April 11
Los Angeles Times on the fight to remove statues becoming a struggle against history:
Five years after President William McKinley was assassinated at the 1901 Pan-American Exposition in Buffalo, New York, farmer George Zehnder presented the Northern California city of Arcata with a 8.5-foot-tall (2.59 meters) statue of the 25th president. Just a few months before the assassination, Zehnder had met McKinley at an appearance in San Jose, which affirmed his belief that McKinley was the nation’s first modern president and should be honored. Arcata gladly accepted the statue, which was placed in the city’s main square.
Over the last 15 years, though, some folks in and around Arcata - home to Humboldt State University - have come to a different conclusion about McKinley, and today, a debate rages over whether the statue should remain standing or, like so many Confederate statues around the country, be taken down and put in storage. Ultimately, that’s a decision for the people of Arcata, but they ought to think deeply about what criteria they follow in deciding that a statue of a former president is akin to a statue of a Confederate general.
Statues and monuments in public spaces signal official recognition - and, in most cases, approval - of the memorialized person or event. There are certainly situations in which it is inappropriate to keep them up. Most of the Confederate monuments that have recently been challenged and removed, for instance, glorified a past in which the likes of Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee sought to rip the nation apart in defense of slavery. That was traitorous behavior. What’s more, many of the memorials were erected years after the Civil War as a deliberate effort to paint a romanticized “Old South” veneer over the brutal system of slavery, and as hostile signals to African Americans living under Jim Crow laws.
There’s also a movement underway - understandably - to remove blatantly offensive statues and monuments depicting Native Americans, such as the one San Francisco is taking down of a vanquished Native American at the feet of a vaquero and a Spanish missionary. Such statues should be taken down.
But the statue of McKinley, in our view, raises a somewhat more complicated set of questions. McKinley was the last U.S. president to have served in the Union Army. A former Ohio governor, he won the White House in 1896 while the nation was in the throes of a depression, and rode the recovery to reelection in 1900. He led the nation into the Spanish-American War, and its first full steps onto the international stage and into modern imperialism with the takeover of Puerto Rico, Guam and the Philippines.
What’s causing concern now is that McKinley also oversaw federal policies that undercut Native American tribal authority and reduced reservation lands by as much as 90 million acres. Those and related actions led the Tribal Council of the Wiyot Tribe in Northern California to join the campaign to have the statue of McKinley (who had no personal ties to the city) removed. Arcata was built on land seized from the Wiyot Tribe.
This is where the move to un-do historical markers veers into dangerous waters. Were McKinley only known or even best known for objectionable and inhumane policies, there might be a strong argument against the statue. But McKinley stood for much more than that, and a decision on whether to topple his statue ought to embrace the wholeness of his history and impact. Abraham Lincoln, for all that he is revered today, had his own problematic past. Though he claimed to always have opposed slavery, he embraced many of the white supremacist beliefs that predominated in America in his time. He also personally signed off on the hanging of 38 Dakota Indian men convicted of being involved in an uprising in Minnesota. Should we topple statues of Lincoln because of that?
As we have noted, it is ultimately up to the people of Arcata whether McKinley stands or falls. But in our view, a memorial to Robert E. Lee is a symbol of approval for the acts for which he is best known: his efforts to tear the nation apart in an effort to defend the institution of slavery.
It’s not so straightforward with McKinley. Few American presidents were all good or all bad; few didn’t have failings or make bad choices or even lethal ones. McKinley should be viewed in his totality. Except in egregious cases, it makes more sense to educate Americans about their complex, muddled and often unadmirable history than it does to erase or rewrite it.
___
April 11
The Mercury News on why San Jose City Council should tighten its travel policy:
San Jose needs to improve its Asian ties, but sending half the City Council to Okayama on taxpayers’ dime isn’t the best way to go about it.
Especially when it means five members missed Tuesday’s council meeting when the city is facing a budget shortfall. Instead of discussing that issue or other priorities, such as fighting homelessness, a light agenda was forced on the remaining council.
The situation demands a tightening of San Jose’s travel policy. Mayor Sam Liccardo, who did not make the trip, is recommending that taxpayers pay for only one council member’s expenses for such sister-city trips. Any other council member wanting to attend should use private funding. That makes sense.
Sister-city relationships are important for cities. But the heart of the program should be driven by volunteers from the arts community and members of the business community wanting to extend cultural and economic ties. City Hall should not be taking the lead.
And especially not when the city is considering asking voters in November to increase their taxes to fund important capital projects. Gallivanting around the world at city expense hardly builds voter trust.
Four council members - Lan Diep, Sergio Jimenez, Sylvia Arenas and Raul Peralez - made the three-day trip to Okayama at the public’s expense, as did an additional five staff members. Seriously? That’s nine international air fares, hotel rooms and meals for the trip. Fortunately, a fifth councilman, Johnny Khamis, paid his own way.
The visit commemorates the 60th anniversary of San Jose and Okayama’s sister-city relationship. The council members scheduled a visit to the prestigious Okayama University and the city’s historic castle, and planned a formal Japanese tea ceremony. They also met with the Okayama Chamber of Commerce and Industry and planned to discuss high-speed rail, among other topics.
Liccardo acknowledges that he has traveled internationally to explore initiatives important to the city, including transit development, Smart City initiatives and environmental sustainability. But those trips were paid by non-profit organizations or agencies such as the Knight Foundation or the Sustainable Cities Network.
Indeed, there are sometimes good reasons for the city to fund officials’ travel. The current City Council policy states that “travel by city officers and employees is an appropriate activity and expenses when performed for a public purpose. Requests for travel shall be limited to events from which the city derives specific benefits through attendance of a city representative.”
For example, taxpayers can benefit from the mayor and council members traveling to lobby for city initiatives. Liccardo will go to Sacramento on Wednesday to join other California mayors in requesting that the Legislature give cities more money to fight homelessness. The expectation is that the public expense will come with a corresponding degree of potential public benefit.
And, yes, there can also be some international public benefit to sister-city relationships. But that must be balanced against prudent use of taxpayer funds. Sure, send one person to Okayama on San Jose’s credit card. But, next time, the rest need to pay their way.
___
April 10
The Press Democrat on a trade war with China:
Just a week ago, a leading China scholar described the saber-rattling in Washington and Beijing over trade and tariffs as little more than a slap-fight.
But trade wars, like shooting wars, have a way of escalating.
And the skirmish between the U.S. and China threatens to get out of hand if the pattern of tit-for-tat trade sanctions continues.
Most experts say a full-scale trade war between the world’s two largest economies would punish American businesses, farms and workers. That may explain why U.S. stock markets have retreated each time trade tensions have ratcheted up.
Democrats and Republicans don’t agree on much, but both parties generally favor free trade. President Donald Trump, on the other hand, has made no secret of his protectionist views, during his campaign and since taking office.
So it shouldn’t have surprised anyone when he started announcing new tariffs.
And it isn’t surprising that China is responding with its own sanctions.
In March, Trump announced a 25 percent tariff on all imported steel and aluminum, subsequently exempting Canada, Mexico and the European Union. That left China, which responded with its own tariffs on several U.S. exports, including fruit, nuts and, of particular concern in this region, wine.
Last week, the president said he would impose import duties of 25 percent on 1,300 Chinese products worth about $50 billion. China responded with new tariffs on 128 U.S. products, also worth about $50 billion. A day later, Trump threatened to up the ante to $100 billion. Expect China to respond in kind.
As columnist Paul Krugman, a Nobel Prize-winning economist, pointed out on these pages Sunday, the U.S. has legitimate grievances with China, but Trump appears to be fixated on a trade deficit that is of little consequence in a global economy.
In other words, the commander in chief is gearing up to fight the wrong war.
Even so, the casualties would be real.
A steep tariff on imported steel would drive up the cost of automobiles and other manufactured goods for consumers while making American products less attractive in other countries. It also would drive up the cost of infrastructure repairs and construction of apartments and other buildings with steel frames.
Expect U.S. steel and aluminum makers to raise their prices to match the costlier imports.
If you doubt that, consider what has happened since the U.S. imposed new tariffs on Canadian newsprint, acting on a request from a New York investment company that owns a small paper mill in Washington state. The tariff could reach 32 percent, and U.S. suppliers already have raised prices in response to rising demand for a largely fixed supply.
At The Press Democrat, like most newspapers, newsprint is the second largest expense after payroll. Our paper comes from domestic sources, but the price went up in April, with another increase already announced for May for a total of 9 percent, with additional increases likely to come. The results include few pages in the paper and the loss of features, most notably the daily TV schedule.
That’s just one example of how trade barriers end up hurting consumers. Count on even more pain if the U.S. and China stay on their present path toward an out-and-out trade war.
___
April 10
The San Diego Union-Tribune on Proposition 65 warnings becoming too common:
A preliminary decision by Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Elihu M. Berle - that coffee should carry a warning that it is potentially carcinogenic because it has trace amounts of acrylamide - should be maddening to those who care about public health. That’s not just because it’s a decision that runs counter to the bulk of known scientific evidence or could lead to fines of hundreds of millions of dollars against reputable companies appropriately concerned about customer health. It’s because it seems that under Proposition 65, a 1986 ballot measure dubbed the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act, the judge had no choice.
The law applies to companies with 10 or more employees that may expose people to one of a list of more than 850 potentially dangerous chemicals. Voters were told that it would exempt products that have health risks that are not “significant.” But that vague language hasn’t seemed worthy of invoking by many judges overseeing Proposition 65 lawsuits. Instead, if a product can be shown to have even a microscopic level of carcinogens, that is often seen as conclusive proof of it being a health risk.
This is particularly problematic when it comes to acrylamide, a chemical that is used in some industrial processes. It can also be created when foodstuffs are subjected to high heat. But instead of heeding the National Cancer Institute - which notes that “a large number of epidemiologic studies (both case-control and cohort studies) in humans have found no consistent evidence that dietary acrylamide exposure is associated with the risk of any type of cancer” - Judge Berle accepted evidence from lawyer Raphael Metzger of the Council for Education and Research on Toxics that the presence of acrylamide in coffee was sufficient to make it subject to sanction under Proposition 65.
The list of foods that could be targeted on the same grounds is staggering - starting with bread, potato chips, fried chicken and grilled meats. And no one should doubt that Metzger, who has been filing lawsuits of this sort since at least 2001, or some other trial lawyer will pursue additional litigation.
This scenario seems particularly perverse when one realizes people no longer view Proposition 65 the same as they did when it applied to only 30 items. The law requires signs warning of so many health risks to be posted in so many places - office buildings, gas stations, restaurants, theme parks, parking lots, hotels, etc. - that they are tough to take seriously. The ubiquity of these warnings also makes it difficult for the public to make a distinction between genuine risks and trivial ones.
This is just what Proposition 65 critics foretold back in 1986. Their opposing ballot argument said it “requires ’warnings’ on millions of ordinary and safe items. We won’t know what products are really dangerous anymore. The warnings we really need will get lost in lots of warnings we don’t need.”
There’s a sense that’s true. In 2016, Gov. Jerry Brown won approval from state lawyers for reforms to Proposition 65 that made warning signs offer more specifics, such as noting the presence of arsenic at a business. But a better reform is an overhaul of Proposition 65 that makes far smarter distinctions between chemicals that are real-world risks to people - and not just theoretical threats that provide trial lawyers with opportunities for plunder.
___
April 10
San Francisco Chronicle on the city’s scooter scourge:
Maybe it’s time to disrupt the disrupters. San Francisco’s streets and now its sidewalks are becoming a petri dish for transit innovation. A traffic-clogged city deserves options and experiments.
But the experience should lead to coherent results, not chaos. With change comes the need to protect residents and sort out new activities. When bike riding grew in popularity, the city responded with protected bike lanes and warnings to cyclists to heed traffic laws.
The latest test involves motorized scooters, which appeared from nowhere in the past several weeks. Three companies are posting hundreds of them across busy areas where users can tap apps for a quick ride at a cheap price. The adult tab for a Muni ride is $2.25 while a spin on a scooter goes for a $1 start charge plus 15 cents per minute.
It sounds like a fun, fresh-air idea, not to mention competition for other transit options. The riding rules are loose and it’s easy to shoot through stalled traffic, never mind the potholes. Scooters are barred from sidewalks but riders often whiz along walkways anyway. There’s a helmet law but no enforcement. The minivehicles can be left anywhere, which is drawing complaints about obstruction, especially where sidewalks are narrow and pedestrians bountiful.
The three sponsoring companies are operating in a regulatory vacuum without any city oversight. That’s about to change, as the Municipal Transportation Agency, Supervisor Aaron Peskin and City Attorney Dennis Herrera weigh next steps to rein in a popular but runaway addition.
Scooters offer another way to get around a crowded city. But they need to heed basic safety rules and consider the public. Right now, that’s not happening.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.