Recent editorials of statewide and national interest from New York’s newspapers:
___
The Glens Falls Post-Star on sexual harassment
Dec. 17
You can’t go a couple of hours, it seems, without hearing about another previously admired man being exposed as a cad or a criminal.
Did you hear about Tavis Smiley? He got suspended by PBS for sexual affairs with staffers.
The most important stories are the ones right under our noses, the ones that have been happening for decades but were justified and normalized and minimized so that few people spoke up, and when they did, their stories were treated as anomalies.
That’s the way it was with sexual harassment. At first, we were surprised.
“Can you believe that? It’s so out of character. I never would have guessed.”
But we are hearing about new cases every day now. After Cosby and Trump and Louis C.K. and Harvey Weinstein and Roy Moore and Trent Franks and Matt Lauer and Charlie Rose and Bill O’Reilly and Garrison Keillor and Al Franken and Roger Ailes and on and on, surprise no longer makes sense.
You can’t be shocked when a new bad guy is revealed every other hour. Now men are even starting to accuse themselves.
Morgan Spurlock, the “Super Size Me” guy, has admitted to sexual harassment and serial infidelity, without being accused by anyone.
Bad behavior has been pervasive. It has taken place in the military, the arts, politics, the media, academia and business. It has seemed to particularly take place when powerful men come into contact with less powerful women whose jobs or careers may be dependent on pleasing those men.
Blake Farenthold, a Texas congressman, has announced he won’t be running for re-election after two aides described the workplace he presided over as sexually hostile.
Power is relative, however, and you don’t have to be a Weinstein or an Ailes to have enough of it to manipulate and damage people who work for you.
You can be the boss at a pizza joint or a grocery or a gym and take advantage of your position to sexually harass your employees. Abuse in these more mundane settings is probably just as common as it is in the halls of Congress or on the movie lots of Hollywood, but it hasn’t gotten as much attention yet.
We will know this awakening has really taken hold when men who abuse waitresses are facing consequences as severe as men who abuse actresses.
Danny Masterson, the actor just fired from the Netflix series “The Ranch,” was accused of violent rape by four women.
This is a reckoning, and as often happens when justice has been long denied, the flood that is holding to account many who richly deserve it may also be sweeping up some who aren’t in the same category.
President George H.W. Bush has been accused by at least seven women of squeezing their backsides during photo-ops. Similar accusations led Al Franken to say he will resign from the Senate.
The reckoning is not only about unwanted comments and touching; it’s about respect for co-workers who happen to be women. It’s demeaning to be sexually objectified, and when it takes place at work, it can do long-term damage to your career.
All of this brings us to President Trump and his recent response to Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand’s call for him to resign. Trump responded crudely, as he does, but Gillibrand had a good reason for saying what she did - the long list of women who have accused Trump of sexual assault.
“He groped me, he absolutely groped me. And he just slipped his hand there. Touching my private parts.” - Jill Harth, one of 16 women who have publicly accused Donald Trump of sexual assault or harassment.
Gillibrand is being accused of political opportunism, but she is speaking up for many women finally breaking their silence. This moment is an opportunity to change a destructive dynamic, and while lots of people are signing on now, Gillibrand has for years been speaking up for sexual assault victims in the military.
The effort has made its way to the local level - the Adirondack Regional Chamber of Commerce held a sexual harassment training on Friday at The Queensbury Hotel.
No matter who they are and where they are, men are on notice that they cannot get away with the casual sexism and harassment that has been common in the workplace. It’s about time.
Online: http://bit.ly/2DhdpfW
___
The Times Herald-Record on child abuse victims verses the Catholic Church
Dec. 17
The sexual abuse of child victims is going to be in the news again over the coming months as advocates for a more expansive and humane approach in New York put pressure on legislators to make legal changes.
In this area, that pressure is going to be placed on two Republican members of the state Senate, John Bonacic and Bill Larkin. Their party and their majority has been instrumental in blocking efforts to change the laws for years and now a new organization, New Yorkers Against Hidden Predators, is vowing to start asking the two and others in the Senate why.
The issue is as simple as it is emotional. New York abuse victims must seek criminal charges or sue before they turn 23, much too early, advocates say, for many traumatized abuse survivors to come forward. A bill that the Assembly passed in a 139-7 vote in June would give victims until age 28 to seek prosecution and until age 50 to sue culpable institutions. It also would have given previously time-barred victims one year to bring cases.
Those who have successfully opposed the change, most notably the Catholic Church which has spent an enormous amount of money on lobbying, argue that this opportunity for victims would be what they like to call an “evidentiary nightmare,” a challenge courts would be unable to negotiate.
But any case can bring such challenges. While it is true that the longer a person waits to lodge a charge, the harder it might be to come up with witnesses and evidence, which is always the case in court. If the victim cannot find people to testify, if evidence is not available, then the courts would not be able to proceed. But those who deal with victims know that it can take decades for victims to get the courage to act and that these arbitrary limits have nothing to do with justice.
The real reason that legislators have been lobbied so heavily to keep New York law the way it is concerns not justice but money.
“The bishops feel strongly that we need to do more to protect children from abuse and give survivors of abuse more time to seek justice,” a spokesman for the Catholic Conference said. “Our only objection is with that retroactive window which comes without any caps on either time or dollars. Any organization that deals with children would be looking at potential catastrophic liability when you’re looking at cases from the ’50s and ’60s.”
The Archdiocese of New York prefers to make its own rules when it comes to such compensation and recently announced that it had paid about $40 million to189 people who identified themselves as victims of clergy sex abuse. The payouts averaged $211,600.
The Archdiocese said that when it comes to sex abuse by priests and others, “Fortunately, for the Catholic Church, such horrors are now mostly confined to the past.”
Senators can either take that as fact or open the courts to see if there are other victims. If they believe the church, they should at least explain why and not duck the issue by avoiding a vote.
Online: http://bit.ly/2kQc5bv
___
The Syracuse Post-Standard on President Donald Trump’s remarks on Sen. Kristen Gillibrand
Dec. 17
The daily fusillade of insults, attacks, rage, lies and obfuscations from President Donald Trump is having its intended effect: The public is weary of hearing them, the media are labeled “fake news” for reporting them and our political institutions are unwilling or unable to respond to them. The president’s approval ratings have plummeted to a historic low, with more than half the country now disapproving of his job performance.
Trump’s latest outrage - a tweet suggesting Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York would trade sexual favors for campaign contributions - hit a new low, even for this president.
It cannot go unrebuked.
The Senate ought to censure Trump for his remark against one its own members. Censure is “a formal statement of disapproval” that can be passed by congressional resolution. It carries no penalty but is so rarely used, it would get the president’s attention. Andrew Jackson is the only president ever to be censured, though there was talk of censuring Bill Clinton instead of impeaching him for the Monica Lewinsky scandal.
Trump also should apologize to Gillibrand.
We have no illusions of ever seeing a censure or an apology. Whether through fear or naked self-interest, members of the Republican majority in Congress have abdicated their constitutional responsibility to be a check the executive branch. And the idea of Trump admitting error or seeking forgiveness is laughable.
And yet.
At this “Me Too” moment in our country, we are compelled to add our voice to the loud and growing chorus demanding accountability for men who degrade, sexually harass and sexually assault women. That includes the president.
Despite his repeated denials - a page out of the Trump playbook - there is plenty of evidence the president engaged in the entire array of these activities. The most damning is the “Access Hollywood” tape, where Trump brags about grabbing women by the genitals. More than a dozen women are on the record about being on the receiving end of forced kisses, groping, demeaning comments and sexual propositions. Trump flat-out lies when he says he doesn’t know or has never met these women, and we’re still waiting to see the lawsuits he promised to file against them once the election was over. One of Trump’s accusers is suing him for defamation, citing his campaign trash-talk about her and the other women.
The Gillibrand attack followed a predictable rhythm, also right out of the playbook.
Gillibrand clapped back at Trump, calling the president’s tweet “a sexist smear.” She’s right. It implies that a woman can only succeed if she uses her sexual wiles, and it demeans the skills and talents that she brings to the workplace, whether that workplace is the U.S. Senate, the factory floor or the restaurant down the street.
We’re not buying White House spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders’ explanation: that Trump’s comment wasn’t sexual “unless your mind is in the gutter.” It was the same implication after Trump’s “blood coming out of her wherever” comment about Megyn Kelly - another effort to demean a woman who dared to challenge him.
The “Me Too” reckoning so far has claimed a Hollywood mogul, a rap impresario, several movie and television actors, a sitting U.S. senator, a heavily favored Alabama candidate for U.S. Senate, two members of the House of Representatives, multiple high-profile journalists, a handful of celebrity chefs and a group of NFL Network football analysts.
Now, it’s time that Trump faced a consequence for his flagrant disrespect of women - half of the American people he is supposed represent.
Online: http://bit.ly/2BGHPYG
___
The Adirondack Daily Enterprise on the public’s right to know
Dec. 18
We’re glad Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed a bill that strengthens New York’s Freedom of Information Law.
Previously, FOIL said a judge “may” make a state or local government agency pay your attorney fees and other litigation costs if you win a FOIL lawsuit. Now, the judge must make the agency pay your attorney fees if you win your suit “substantially” and if the judge finds that “the agency had no reasonable basis for denying access.”
If you win but not “substantially,” or if you win but the judge thinks the agency had legitimate reason to deny access, now the judge “may” make the agency pay your attorney fees.
That word “may” was a deterrent to suing over unfair denial of access to public records. Citizens trying to get the government to follow its own law didn’t know whether they could afford to sue. Knowing what a risk they faced, government agencies sometimes decided to sit on documents they didn’t feel like digging up and sharing. Now plaintiffs and their lawyers can make their decisions on the strength of their cases rather than fear of financial ruin.
Both the state Senate and Assembly had passed the bill, and the governor signed it Wednesday. We thank them for doing the right thing. There is more to do - the Legislature has always wrongly exempted itself from FOIL, which ought to change - but this was a step in the right direction.
Online: http://bit.ly/2B70dZA
___
Newsday on renewing funding for the children’s health insurance program
Dec. 19
In the 20 years since Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch and Democratic Sen. Edward Kennedy introduced the Children’s Health Insurance Program, it’s never been used by either party as leverage to further other political goals.
CHIP provides insurance for almost 9 million children and several hundred thousand pregnant women who aren’t quite poor enough to qualify for Medicaid but still can’t afford private insurance. That includes 700,000 recipients in New York State, 66,000 of them on Long Island.
The lack of political horse-trading around CHIP for two decades represented a sort of pact, or social contract. It was as if politicians of all persuasions had agreed that health care for kids whose families could not otherwise afford it was an untouchable, unquestionable priority.
Until now.
Funding for CHIP, which costs the federal government about $14 billion a year, ran out on Sept. 30, and Congress has refused to reauthorize it. The states, which administer CHIP, have mostly scraped together enough funding to keep their programs going, but that will soon cease to be true. In New York State, officials say funds could run out by March. In other states, like Connecticut, the well could run dry in just a few weeks.
The blame falls squarely on Republicans, whose House bill to fund CHIP for five more years included cuts to the Prevention and Public Health Fund, which helps fight the opioid epidemic. That bill also sought to raise money by shortening the grace period before people would be dropped from Affordable Care Act insurance plans for nonpayment, and it would have added a surtax on wealthy Medicare recipients. Democrats were unwilling to attach CHIP funding to those conditions, and they were right.
It’s also worth noting that tobacco tax increases in 1997 and 2009 that raise $11 billion a year and took the per-pack levy from 24 cents to $1.01 are still being collected even as CHIP remains unfunded and were, when enacted, justified by politicians as direct funding for CHIP.
Republicans are approving a tax-code overhaul that’s projected to add $1.5 trillion to the national debt over 10 years, with most of that money going to the very rich. The GOP is not demanding that the shortfall be paid for. But to Republicans, providing health care for kids simply demands that the nation cut addiction treatment.
The entire federal government is due to run out of funding on Dec. 22, and it’s going to take both Republican and Democratic votes to pass a spending authorization. Democrats must demand that the funding bill include a 5-year reauthorization of CHIP with no strings attached.
House Speaker Paul Ryan and other Republican leaders have made it clear they want to pay for their tax extravaganza by cutting Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security in the new year. In that context, the haggling over CHIP feels like a test case to see whether both Democratic and Republican politicians, as well as the public, will roll over for such attacks on crucial and previously untouchable programs.
The answer has to be no, and CHIP funding has to be the vehicle by which that answer is delivered.
Online: https://nwsdy.li/2ktK5Lo
___
Please read our comment policy before commenting.