The Boston Globe - 02.08.2019

FRIDAY, AUGUST 2, 2019 The Boston Globe Opinion A

Inbox

Deathpenaltygets

theTrumpnod

This punishment serves no purpose

but revenge

Re “Justice Dept. says it will restart capital punishment”

(July 25): Many eloquent and convincing writers have con-

demned the Trump administration’s decision to resume

federal executions, but I must add my voice to those ex-

pressing contempt for this decision.

The death penalty serves no purpose other than revenge.

Every parent teaches their children that two wrongs don’t

make a right. Scholars have established without a doubt

that capital punishment does not deter crime. It also brings

little peace to victims’ families. What’s more, it is applied

disproportionately to people of color and those who cannot

afford effective legal defense. While about 12 percent of the

US population is black, 34 percent of people executed since

1976 have been black.

As Bryan Stevenson, founder of the Equal Justice Initia-

tive, has estimated, about 1 in 10 prisoners sentenced to

death are innocent. That’s an unacceptable rate of error for

such an irreversible action. Stevenson acknowledges that it

is sensible to ask: “Do people deserve to die for the crimes

they’ve committed?” However, he counters that by asking:

“Do we deserve to kill?”

JESSE M. HEINES

North Chelmsford

US rejoins a short list

Re “In Tsarnaev case, death sentence policy change will

have little short-term effect, attorneys say” (Boston-

Globe.com, July 25): Massachusetts already has a candidate

for the death penalty, but as one legal observer said,

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s “case is a long way from over.”

But now that Donald Trump has found an attorney gen-

eral to carry out his bidding, five men on death row are

scheduled for execution in the months to come. So the

United States can now rejoin the few countries in the world

who still carry out executions.

SAYRE SHELDON

Cambridge

I write to correct some basic mischaracterizations of the

Marine Mammal Protection Act in Peter Howell’s July 28

op-ed on gray seals that go to the heart of his argument

(“Protecting gray seals — when does success become ex-

cess?”). He states that the act “does not address the eventu-

ality that a marine mammal species may recover to a sus-

tainable population level.” The act does include a moratori-

um on “taking” all marine mammals but allows for taking

in several instances. For example, the moratorium can be

waived for species or stocks at optimum sustainable popu-

lation levels when consistent with the purposes and policies

of the act. In fact, the act specifically anticipates that a

waiver may authorize taking to address overpopulation.

The act consolidated management authority with the

federal government, but in certain circumstances it allows

for transferring authority back to states. States with man-

agement authority have considerable latitude in authoriz-

ing taking, provided the species is at its optimum sustain-

able population and will not be reduced below that level.

Although the act protects marine mammals “in perpetu-

ity,” its drafters anticipated the need for different levels of

protection for populations with differing status. For deplet-

ed species and stocks — those below their optimum sus-

tainable population — waivers and state management are

not available. For populations at optimum sustainable lev-

els, the type of management that Howell seems to be advo-

cating is already available.

He may legitimately ask whether the act sets the appro-

priate thresholds for allowing management actions, is pro-

cedurally too cumbersome, or unduly places burdens on

those affected by growing marine mammal populations to

initiate regulation. However, he is off base in claiming that

the act provides absolute protection to all marine mam-

mals, lacks the flexibility to provide for the ecosystem–

based management it espouses, or needs wholesale amend-

ments to address his concerns.

DARYL J. BONESS

Chairman

Marine Mammal Commission

Bethesda, Md.

Seal-controlargumentmisreads

MarineMammalProtectionAct

In his recent Business column “In search of a ‘second city’

for New England startups,” Scott Kirsner asks the wrong

question. He argues for one new “second city,” ignoring the

realities of geography, demographics, resources, and poli-

tics. Massachusetts, indeed New England, needs to encour-

age the growth of multiple second cities. If done properly,

we gain the economic diversity necessary to weather eco-

nomic events and to provide high-quality jobs across the re-

gion. Salem/Beverly, Lowell, Worcester, Springfield, Fall

River, Holyoke, Lawrence, and Pittsfield in Massachusetts;

Manchester and Portsmouth in New Hampshire; Provi-

dence; Portland, Maine, and others all have thriving startup

scenes not often covered by the Boston-centric media.

Startup companies or entrepreneurial clusters don’t get no-

tice because, as one reporter said to us, the deals just aren’t

big enough.

No city is waiting to be discovered. Organizations like

North Shore InnoVentures in Beverly; M2D2 and the iHub

in Lowell and Haverhill; Valley Venture Mentors in Spring-

field; the Worcester Cleantech Incubator; CI Works in

Amesbury; the Center for Innovation and Entrepreneur-

ship in Fall River; E2Tech in Portland; and Entrepreneur-

ship for All across the state have built the support infra-

structure that startups need.

Wouldn’t it be better to develop the regional policies

around housing, transportation, and funding that make all

our midsize cities stronger — like they used to be?

TRISH FLEMING

Director of mentoring

North Shore InnoVentures

Beverly

The writer is the former executive director of the MIT En-

teprise Forum in Cambridge.

N.E.startupsceneiswidespread—

whynotsupportit?

I

t is an article of faith among eco-

nomic conservatives that govern-

ment regulation stifles industry

and trammels growth. They cheer

the war on regulation being

waged by the Trump administration,

which claims that 13 rules are being

killed for every new one enacted. They

love the cratering of enforcement actions

by watchdog agencies; the shredding of

protections for consumers, workers, and

the environment; and the premature

death of nearly all new regulations creat-

ed near the end of Barack Obama’s term.

A recent report by Trump’s Council of

Economic Advisers predicts all this de-

regulatory zeal is on track to save $3,

per household after 10 years. Not to men-

tion the expected boost in profits and

CEO stock bonuses.

But not all regulations hurt business,

and weakening them can be a dangerous

idea. Take Boeing as a case in point. Ac-

cording to eye-opening reporting by The

New York Times and others, lax oversight

at the Federal Aviation Administration

contributed mightily to Boeing’s fatal

missteps with its new 737 Max airliners.

Reporters found that the FAA had never

independently reviewed the software that

sent Boeing’s airliners into uncontrolla-

ble nosedives on two separate flights, kill-

ing all 346 people aboard. Instead, FAA

managers allowed Boeing’s own engi-

neers to test and approve the software.

Delegating supervision of the henhouse

to the foxes in this way began before

Trump took office, but it accelerated as

Boeing pressed for regulatory relief to

help meet its deadlines and budget on

the 737 Max project.

Now Boeing may be wishing the FAA

regulators weren’t quite so hands-off. Its

stock has collapsed since the two acci-

dents, vaporizing billions in value. Last

month, Boeing reported its worst quar-

terly loss ever, with earnings 275 percent

below those of the same quarter in 2018.

The 737 Max remains grounded, and the

company may have to shelve the costly

new plane altogether. Boeing faces a raft

of lawsuits from grieving families of the

victims, and even from stockholders.

Similar tales of weakened regulation

leading to business calamities can be

found in the health care,

finance, and other sectors.

The complex tangle of

causes associated with the

opioid crisis includes at

least in part the limited

role of the Food and Drug

Administration, which

does almost nothing to

police a drug’s use or

abuse once it has been ap-

proved for the market.

The Drug Enforcement

Administration issues guidance to dis-

tributors about flagging “suspicious or-

ders” from pharmacy chains or others,

but it couldn’t keep pace with the flood of

violations. Pharmaceutical companies

pushed doctors to prescribe opioids, pro-

moting — and funding — studies that un-

derplayed the risk of addiction. Now 48

states are suing Purdue Pharma, maker

of the drug OxyContin, and the private

company is at risk of bankruptcy.

Stricter government oversight doesn’t

just save business from legal liability; reg-

ulations also protect a firm’s reputation.

Would the Sackler family — owners of

Purdue Pharma — be watching their

name get ripped off galleries at the

Louvre if the company’s behavior had

been better regulated in the first place?

These are examples of individual

businesses that suffered from weakened

oversight, even as they demanded it. But

the costs of deregulation are also social-

ized throughout the economy. Trump’s

dismantling of emission standards for

tailpipes, power plants, and methane al-

most certainly will provoke costly envi-

ronmental damage — floods, fire,

drought — associated with climate

change. America’s essentially unregulat-

ed private health care sys-

tem is a drag on US com-

petitiveness, since it gob-

bles up 17 percent of GDP

while still ranking below

other advanced nations in

infant mortality, life ex-

pectancy, and other mea-

sures of public health.

And need we revisit the

dire effects of deregulat-

ing the banking and mort-

gage industries?

Anyone who has ever tried to build a

backyard deck has been frustrated by

seemingly inane government require-

ments and paperwork. But in cases

where lives are at stake, it’s precisely the

economic “friction” regulations create

that slows things down long enough for

one more safety check. Trump’s war on

red tape may be a rousing cause, but

thoughtful deregulation requires a surgi-

cal touch, and Trump, characteristically,

is using a machete. Meanwhile health,

safety, and yes, businesses are put at risk.

Government regulations aren’t popular,

but we will miss them when they’re gone.

Renée Loth’s column appears regularly in

the Globe.

RENÉELOTH

Regulation reconsidered

Deregulation

canaversely

affectpublic

safetyand

businesses’

bottomlines.

Warren cuts through the

‘yada, yada, yada’ — but

can she beat Trump?

T

o paraphrase Marianne

Williamson, the self-help guru

who’s running for president,

there was much of the usual “yada,

yada, yada” during Tuesday night’s

Democratic debate.

Senator Elizabeth Warren delivered

the line that cut to the ideological

heart of it: “I don’t understand why

anybody goes to all the trouble of

running for president of the United

States just to talk about what we really

can’t do and shouldn’t fight for. I’m

ready to get in this fight. I’m ready to

win this fight.”

You know what that means:

Medicare for All and the alleged joys of

the public option. Free college tuition

and cancellation of all student debt.

Addressing climate change, and while

we’re at it, reparations and gun

control. Ultra-progressive Democrats

thrill to that agenda.

But is that the battle that wins the

presidency in 2020? Is that a rallying

call for enough voters in enough states

to win the Electoral College and kick

President Trump out of the White

House?

—JoanVennochi

Moderates debate, mug

the harder lefties

Tuesday’s Democratic presidential

gabfest wasn’t so much a debate as it

was an ever-so-mild mugging, with

top-tier lefties Bernie Sanders and

Elizabeth Warren the targets of a

group attack.

It would be nice to report that

Senators Sanders and Warren gave as

good as they got. But that wouldn’t be

true. Sanders’ primary mode of

rebuttal seemed to be to shake his head

dismissively at the incoming

arguments, and to yell ever more

loudly, perhaps in the hope of driving

those with acute hearing from the

stage. Or even from Detroit’s storied

Fox Theatre itself.

Let’s stick with health care, since it’s

such a pivotal issue.

Sanders’ defense of single-payer

comes not from a true mastery of the

policy details but rather from a deep

conviction that it can be done here

because it has been done in other

places. He’s convinced he’s right

because he believes it so fervently.

Warren let Sanders take the lead in

defending single-payer. Result: She

didn’t seem quite as zealous as he, but

neither, under fire, did she live up to

her reputation for substance.

— Scot Lehigh

DEBATEONE,TUESDAY

AP

Dozens of grounded Boeing 737 MAX airplanes crowd a parking area adjacent to Boeing Field last June in Seattle.

DEBATE TWO, WEDNESDAY

Biden keeps his lead safe

— for now

T

he Thrilla in Manila it wasn’t.

That turned out to be a good

thing.

For weeks, the second night of

the second round of Democratic

debates Wednesday was promoted

like a heavyweight bout — “a critical

rematch,” as host network CNN

called it — between Senator Kamala

Harris and former vice president Joe

Biden. One would have thought they

were the only contenders. Instead

nearly every candidate found a way

to raise their profile, minimize

damage to their current standings,

or unleash what they likely hoped

would be a mic-drop moment

worthy of a viral hashtag or news

cycle.

With 10 candidates, three

moderators, and two hours-plus of

political jousting and parsing, that’s

about the best anyone could hope for

in a format that seems excruciatingly

long and bereft of real substance,

with a tendency to reward heat over

light.

— Renée Graham

It’s the progressives vs.

Biden (and Obama)

Not woke enough. But awake

enough.

After stumbling through the first

debate, former vice president Joe

Biden came to the second one

prepared to fight his fellow Democrats

and defend himself — which also

means defending former president

Barack Obama.

Biden is still the front-runner — the

moderate Democrat known by all, and

liked by many, who says he’s running

“to restore the soul of this country.” To

Biden, that means picking up where

Obama left off. But in a political world

turned upside down by President

Trump, many of the Democratic

attacks on Biden are attacks on

Obama. — Joan Vennochi

Biden redeems himself

A month ago, Joe Biden was a

wobbly has-been who barely

survived the first Democratic

debate — or so his critics would

have you believe. Pundits wondered

whether time had eroded his skills

and consigned him to the past.

During Wednesday’s CNN debate

in Detroit, Biden provided a clear

answer: No. Nearly 50 years after

he was first elected to the US

Senate, the 76-year-old remains a

strong contender for the

Democratic presidential

nomination.

Senator Kamala Harris of

California dominated the June

debate by challenging Biden on

busing. On Wednesday, almost

every other candidate was looking

for a similar head-to-head moment.

But throughout the long evening,

Biden gave as good as he got.

— Scot Lehigh

Debates roundup