Opinion: In today’s pages: Good news and bad news for Bush
This article was originally on a blog post platform and may be missing photos, graphics or links. See About archive blog posts.
Columnist Rosa Brooks notices an unusual turn of events:
Peace in our time?All of a sudden, we’re getting foreign affairs news that seems, well, good. The Israelis and Palestinians are restarting the long-stalled peace process. Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf has stepped down as army chief of staff and promises henceforth to serve only as a civilian leader. And violence in Iraq appears genuinely to be down. After years of unremittingly bad news, no one seems quite sure what to do with good news. Should we cheer? Take back all those mean things we’ve said about George W. Bush? Or check to see if we still have our wallets, because it’s probably some sort of trick?
Yale University’s Bruce Ackerman says Bush isn’t the only decider, and can’t lock in a new Iraq treaty without congressional approval. Michael Fullilove, of the Lowy Institute for International Policy in Sydney, explains what could happen now that one of Bush’s staunchest allies has been ousted. And Jeffrey Korchek quits copywriting for detergent boxes, text messaging, and writing notes for his kids to skip P.E., all in solidarity with striking writers.
The editorial board objects to the unfair allocation of transportation bond funds, and OKs San Diego County’s surprise walk-throughs of welfare applicants’ homes. The board needles L.A. Unified for spending money on image instead of solutions.
Readers react to a city plan to speed up traffic along Olympic and Pico Boulevards. L.A.’s Ellen Smucker says, ‘We need to craft solutions that aren’t focused on finding ways to move more cars more quickly past quiet residential neighborhoods.’