‘Let death be the end of Pete Rose’s punishment’
Charles Lane at The Washington Post
Pete Rose “repeatedly bet on baseball games, including his own team’s,” and Rose, a “betrayer of the game, did not belong in the Hall. Rose’s accomplishments, though, do,” says Charles Lane. A posthumous Hall of Fame induction “could provide an appropriate resolution to that conundrum.” This “is, or should be, a case study in the relationship between remorse and forgiveness,” and “yet — the records. The on-field impact.” That “belongs in the Hall; the time is finally right.”
‘Hate against Haitian immigrants ignores how US politics pushed them here’
Régine Théodat at USA Today
The “political back-and-forth might lead those unfamiliar with Haiti’s struggle to wrongly assume that Haitians are incapable of being at the center of their self-determination,” but “anti-immigrant rhetoric ignores key factors that brought us here,” says Régine Théodat. Haitians “have, and always have, embodied the wherewithal to seek self-determination.” Like their “ancestors, who turned from everyday people into soldiers, today’s Haitians became activists and investigators,” and there is an “urgent call to action for a brighter future.”
‘Jimmy Carter, a humble centenarian’
Chris Matthews at The Philadelphia Inquirer
Jimmy Carter was “authentic, and he was new,” says Chris Matthews. Americans “saw a peanut farmer from rural Georgia out there asking for their votes.” But Carter “believed, rightly or wrongly, that he could not go to war with Iran over that country’s blatant violation of diplomatic rights. Other presidents, obviously, would have.” Doing so “might have given Carter a second term,” but the “voters thought him wrong. Someday, we’ll see how history views him.”
‘The Supreme Court tanked its reputation. This is the way back.’
Noah Feldman at Bloomberg
It is “clear that the U.S. Supreme Court’s legitimacy crisis is getting worse,” and the “task of restoring faith in the court falls to the justices themselves,” says Noah Feldman. An “ethics code is only going to reestablish legitimacy if a skeptical public believes it is being followed,” so “justices should, at a minimum, bend over backward to show they are in full compliance with the code.” The justices could also “start splitting along less obvious ideological lines.”
Opinion, comment and editorials of the day
