Editorials from around New England

Excerpts of recent editorials of statewide and national interest from New England newspapers:

Hartford Courant (Conn.), Sept. 26, 2016

Monday night’s presidential debate probably did little to uproot the entrenched camps supporting Democrat Hillary Clinton or Republican Donald Trump. But those who are still waiting to decide shouldn’t put too much stock in one 96-minute TV show.

Mr. Trump did what he’s always done: He spun a narrative of fear based on creaky, unsubstantiated claims. Mrs. Clinton leaned on her knowledge of policy and spoke more in generalities. Except for a few spirited moments early in the debate when they spoke over each other, they largely kept to their own established platforms, well-honed on the campaign trail.

If undecided voters were hoping to hear something that could make the spinning coin fall one way or the other, it’s still on its edge.

The presidential election is boiling down to only a handful of states where cultures and values most fiercely collide. Monday night’s debate was little more than a reality-show battle, thin on substance and long on insults, for the states where the polls are close, including Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, North Carolina, Colorado, Nevada and Florida.

Much of the rest of the nation seems already quite decided. Mrs. Clinton’s chance of winning Connecticut stands at better than 90 percent, and in states like California and New York, analysts believe, the odds of a Clinton victory are about 99 percent. In Wyoming and West Virginia, on the other hand, Mrs. Clinton has about zero chance of a win.

For those states where the outcomes already seem clear, Monday’s debate was simply an exercise in reinforcing existing prejudices and furthering a political - and social - rift. That is a shame.

That rift is felt even in Connecticut, where Republicans and Democrats who have known each other for years as friends and neighbors have sometimes hardly been able to look at each other at the local fairs, standing at town political committee tents behind posters advertising - or betraying - their allegiances.

Those brave enough to display bumper stickers or yard signs risk mockery and disbelief, as if they were the candidates themselves.

That isn’t true, of course. Many Republicans are struggling to support Mr. Trump, and many Democrats are struggling to support Mrs. Clinton.

A June poll conducted by Quinnipiac University showed that 55 percent of Connecticut voters had an unfavorable opinion of Mrs. Clinton, and 61 percent felt the same about Mr. Trump.

But although most Connecticut voters will probably vote for Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Trump has supporters here too, even if their personal political stances are shoehorned into an imperfect candidate. The distance between Mr. Trump and Mrs. Clinton can artificially magnify the distances between their supporters.

Instead of waving each other off as lunatics, it would do everyone well to listen patiently and explain themselves and their beliefs clearly to each other - something the candidates didn’t do enough of Monday night.

They left some voters yearning for a candidate who never showed up.

___

Online:

https://cour.at/2dEyXKE

The Portland Press Herald (Maine), Sept. 28, 2016

The companies that make and market smartphones like to tout all the things the devices can do. But they’ve been keeping quiet about one major advance: technology designed to stop motorists from texting while driving. At a time when U.S. traffic fatalities are spiking, their choice not to implement automated blocking is literally killing us.

This came to light in recent New York Times coverage of a lawsuit related to a 2013 Texas crash in which a driver checking her iPhone for text messages hit another vehicle, killing two adults and leaving a child paralyzed.

Lawyers suing Apple on behalf of the victims’ families turned up a revealing 2008 patent filing by Apple for technology that would automatically lock out calls and texts if motion and scenery sensors determined that a phone was moving and being used by a driver. Apple got its patent in 2014 but hasn’t put the technology in place.

Instead, the maker of the world’s most popular smartphone is emphasizing what drivers can do to keep from being distracted, like turning off their phones, manually disabling texting or using voice commands to compose or listen to text messages. Other companies encourage motorists to use apps to stop incoming texts.

By requiring drivers to make a decision each time they enter a car, this approach not only lets wireless companies off the hook but also overlooks the compulsive nature of smartphone use. Almost all adult motorists know that texting while driving isn’t safe, according to an AT&T survey. Vehicle safety research has shown that it triples a driver’s crash risk.

Almost half of us, though, do it anyway. Why? The “ping” of an incoming text lights up the part of the brain that enjoys pleasant experiences and expects more of them, like being contacted by a friend or loved one, a University of Connecticut researcher has found.

And if nothing bad happens when we combine driving with sending messages, we eventually convince ourselves that we’re good at multitasking, despite the science supporting the other side - including the latest traffic fatality figures, which show a 7.2 percent jump in U.S. motor vehicle deaths between 2014 and 2015.

While weaknesses in the collection and investigation of crash data mean that it’s unclear exactly how many of these tragic accidents were caused by distracted driving, the risks of on-the-road smartphone use are clear - not just to motorists and scientists but also to wireless companies, as the recent Times article pointed out.

It’s no coincidence that the 2014-2015 surge in crash deaths is the biggest spike since 1965-1966 - two years before the U.S. government mandated seat belts in cars, the first in a number of safety features that have cut traffic deaths nationwide. Smartphone companies have a tool of their own that could be equally effective, and there’s no justification for not requiring them to use it.

___

Online:

https://bit.ly/2dfQz07

The Republican in Springfield (Mass.), Sept. 30, 2016

On the surface, it sounds so good. Hillary Clinton’s plan to increase college opportunities for financially less secure families is a veritable Robin Hood approach of taking from the rich and giving to the poor.

Clinton’s plan is a nod to Bernie Sanders and the constituency she must attract on Election Day. It’s also well-meaning in its attempt to open doors by letting students from families earning less than $125,000 a year attend public universities free.

The estimated cost of $500 billion over a decade would be covered by closing tax loopholes that benefit the rich. But Clinton’s proposal is also full of holes, especially to private institutions that may have to severely change their policies if free tuition to public universities causes an exodus from the private schools.

Smaller private schools in particular could take a serious hit. Many serve women, low-income students and rural areas, as well as religious units, and they could become less diverse as schools search urgently for wealthier students to pay higher costs required by declining enrollment.

If public universities see the enrollment increase a free tuition plan would create, a shortage of classroom space and rising tuition at taxpayers’ expense may follow. Most ominously, private donors who supply endowments and help defray tuition costs may dry up as government takes on the role of paying for college, giving private sources reason or incentive to pull out.

Exorbitant college costs and resultant debt is a huge problem in the United States. Among the issues Sanders brought to the table, it was probably No. 1 in terms of resonating with the public.

So yes, something must be done. There is some substance to Clinton’s plan, but it needs more review and some tweaking, which certainly won’t be examined during the Presidential campaign and doesn’t help families eyeing their children’s approaching college years with impatience and apprehension.

The entire debate about “free college tuition” has been blatantly misrepresented from the outset. It would not be free. It would just be paid in other ways by other people.

Clinton’s plan would pit private schools against public universities at a time American higher education needs health in both. It could replace private endowments with public support, which would not grow the potential to help low-income students, only shift it.

Promising and appealing elements exist in Clinton’s plan, but her flat demarcation line of $125,000 is too simplistic to cover the impact. This isn’t a final solution to spiraling college cost and debt, but it could be a start to an overhaul that requires serious, careful examination.

Don’t expect that to happen before Election Day, if it happens at all.

___

Online:

https://bit.ly/2dwb2bp

Portsmouth Herald (N.H.), Sept. 28, 2016

During Monday’s first presidential debate between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, the candidates went head to head on everything from the economy to who is fit to be president.

But there was one thing Clinton and Trump agreed on - the need for closer relations and better communication between our communities and local police.

Addressing the racial divide throughout the country, Clinton said, “We have to restore trust. We have to work with the police. We have to make sure they respect the communities and the communities respect them.”

Agreeing in this area, Trump said, “You need better relationships between the communities and the police, because in some cases, it’s not good.”

Locally, we thank our police for doing their part to build that relationship. Officers from the York Police Department, the Kittery Police Department and the York County Sheriff’s Office gathered for a forum in York last week, sponsored by the York Diversity Forum, and attended by 40 to 50 community members.

The officers shared the challenges they face, their concerns with the community, and their fears. Police chiefs Douglas Bracy of York and James Soucy of Kittery said officers begin their shifts with recent police-involved shootings in Tulsa, Oklahoma, or the most recent act of international terrorism prominently in their minds. They worry how dangerous their next traffic stop could be, even in quiet southern Maine. “Most of us have a heightened sense every day, even here,” Soucy said. “Every day, cops are thinking how do I get out of the worst of the worst? These things play out in our head time and time again.”

The officers addressed what they said is a “perception by many that there are biases” among police officers when it comes to people of color, explaining that all officers are trained in the use of lethal force. But as Soucy said, “We know that our training teaches us; when you pull the trigger, you’re trying to kill them. That said, we don’t see on the other end of the weapon what color that person is.” Bracy sat on a governor’s task force on racial profiling in 2009 when he met Somalis and Ethiopians, who don’t trust their government or their police. It was an eye-opening experience, he said. York Police Capt. Charles Szeniawkski said the police academy is offering a bias class now and that the department submits a form to the Maine Chiefs of Police every time “we could have used deadly force but didn’t use it.”

Community members in attendance touched upon drug abuse, the top issue facing local police, and how to engage the community in a discussion about the drug epidemic and how to address it.

“It takes all of us standing up and saying something,” Bracy said. “We have to be champions in our communities.”

The same goes for building the relationship between our communities and our police. We have to be champions for making it happen. This forum was a perfect way to do that.

___

Online:

https://bit.ly/2dwcOJz

The Providence Journal (R.I.), Sept. 26, 2016

Every sport has great stars. But some stars are so great that they transform and embody their sports: Michael Jordan in basketball. Babe Ruth in baseball. And Arnold Palmer in golf.

Mr. Palmer, who died Sunday at 87 of complications from heart problems, won the hearts of Americans with his skill, his humility and his empathy. He was someone great who also good, and he helped millions of Americans warm to a sport that was once considered the realm of elitists. It did not hurt TV ratings that he had good looks, thick forearms, a thin waist, a great smile and a flair for the dramatic. In his sport, he was called “The King.”

Mr. Palmer was born in Latrobe, Pa. (the same hometown, curiously, as Fred “Mister” Rogers, who was a year ahead of him in high school). His father, the head pro and groundskeeper of the local country club, provided the tools and education for a budding golf prodigy.

With the help of his best friend, he attended Wake Forest College (now University) on a golf scholarship. After his friend’s death in a car accident, the shattered Mr. Arnold left school and joined the U.S. Coast Guard for three years. He returned to college and continued to play his favorite sport.

Mr. Palmer’s incredible pro career began after he won the 1954 U.S. Amateur. His first PGA Tour victory was the 1955 Canadian Open, and his first major tournament win was the 1958 Masters.

In total, he won an incredible 62 PGA Tour titles, the fifth-highest tally of all time. His last title came at the 1973 Bob Hope Desert Classic.

He also won seven major titles: four Masters (1958, 1960, 1962, 1964), one U.S. Open (1960) and two British Opens (1961, 1962). This is tied for seventh place overall.

The PGA Championship served as his Achilles’ heel. He finished in second place on three occasions (1964, 1968, 1970). Of interest, Mr. Palmer sits in third place with the most second-place finishes (10) in major tournament history.

He ended up with a litany of honors, including PGA Tour Player of the Year (twice) and the Vardon Trophy (four times). He was also elected to the World Golf Hall of Fame in 1974, received the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2004 and the Congressional Gold Medal in 2009.

“For all who love the game of golf and love to see it played, there has never been a sight quite like Arnold Palmer walking down the fairway toward the 18th green,” former President George W. Bush said Sunday.

But all of these titles and honors aside, there was so much more to this legendary golfer.

Mr. Palmer was golf’s greatest ambassador. He was a man of the people, who “brought golf to the truck drivers and the waitresses,” as ESPN sports columnist Rick Reilly wrote. He went to great lengths to make sure those who waited for an autograph got one. A group of fans called “Arnie’s Army” followed him around.

“Arnold transcended the game of golf,” his great friend, and golfing rival, Jack Nicklaus, wrote on his Facebook page Sunday. “He was more than a golfer or even great golfer. He was an icon. He was a legend. Arnold was someone who was a pioneer in his sport. He took the game from one level to a higher level, virtually by himself.”

“People who didn’t follow golf followed him. People who hated golf loved him,” said Tom Callahan of Golf Digest.

In a world of arrogant sports stars, egocentric political posturing and endless name-calling on social media, it is pleasant to honor the memory of a gentleman who combined excellence with grace and class. Arnold Palmer will go down in American popular history as a man worth remembering.

___

Online:

https://bit.ly/2cJegaD

Brattleboro Reformer (Vt.), Sept. 27, 2016

One of the many deceits Donald Trump was caught in Monday night involved his stance on climate change, and it highlights a contrast between the two presidential candidates that can’t be emphasized enough.

Early in Monday night’s debate, Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton contrasted her pro-green energy stance with that of her Republican opponent, observing that “Donald thinks that climate change is a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese. I think it’s real.” Mr. Trump interrupted to proclaim “I did not. I did not. I do not say that.”

In fact, in a tweet sent on November 6, 2012, Mr. Trump asserted that “The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.” The Republican Party has made climate-change denial an ideological litmus test, and with the scientific jury no longer out on the reality of human-caused global warming, the party, including its standard-bearer, have become the equivalent of flat-earthers.

President Obama last week issued a memorandum explaining how the federal government will address climate change as a national security issue. It pointed out that the heat waves, droughts, wildfires, floods and coastal erosion caused by rising air and water temperatures will lead to food, water and energy shortages and political instability. The president has aggressively addressed global warming and a President Clinton will continue those efforts.

Donald Trump will not continue those efforts, and will assuredly attempt to reverse the progress that has been made. Millennials still disappointed that Senator Bernie Sanders didn’t win the Democratic nomination and pondering throwing their votes away on third party candidates should consider the health of the world they will be living in for several decades to come. A vote for Hillary Clinton is a vote to fight the ravages of climate change that are already well underway.

Online:

https://bit.ly/2cTfTGj