NYT Editorial | Putin Began His Unjust War One Year Ago. Here’s What Ukraine Needs Now. – The New York Times

By The Editorial Board

The editorial board is a group of opinion journalists whose views are informed by expertise, research, debate and certain longstanding values. It is separate from the newsroom.

This article has been updated to reflect news developments.

“A year since Vladimir Putin ordered his forces to invade Ukraine, the war is far from over. However bravely Ukrainians fight on, and however muddled the performance of Russia’s military, Ukraine cannot prevail without continued and substantial Western assistance. Since the invasion, that has swelled to over $150 billion in American and European spending, and the weapons supplied to Ukraine now include the latest Western tanks and antiaircraft systems.

The United States and its major allies have been steadfast in their resolve to support Ukraine in its fight, and their people have largely accepted the enormous cost. In the United States, the political resistance has been limited largely to a few voices on the far right and far left. But questions will become only more common as the war drags on. As Representative Kevin McCarthy, the speaker of the House, a Republican and a strong supporter of Ukraine, has warned, “There should be no blank check on anything.”

He’s right.

Outside Europe and the United States, support for the Ukrainian cause is much less solid, making efforts to punish Russia for its aggression less effective. Secretary of State Antony Blinken said in an interview recorded Saturday for “Meet the Press” that China is providing nonlethal aid to Russia and is “strongly considering providing lethal assistance to Russia.” Mr. Blinken expressed his “deep concern” to his Chinese counterpart.

To strengthen the alliance supporting Ukraine, as the second year of this terrible and unnecessary conflict begins, it is useful to examine why it is in the interest of the United States and other democracies to expend so much wealth, and to take so great a risk in confronting a nuclear power.

NYT Editorial | Visa Is Doing What Big American Companies Do to ‘Protect This Business’ – The New York Times

By The Editorial Board

The editorial board is a group of opinion journalists whose views are informed by expertise, research, debate and certain longstanding values. It is separate from the newsroom.

• Dec. 2, 2020

Credit…Illustration by Nicholas Konrad/The New York Times; photograph by Getty Images

“Visa dominates the lucrative business of processing debit card transactions. Merchants must choose between paying the financial services company’s fees or forgoing sales to the millions of Americans who carry cards emblazoned with Visa’s logo.

A San Francisco technology start-up named Plaid threatened that dominance. The company planned to debut a rival service next year that would charge half as much as Visa.

So Visa did what big American companies have learned to do: It agreed to buy the smaller company, pledging a king’s ransom to eliminate the threat of competition.

Last month, the Justice Department sued to block the deal as a violation of antitrust law. The intervention is necessary to protect the interests of merchants and consumers, and the health of the broader economy. The federal government has been far too permissive in allowing large companies to swallow potential rivals, particularly in the rapidly evolving technology sector.”

Editorial and Opinion | Donald Trump: The Worst President in Modern History? – The New York Times

“Donald Trump’s re-election campaign poses the greatest threat to American democracy since World War II.

Mr. Trump’s ruinous tenure already has gravely damaged the United States at home and around the world. He has abused the power of his office and denied the legitimacy of his political opponents, shattering the norms that have bound the nation together for generations. He has subsumed the public interest to the profitability of his business and political interests. He has shown a breathtaking disregard for the lives and liberties of Americans. He is a man unworthy of the office he holds.

The editorial board does not lightly indict a duly elected president. During Mr. Trump’s term, we have called out his racism and his xenophobia. We have critiqued his vandalism of the postwar consensus, a system of alliances and relationships around the globe that cost a great many lives to establish and maintain. We have, again and again, deplored his divisive rhetoric and his malicious attacks on fellow Americans. Yet when the Senate refused to convict the president for obvious abuses of power and obstruction, we counseled his political opponents to focus their outrage on defeating him at the ballot box.

Nov. 3 can be a turning point. This is an election about the country’s future, and what path its citizens wish to choose.  . . .  “

Read the Full Editorial (using the link at the top)

AS EVIDENCED BY

HIS UNAPOLOGETIC CORRUPTIONBY MICHELLE COTTLE

WHEN SCIENCE IS PUSHED ASIDE BY JENEEN INTERLANDI

HIS DEMAGOGY BY JESSE WEGMAN

HIS FAKE POPULISMBY FARAH STOCKMAN

HIS INCOMPETENT STATESMANSHIP BY SERGE SCHMEMANN

WITH LASTING CONSEQUENCE

WOMEN’S RIGHTS UNDER ATTACKPhotographed on January 19, 2018

IMMIGRATION HALTEDPhotographed on June 26, 2019

BLACK LIVES AT RISKPhotographed on June 6, 2020

A PLANET IN PERILPhotographed on September 29, 2020

AN ECONOMY IN TATTERSPhotographed on April 9, 2020

THE HIGH PRICE OF THE HIGH COURTPhotographed on September 26, 2020

TOO MANY FINGERS ON TOO MANY TRIGGERSPhotographed on April 30, 2020

L.G.B.T.Q. PROTECTIONS DISMANTLEDPhotographed on June 14, 2020

NYT Editorial | To Hold Police Accountable, Ax the Arbitrators – The New York Times

By The Editorial Board

The editorial board is a group of opinion journalists whose views are informed by expertise, research, debate and certain longstanding values. It is separate from the newsroom.

• Oct. 3, 2020

“Since the death of George Floyd sparked a wave of national protests, at least 42 of the 50 largest cities in the country have adopted new rules aimed at curbing abuses by the police, according to a tally by Samuel Walker, an expert on police accountability who is affiliated with the University of Nebraska Omaha. From May through August, 15 cities banned chokeholds. A dozen passed “duty-to-intervene” statutes, requiring police officers to act if they see a fellow officer endanger a civilian. Still others banned so-called “no knock” warrants or changed policies related to the use of force.

Those reforms are important in and of themselves, and they also serve as a reminder of the power of collective action to influence new policies. Yet this list’s potential to create real change will be seriously limited unless city leaders and state lawmakers take on an entrenched barrier to reform: labor arbitrators. These are the men and women who routinely reinstate abusive officers who have been fired for misconduct.

Labor arbitrators have ordered police chiefs to rehire officers fired for deeds as outrageous as sexually assaulting a teenager in a patrol car, driving the getaway car in a murder and fatally shooting an unarmed driver, according to a 2017 investigation by The Washington Post.

Cases like these have a corrosive effect on society, serving as proof to many Americans that the current system cannot be reformed. These cases also demoralize mayors and police chiefs who have worked hard to remove problem officers, only to face orders from unelected arbitrators to give those abusive officers their badges and guns back. It doesn’t matter how much a police department overhauls its use of force policy, or how strictly a police chief enforces those new rules if unelected arbitrators reverse the punishments of officers who violate the rules.”

“. . . .  Much more needs to be done to rein in the power of labor arbitrators, but at least it is a start. Cities that are interested in taking this on could look at municipalities in California, like Burbank and Cathedral City, that have hybrid systems where arbitration decisions are nonbinding. Officers still have the right to argue their cases before a neutral body, but the ultimate decision to terminate an officer is left in the hands of the city manager, who is accountable to the community. That’s where it belongs.”

Editorial | Nancy Pelosi Is Sending a Message – The New York Times

“The message for Mr. Trump is the most straightforward: Enough. After months of watching the president ravage democratic norms and taunt lawmakers about their inability to hold him accountable, Congress is making clear that there are lines that cannot be crossed without repercussion.

The American public needs to hear this as well. Amid the clamor of Mr. Trump’s perpetual outrages, Tuesday’s announcement signals: This moment is different. Pay attention. There are constitutional and national security issues at stake.

Mr. Trump has long argued — and continues to argue — that impeachment will benefit him politically. Many Democrats, including Ms. Pelosi, have not disputed that possibility. Pressing ahead with the proceedings despite such political uncertainty conveys Democratic leaders believe matters have reached the point where the costs of inaction are simply too high.

Having the controversy over Mr. Trump’s dealings with Ukraine serve as the trigger for the formal inquiry sends a specific warning to foreign governments: America does not welcome, nor will it tolerate, the meddling of other nations in its elections. This is an especially crucial point to make in light of Mr. Trump’s seeming refusal to confront Russia about its interference in 2016 and his public comment in June that he’d be open to foreign assistance in 2020. House leadership is making clear that it will take extreme action to prevent another assault on the democratic process.

Opinion | Midterm Climate Report: Partly Cloudy – The New York Times

“The latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change made it clear that averting the worst consequences of climate changes (lesser consequences are by now all around us) will mean quickly cutting back on the use of fossil fuels that cause global warming.

Big Oil didn’t get the memo.

Faced with what they saw as an existential threat to their businesses, BP, Valero, Phillips 66, the Koch brothers and other members of the fossil fuel fraternity dumped more than $30 million into Washington State to crush a ballot initiative that would have imposed the first taxes in the nation on carbon emissions. Backers of the proposal hoped it would serve as a template for similar action elsewhere and perhaps for the country as a whole. But the theoretical elegance of a carbon tax, which most economists and scientists believe is the surest way to control emissions on a broad scale, was no match even in reliably Democratic Washington for relentless fearmongering about job losses, higher electricity bills and more expensive gasoline.

The defeat in Washington was the most disappointing setback for climate activists in the midterm elections on Tuesday, a day of decidedly mixed messages on climate change in particular and environmental issues more broadly.”