Opinion | Looking for answers to DC’s truancy problem

Richard Moore, Washington

Focus on children’s health

The April 11 news article “Ohio Republican Party Governor Sells Public Health by Focusing on Children” has important undertones. Investing in children’s health is our most powerful lever to create a healthier society and a stronger economy. Gov. Mike DeWine (R) says, “It’s hard to sell things based on public health.” I know the feeling. As a pediatric surgeon and CEO of a pediatric healthcare system, I fight the uphill battle of selling public health every day.

I believe Mr. DeWine is right. In this country, we wrongly equate health with medical care. Medical care is an important but relatively small part of healthcare. The governor’s health agenda is built around children, as it should be. It includes safety, good nutrition, freedom from violence, early education and more. All of these factors are important determinants of health, and all can be significantly influenced by small investments during childhood.

In addition to improving the health of our population, the economic benefits of this agenda are enough to appeal to both sides of the aisle. Research shows that spending a dollar now to keep a child healthy for life will yield shockingly high returns for taxpayers and the broader economy for years, decades, and even generations to come. Mr. DeWine is right when he says, “Everyone wants kids to do better.” I completely agree. It’s time to prioritize public health by investing in our children.

R. Lawrence Moss, Jacksonville, FL.

The writer is president and CEO of Nemours Children’s Health.

Involve nature in urban planning

Regarding the April 10 Climate Lab analysis, “Mapping America’s Access to Nature, Neighborhood by Neighborhood”:

NatureScore emphasizes that urban nature is absolutely crucial for the health of cities and their inhabitants. We saw this vividly during the pandemic that began in 2020, when city dwellers relied on green spaces as a rare source of beautiful and socially distanced outdoor relaxation.

Climate change gives us the clear need – and opportunity – to prioritize nature in the urban planning of American cities. What does this look like? A study by the Global Center for Clean Air Research shows that the unique infrastructure of botanical gardens has a measurable cooling effect on the air temperature in the city. This highlights the importance of plants, including trees, in greening our cities. By restoring and conserving a wide range of plant life, especially in dense urban environments, we create much more livable cities for people, wildlife and future generations.

No less valuable are the communities that cultivate green spaces. Urban farms and community gardens are a powerful way to create social connections while spreading nature within cities.

We urge all city leaders and urban planners to support well-managed urban conservation and green space projects. With the percentage of Americans living in cities rising sharply, this has the potential to be transformational.

Jennifer Bernstein, New York

The writer is president and CEO of the New York Botanical Garden.

Not all experiences are the same

Regarding Ariel Dorfman’s opinion comment of Thursday, April 11: “Ecuador takes a page from Pinochet with attack on the embassy”:

Before we condemn Ecuadorian President Daniel Noboa to purgatory for violating Mexican sovereignty by storming the embassy in Quito to arrest former Vice President Jorge Glas, let’s look at what Mr. Dorfman didn’t say in his piece. Mr. Dorfman compares this action to his own experience of escaping certain death at the hands of oppressive military dictator Augusto Pinochet by taking refuge in the Argentine embassy in Santiago, Chile, in 1973.

But Mr. Dorfman was truly vulnerable, and his refugee status saved his life. Mr Glas, on the other hand, was convicted twice for corruption and received prison sentences of six and eight years. In one case, he was convicted of taking millions of dollars from a Brazilian construction company and in the other, he was found guilty for his role in a scheme to collect bribes for public procurement contracts.

To further cast doubt on whether Mr. Glass was even worthy of asylum, he was released from prison early after a controversial ruling by Judge Emerson Curipallo. Judge Curipallo is now in custody pending an investigation into his alleged role in a bribery scheme that secured favorable rulings for a drug lord and others.

Mr. Dorfman cites the importance of respecting 20th-century refugee protections, which are contained in a series of agreements and laws. Are these protection measures intended for convicted criminals? If so, where does the search for asylum by bad people end?

Perhaps it is time to review these agreements and laws to ensure that the most vulnerable are protected in times of need, while they do not protect convicted criminals like Mr. Glas.

Curtis Schaeffer, Falls Church

Regarding the April 15 news article “Iran attacks add urgency to stalled Israel aid efforts”:

I unreservedly support Israel’s war against Hamas in Gaza. I fully agree that Israel is of central political and historical importance to the United States. That said, I disagree with Senator JD Vance (R-Ohio) when he states that “Israel is a much closer ally and a much more important American national security interest” than Ukraine.

Mr. Vance is dead wrong. If Israel is attacked, we must certainly support it with the weapons and equipment necessary to secure its self-defense. However, as far as I know, we are not bound by treaty to place troops in Israel, nor to wage war directly on Israel’s behalf against another nation. The same cannot be said of Europe.

Russia has made it clear that it aims to eventually recapture the European countries that once formed the Soviet empire. Ukraine stands in the way of that effort. Some countries of the old USSR are now our NATO allies, which we must formally defend in case of attack. Should Ukraine fall, and history were any guide, Russia would acquire borders with its former client states and then could pick its spot to begin taking territory from the easternmost NATO member states. In this case, more American troops would have to be deployed in Europe, at an incalculable risk to us and the entire world.

In reality, the United States is already waging its war with Russia. However, Ukrainian citizens are fighting for us; their lives and their blood, not ours, are lost. What do we get for the money and equipment supplied to NATO or Ukraine? We are given the privilege of witnessing a war being fought on European soil, at enormous cost to its people rather than to our own – a pretty good bargain in my opinion.

Mr. Vance and some of his Republican colleagues in Congress appear to be advocating for Russia and, in fact, making arguments in favor of the Russian case. My response: It is neither fair nor accurate to compare the seriousness and enormity of our obligation to NATO (or Ukraine) with our close ties with Israel, or to link it all to our problems at the border with Mexico.

Three parties are not a crowd

In the April 9 Prompt 2024 newsletter, “Why Is It So Hard to Find a Winning External Candidate?”, Alexi McCammond and her colleagues made several meritorious points. It’s important to note, however, that independent, third-party candidates face several built-in obstacles, from sore loser and disaffiliation laws to debate rules controlled by the two-party duopoly that are intended to stifle competition.

Furthermore, in the case of No Labels’ recent attempt to raise a “unity ticket,” potential candidates were afraid to play the role of spoiler and throw the election into the hands of Donald Trump. Each state’s adoption of a unified, nonpartisan/open primary system combined with ranked choice voting (RCV) as practiced in Alaska would challenge major criticisms of No Labels ballot access. RCV closes the spoiler argument by eliminating the candidate with the fewest votes, round by round, until a majority of votes are won by one candidate. Such reform provides a long-term solution to reducing polarization in our politics, and serves fairness rather than disenfranchisement by allowing independent/unaffiliated voters to participate in state-funded primaries. No Labels and other like-minded groups can work together to advocate for such reforms and do not need to win elections to achieve victory.

Kenneth F. Cerullo, Mahwah, NJ

The writer is a delegate of the No Labels movement.