In today's pages: Apologies, oaths, and other obligations
Author Paul Slansky analyzes the art of the public apology in the wake of the Eliot Spitzer sex scandal:
But how sorry would they be if they hadn't been caught? Remorse, one feels certain, would be the furthest thing from their minds. So the apology extorted by such circumstances is by definition meaningless, a perfunctory bleat of contrition designed to buy some time while the damage is assessed. It is never eloquent and never as memorable as the acts being repented. But for apology aficionados, it is that very combination of trite mea culpas for often lurid deeds that makes it all so satisfying.
University of Chicago law professor Geoffrey R. Stone wants to do away with McCarthy-era loyalty oaths, and columnist Jonah Goldberg chides liberals for not being comfortable saying the p-word (that's patriot, by the way).
The editorial board has its take on Spitzer's sinnin' too:
We don't mean to imply support for prostitution, smoking or excessive drinking. There is, however, something encouraging in seeing even a self-destructive maverick spirit live on despite the best intentions of public scolds.
The board also says taxpayers end up paying more for California's popular high-interest, underrated bonds. And finally the board takes Bush to task for vetoing the torture ban.
On the letters page, readers react to Leslie Bennetts' Op-Ed on toxic anti-Clinton misogyny. See why Los Angeles' Cynthia Carle says, "I find the misogyny directed at Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton loathsome. But I didn't vote for her."
Jonah Goldberg today is both on target and off base with his column on the relationship of many left of center with the "p-word" (patriotism). Somehow, even though he says it in a way, he misses the key point while that word is uncomfortable to many it has been artfully co-opted to represent far right, hawkish values and principles. Five decades have pass since Americans in general could feel proud of their patriotism. It has since become a word that wielded with the star spangled banner represents a nation making war on other nations, creating death and chaos to fatten the pockets of a few greedy corporations.
It is also true that with the globalization of arts, culture, trade and more, people are more conscious that we share this planet with billions of peoples from all its nations. We recognize that many of the problems we face and are threatened by do not limit themselves to national borders. Likewise, their solutions will be not successfully implemented alone within any single nation.
Patriotism often has the ring of Us versus Them, along with "Take them for what they are worth." Are you comfortable, Jonah, with those connotations?
Posted by: Ken Mattos | March 11, 2008 at 10:52 AM