Opinion: In today’s pages: Human rights, special orders, ribbon creep
This article was originally on a blog post platform and may be missing photos, graphics or links. See About archive blog posts.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger explains why he opposes a bill that would have state’s pension systems divest from certain private equity funds because of human rights concerns:
[T]his measure is unlike the legislation I signed with respect to Sudan and Iran. Those measures barred investment in entire countries. AB 1967 instead addresses investment into a relatively small class of investment vehicles. It does not send the same powerful signal to the world, would do little to address human rights and would impose a costly burden on California.What’s more, if anyone thinks this bill will inhibit the ability of questionable sovereign wealth funds to invest, they are fooling themselves. Any sovereign wealth funds covered by this legislation would still be able to invest in the multitrillion-dollar public stock and bond markets around the world.
Author Nancy Altman offers some politically palatable fixes for social security. Writer Matthew DeBord forgets ‘mission creep’ for a bit and worries about Gen. David H. Petraeus’ ‘ribbon creep.’ And columnist Tim Rutten reminds that Olympic protests historically have been futile.
The editorial board debunks some Special Order 40 myths, asks whether it’s worth staying in Iraq to fight a proxy war, and says San Francisco is the perfect forum for protests against China as the torch passes through.
Readers discuss Tim Rutten’s column on John Yoo’s torture memos. L.A.’s Jerome Argesty says, ‘This is not a matter of academic freedom: it is a matter of neglecting morality and justice in educating young lawyers.’