A sampling of recent editorials from Colorado newspapers:
NATIONAL:
The Gazette, Colorado Springs, Colo., Oct. 11, on President Barack Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize:
President Barack Obama is not the first, shall we say, non-obvious and, indeed, rather eccentric choice by the Norwegian Nobel Committee to be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Nobody knows exactly what guided the five-member committee selected by the Norwegian Parliament; deliberations are secret for 50 years. So, we can only speculate.
What we know for certain is this: Obama has done nothing, to date, to make the world a safer and more peaceful place than it was before he took office. The United States remains mired in two seemingly intractable foreign wars, each devoid of clear objectives for victory and withdrawal. Obama has done little to nothing in the way of bringing order to the messes he inherited.
The general criteria for the Nobel Prize, according to Alfred Nobel’s will, is that the recognition should go “to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.”
The most obvious inference, of course, is that President Obama—if he was not chosen simply because he occupies the White House and is not George W. Bush—was chosen more for his aspirations and his eloquent words than for his accomplishments. After all, he has been in office only eight months, and during that time his efforts in foreign policy, which could arguably have some eventual impact on peace in the world, have consisted of declaring intentions and giving speeches.
The elusive Israeli-Palestinian peace process is as elusive as ever. Preliminary talks with Iran have produced nothing concrete. Russia is no more democratic or less threatening to certain neighbors. North Korea remains intransigent. The war in Iraq has been slow to wind down, with major troop withdrawals set for January. On the day the prize was announced the president was scheduled to meet with his war Cabinet to continue deliberations on whether to escalate the war in Afghanistan. It seems President Obama doesn’t know what to do about this war.
Some speculate that the Norwegian lawmakers mainly want to recognize the president’s aspirations and hope the prize will push him and the world toward accomplishment of some of those lofty goals. But a close reading of the committee’s citation reveals another curiosity—confusing secondary political ideals and actions, with peace itself.
Presumably peace means an absence of war. That simple negative could be expanded to embrace a world in which most peoples and nations are involved in peaceful and productive activities and interchanges through free and open trade and mutually respectful diplomacy. The question, still troubling the world and likely to do so for centuries to come, is how to get there.
The Nobel committee cited several aspects of Obama’s advocacy, “attaching,” for example, “special importance to Obama’s vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons.” Few people would deny that such a world would be nice, but it is far from obvious that it would really increase peace. Indeed, some scholars have argued that the presence of nuclear weapons has deterred war.
Likewise, the committee hailed the idea that “(m)ultilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other institutions can play.” Again, it is hardly obvious that such an emphasis contributes in a concrete way to a more peaceful world.
We certainly congratulate President Obama on this signal honor. The suggestion here is that this prize was given to advance certain means that may or may not lead to more peace, rather than the achievement of peace itself. It will be nice if, in a year, Obama has performed in a manner that puts to rest all questions about this most curious choice for the world’s most prominent peace award.
Editorial:
———
The Durango Herald, Oct. 13, on zero-tolerance policies in our nation’s schools:
A 6-year-old boy in Delaware, Md., faces 45 days in “reform” school for bringing his Cub Scout all-in-one eating tool to school, because it included a knife as well as a fork and a spoon.
It is fashionable, in such cases, to say that rule-making has gone too far, that teachers and administrators should have more latitude in determining which infractions are true threats and which are simply blunders by children still learning to wend their way through “the system.”
Zachary Christie certainly does not appear to be a violent criminal, and the silverware in question is not likely to be an effective weapon. While it is true that, in the wrong hands, even a small knife can poke a fatal hole in someone, that is also true about writing implements, paintbrushes, compasses and other common classroom tools. No one really wanted to suspend Zachary and feed him into a disciplinary pipeline designed to handle real problems. It sure seems like taking the knife away from the little boy would have been an adequate solution to a very small issue.
First-graders are not expected to have the reasoning skills of older students. It makes sense that more latitude be available in dealing with their innocent mistakes. Unfortunately, young children are easily intimidated into both dangerous actions and harmful silence can become pawns of older students.
Once the weapon is present, anyone can grab it and use it. In most cases, though, individuals, be they students or adults, who are bent on causing harm at school find a way to bring their weapons inside. That is not to say weapon-related violence could not happen another way, just that it rarely does.
There is a reason school districts adopt zero-tolerance policies: The consequences of judging incorrectly are severe. When an individual who could have protected students misjudged a threat, the results—even when they fall short of physical or psychological harm to students—can include lost jobs and lawsuits.
Another reason is that discretionary policies are susceptible to complaints of unfair application, and some are valid. Few people suspect that school shooters look like honor students, or like their own children; however, it is possible to argue that disadvantaged students deserve second chances.
Firm policies with no exceptions help to ensure that stereotyping plays no part in discipline. They also help to protect decision-makers from undue pressure by parents and special-interest groups.
The bottom line is this: Schools must keep students safe. There is no perfect way to do it, but that does not remove the responsibility to try. It is not impossible to do that with a continuum of policies that allow school officials some latitude at one end—the end occupied by 6-year-old Cub Scouts—and zero tolerance when it comes to items that have no use as anything other than weapons and people who have communicated threats. Such a plan still involves a firm line drawn somewhere—definitely before guns and switchblades.
There always will be instances when exceptions seem warranted. That is true of every policy, every law. But in our desire to protect students from the consequences of their own mistakes, we cannot forget that other students have died at the hands of their peers. Even Zachary Christie lives in a world where such tragedies happen.
Editorial:
———
STATE/REGIONAL:
The Denver Post, Oct. 12, on the notion that Republican candidates for governor shouldn’t shy away from primary debates:
Apparently, Colorado Republicans will not benefit from debates among the contestants in the primary race for the governor’s office.
Scott McInnis, the former congressman, has decided to run a campaign that limits contact with his opponents. He’s running against Josh Penry, the minority leader in the state Senate, and businessman Dan Maes.
McInnis’ office says he wants to avoid “a repeat of the Republican circular firing squads of the past” and instead keep the powder dry for challenging Gov. Bill Ritter.
We hope McInnis rethinks that position. While his arguments are reasonable from a purely political point of view, assuming he is the front-runner, voters don’t want a name-recognition contest. They want to know how the candidates will address the issues, and debates can be an effective way to break through the scripted campaign facades.
Yes, the GOP on occasion has hurt its chances in general elections by poisonous primary races. But surely Colorado’s current batch of Republicans can figure out a way to debate amicably.
We suggest McInnis consult the example of President Barack Obama.
Obama performed well against Sen. John McCain in general-election debates, and he did so in no small part thanks to the extensive practice he got from the many debates necessary during the Democratic primary contests.
So keep it clean. No rabbit punches. No hitting below the belt.
But get in the ring.
Editorial:
———
Aurora Sentinel, Oct. 7, on the need to look past the myths about the swine flu vaccine:
As if a swine flu pandemic isn’t scary all by itself, attitudes toward flu vaccines are downright terrifying.
A story by The Associated Press on Oct. 7 revealed that a recent poll shows that more than one-third of parents don’t want their children vaccinated against the H1N1 flu virus.
It’s astounding. The Center for Disease Control and other world health organizations have been pleading with people to make sure they and their children get flu vaccinations to curb the spread of the disease and reduce the number of Americans who will die of it before next summer.
Many of those deaths will include children, and given what parents are saying about having their children vaccinated, too many of those deaths will be unnecessary.
The story points out that much of the resistance to the swine flu vaccine has to do with a large segment of the population leery of all vaccines. The reluctance is the product of pseudoscience, hysteria and a clear ignorance of even the most basic tenets of science and research.
“Fears that the preservative or something in vaccines themselves can lead to autism remain entrenched in some quarters—despite no evidence from the most rigorous scientific studies,” the story said.
Colorado physicians, especially pediatricians, work hard to overcome the falsehoods that have needlessly worried parents about vaccinations. Local hospitals have reported a consistent increase in childhood diseases that were nearly eradicated here in the metro area. Mumps, measles, chicken pox and especially whooping cough are all making a resurgence because parents are not diligent in vaccinating their children.
The same goes for swine flu. Fortunately, it’s clear that the strains of swine flu circulating around the globe and around the metro area right now are not by themselves lethal. Yet. There’s no doubt this particular flu is extremely contagious, and its rapid spread worries scientists about what might happen if the flu virus mutates into something more deadly.
But even a mild flu can be a death sentence for those with a weakened immune system. By vaccinating the bulk of people in crowded communities, people are able to protect those who can’t tolerate the vaccine and who could succumb to the flu by limiting the spread of the disease.
The science behind mass inoculations are tried and true. So, too, are modern flu vaccines, which are proven to be safe and effective.
As important as it is for the government to produce and distribute these vaccines, it’s clear that it’s equally important for the government to create an effective campaign to dispel dangerous myths and lies about vaccines.
This is a good time to start.
Editorial:
