genocide?", Reeves argues that Spielberg and...
By Rob Anderson | April 16, 2007; 7:23 AM ET | Email a Comment
The WSJ spars with the NYT and LAT over whether or not embattled World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz should resign over charges that he improperly arranged a pay raise and promotion for his girlfriend. The LAT argues that while Wolfowitz's actions fall "considerably short of looting the public treasury of a downtrodden country," they have undermined his "moral authority in cracking down on kleptocrats."
By Rob Anderson | April 16, 2007; 6:28 AM ET | Comments (30)
In the WaPo, John Sheehan, a retired Marine Corps general, explains why he declined President Bush's offer to be considered for the position of war czar to oversee the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq: The "current Washington decision-making process lacks a linkage to a broader view of the region and how the parts fit together strategically," he writes. "We got it right during the early days of Afghanistan -- and then lost focus."
By Rob Anderson | April 16, 2007; 6:21 AM ET | Comments (2)
USA Todaylooks over Alberto Gonzales's prepared testimony for his congressional hearing Tuesday and declares that the attorney general is still stuck in his "own conflicting statements" about the U.S. attorney firings scandal.
By Rob Anderson | April 16, 2007; 6:04 AM ET | Comments (2)