The Periscope Post

The New York Times The War in Iraq

President Obama delivered his second Oval Office address in 19 months of office, calling for an end to the war in Iraq. It was a speech that left the New York Times wanting more: “We are puzzled about why he talks to Americans directly so rarely and with seeming reluctance,” they said. The Times compared this President’s words to the last’s, “Bush tried to make Iraq an invisible, seemingly cost-free war. He refused to attend soldiers’ funerals and hid their returning coffins from the public. So it was fitting that Mr. Obama, who has improved veterans’ health care and made the Pentagon budget more rational, paid tribute to them.” The Times continued their reflection because “it is important not to forget how much damage Bush caused.” They recalled how little Bush accomplished by invading Iraq: neither democracy in the Middle East, nor a safer America. The Times also warned that the war in Iraq had diverted resources away from Afghanistan and deprived Iran of its adversary, leaving it “freer to pursue its nuclear program.” Obama used his speech to remind the US that it was not free of conflict and the Times agreed: “If victory was ever possible in this war, it has not been won.”

The Washington Post Pakistan flood relief is in America’s strategic interest

The floods in Pakistan have now displaced 20 million people and submerged nearly a fifth of Pakistan’s land. “That would be reason enough for the United States to be generous and compassionate in its response,” opined the Washington Post, “but the humanitarian interest is heightened by Pakistan’s centrality to America’s national security interests.” The Post said that Obama must “deepen and broaden” his government’s commitment to Pakistan, “lest it become even more of a breeding ground for terrorists.” This despite Pakistan’s “reputation for inefficiency” which has “deterred foreign donors in its hour of need.” The Obama administration must develop new ways to “enable reconstruction for maximum transparency and honesty,” argued the Post, because it is in America’s strategic interest as much as it is in Pakistani’s to do so. “The American people must be there when the floodwaters recede.”

The Miami Herald Keeping Social Security successful

For the first time since 1983, Social Security in the US will pay out more in benefits than it receives in payroll taxes. That would be about $41 billion more. The American public retirement system is clearly in need of attention, “but before reaching out for drastic solutions, Congress … should keep an open mind regarding all the alternatives.” The Miami Herald examined several possibilities – increasing income tax, raising the retirement age and imposing a means test on benefits – but found none of them valuable. The burden should neither be shifted to the poor nor the rich, the paper said, because “that could prove politically abrasive.” Congress is “duty-bound” to find a solution, according to the Herald, because the “tremendous success story” of Social Security must be allowed to continue.

The New York Times Oxford Dictionary 3rd Edition.com?

When the third edition of the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) is published it may only be available online according to Nigel Portwood of the OUP. This would make “a great deal of economic sense,” said the New York Times. Subscribers currently pay $295 a year for the online edition while the print edition costs $995. What is better for you “depends on how you value shelving and the cost of leaving your desk to look up a word.” But the Times also took the opportunity to speak about the English language more generally. The online edition will come with updates which, the Times argued is appropriate because, “Language is a living organism, and the O.E.D.’s help in understanding how we speak this instant is important.” But, the Times continued, the print edition is more historically focused. “That is the O.E.D.’s greatest value – as a guide to our spoken and written history.” Print edition it is then.