Opinion: In today’s pages: Apologies, oaths, and other obligations
This article was originally on a blog post platform and may be missing photos, graphics or links. See About archive blog posts.
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.’