Meghan Daum on Taking it Easy on Sarah Palin While the prospect of Sarah Palin running for president becomes smaller with each passing day, Daum goes over why she and other members of the--as Palin has dubbed them, "lamestream media"--can't criticize her as freely as they might want to. As much criticism as Palin has faced since gaining national attention in 2008, Daum writes that she has also been spared the worst of it because some writers are fearful of being labeled bullies, especially after the reaction to Katie Couric's now infamous sit-down with McCain's running mate. The reason for this:
It's impossible not to feel like we're punching shamefully below our weight, which everyone knows is against the rules. Palin lacks the intellectual, analytical and rhetorical skills to have a competent discussion about policy or much else. She is handicapped not only by a lack of education, experience and curiosity about the world (wearing a Star of David in Israel doesn't count), but by a speaking style that often collapses under the weight of disjointed, undiagrammable sentences. She is, in terms of the political arena, easily outclassed.
In explaining why she cannot take off the gloves with Palin, Daum ends up leveling her harshest attack on the former governor: it's just not a fair fight.
The New York Times Editorial Board on the Guantanamo Trials It is important to bring those responsible for 9/11 to justice, but their trails must be fair and credible to the rest of the world, writes the New York Times Editorial Board. Unfortunately, because of politics, those trials will not be in a federal court like they should be, but instead at Guantanamo prison. The board writes:
It was a shocking example of politicians dictating a prosecutorial decision. The result: huge gaps of competency and credibility. Federal courts have a long record of successfully handling complex terrorism cases. These most important of 9/11 trials will take place in a system of questioned legitimacy, operating under untested rules, with no experience in concluding major terrorism trials.
Despite this, the board feels that there are still steps that can be taken to provide credibility to the proceedings. These include the ensured absence of tainted evidence, providing an adequate defense for those standing trial, heightened attempts at transparency, and less secrecy.