We begin with a
New York Times editorial on new measures on Ebola:
The new monitoring rules to be placed on travelers coming into the United States from three Ebola-affected countries in West Africa form a smart and workable response to a complex public health question. The measures should be more effective than a misguided ban on all travelers from Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone, which many in Congress have been demanding.
Starting Monday in six states, and rolled out in other states soon after, travelers who visited those countries will be required to report their temperature and any other symptoms to state or local health officials daily for 21 days, the maximum incubation period for the disease to develop. The officials will be responsible for finding and possibly detaining anyone violating these rules. [...]
A ban would discourage volunteers from joining the fight against Ebola and make it harder to bring the epidemic under control, the surest way to protect this country from imported cases.
Meanwhile, on the foreign policy front,
Eugene Robinson argues that President Obama is getting it wrong on ISIS:
“I don’t oppose all wars,” said Barack Obama, then an Illinois state senator, in 2002. “What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war.”
Few would describe Obama’s use of military force against the Islamic State as rash, given the time he took in deciding to act. But the more we learn about this intervention, the more it appears to violate the “dumb” half of the president’s dictum. The purposes, parameters and prospects of the war are increasingly uncertain. Americans have a right to be concerned about the whole enterprise. [...] it is necessary to ask whether Obama’s strategy offers a plausible path from the present situation to the ultimate goal, which the president says is to “degrade and ultimately destroy” the Islamic State. It is also necessary to ask whether certain unintended — but glaringly obvious — consequences of the president’s war plan are fully being taken into account.
Much more on the day's top stories below the fold.
The USA Today editorial board writes in favor of raising the minimum wage:
Amid a distinct lack of controversy, 23 states alreadyhave minimum wages above the federal level.
And on Election Day, five states — Alaska, Arkansas, Illinois, Nebraska and South Dakota — will vote on minimum wage hikes. All but Illinois are heavily Republican. [...]
States have found that modestly higher minimums do not inflict the economic damage that critics claim (though more aggressive hikes imposed in cities such as Seattle and San Diego risk unpleasant consequences). State minimums range from Missouri's new rate of $7.50, just 25 cents over the federal level, to Washington state, where the minimum is $9.32. It's hard to make a case that any are suffering as a result. In fact, three of the five states with the highest unemployment — Mississippi, Georgia and Tennessee — follow the federal minimum.
Laurie Garret and Maxine Builder take on vaccine ignorance:
Since 2008, the Council on Foreign Relations has been collecting data and publishing weekly updates to an interactive map of vaccine-preventable diseases, and the map is now robust, dense with six years of data. One terrible truth stands out: Misinformation and rumors from just one persuasive voice, delivered effectively, can derail entire immunization campaigns and persuade millions of parents to shun vaccinations for their children.[...]
In light of the paranoia evoked by Ebola, political and public health leaders must appreciate that not a single voice dispensing misinformation should go unchallenged. The general public has proved its inability to weigh facts accurately and reach a rational conclusion when fear clouds its judgment. Remarkably, in the case of the purported associations between autism and vaccines, the concept has gone viral in some of America's most highly educated and wealthy communities, as has unscientific advice about delaying certain immunizations to avoid “vaccine overload.”
On a final note, in a must-read,
Zoë Carpenter takes a look at campaign contributions and our judicial system:
Since 2010, the RSLC has run an aggressive—and successful—strategy to turn states red and keep them that way. This year, the group expanded from legislative and gubernatorial races, putting $5 million into a “Judicial Fairness Initiative” with the aim to elect judges who are “supportive of restraining government.” So far, the RSLC has funded judicial campaigns in Missouri, Montana, Tennessee and North Carolina. The group is still monitoring races in Ohio, Texas and Michigan.
“It’s a conscious campaign to shift the ideological direction of the courts,” said Alicia Bannon, counsel at the Brennan Center for Justice, which tracks spending in judicial elections. Thirty-nine states elect at least some of their high-court justices. Many began doing so out of concern that executive appointments lacked transparency, but with campaign finance rules increasingly lax, it’s no longer clear that elections are a better mechanism. “We’re seeing money and special-interest influence playing a larger role in these races,” Bannon said. “It’s raising real concerns about whether judicial elections are fulfilling that role of ensuring meaningful accountability and independence for our courts.”
Special interest groups spent a record $15.4 million on ads and other activities in judicial races during the 2011-12 election cycle, according to the Brennan Center. Political action committees are beginning to outspend candidates themselves, said Bert Brandenburg, executive director for Justice at Stake, which advocates for impartial courts.