Document text
Letters to the editor: Response to Ron Saxton's article on the Klamath Basin By Congressman Earl Blumenauer In characterizing my efforts to deal with the water crisis in the Klamath Basin as an attack on the "other Oregon" ("Oregon exists beyond Portland - honest," Medford Mail Tribune on July 27), Ron Saxton is only making the urban/rural division worse. I hope he is just misinformed and not part of the Republican strategy to inflame this environmental disaster for political gain. Sadly, some of the people who hold themselves out as defenders of the farmer have decided to exploit the simple but tragic fact that the federal government has promised more water than nature can deliver. Ironically, the same week that Mr. Saxton circulated his opinion piece, an extensive article in the Wall Street Journal detailed the efforts of Karl Rove, the White House political strategist, to exploit Klamath Basin water issues for political gain. Unlike proposals from other members of Congress to prohibit further agricultural leases of federal land in the wildlife refuges, my amendment would not have stopped anybody from farming. It would have simply prevented crops that require vast amounts of water during the dry season - such as alfalfa, potatoes, and onions - from being grown on federal land, thus increasing the amount of water available for river levels, endangered species, and other farmers in the basin. Although this amendment would have affected only a few thousand acres each year, it would have been an important first step to save billions of gallons of water. The answer to this crisis is not, as some of the vested interests in the basin and Republican Party operatives would have us believe, to play politics with the farmers or anyone else. It is not to pick winners and losers for political or even ideological or moral purposes, although there are plenty of candidates. The answer is for the federal government to start practicing what it preaches, to acknowledge that it has made commitments it cannot keep - not only to farmers, but to wildlife and Native Americans, to whom we have strong moral as well as legal obligations. Other steps will be harder. I firmly believe that reducing long-term water demand will happen only if the federal government invests money to buy land and/or water rights at a fair price. In the long run, investing in this option will be cheaper than playing political games or filing lawsuits. It will also be fairer to the people who have been misled by the federal government over the past hundred years I welcome rebuttals from those who disagree, even though I know they are often part of the Republican strategy to politicize the Klamath Basin debate and stymie effective solutions. For those who are interested in this issue, I have posted further information, including the entire transcript of the House debate on my amendment last month, on my Web site (www.house.gov/blumenauer). In addition, the Wall Street Journal's July 30 article on Karl Rove's involvement is a telling indictment of how politics trumps good policy. Finally, the Summer 2002 issue of the Oregon Historical Quarterly includes a superb explanation of the past century's saga of broken promises and dashed dreams in the Klamath Basin. The water crisis in the Klamath will not be solved until we stop playing political games and focus instead on solving problems. If we are ever to heal a divided Oregon, we will need to focus on a constructive, solution-based approach, one that requires Oregonians from both urban and rural areas to work together. Guest forum: A strong case in support of Israel By Gerry Mandell Ashland This letter is to acknowledge the passing of Bob Jones, a frequent contributor to this page and a strong supporter of human rights. Try as I might, I could not convince him (through letters or in conversations) that Israel deserves the continuing support of the United States. If I had had the benefit of reading professor Alan Dershowitz's (Harvard Law School) new book, The Case for Israel, I might have changed his mind. As a civil libertarian and liberal, Dershowitz criticizes some of Israel's policies and actions in its on-going war with the Arab states and Iran (Muslim but not Arab). But among many other topics, he explains with clarity and eloquence why Israel does not deserve pariah status at the United Nations; that suicide bombings of children are the embodiment of collective punishment; that Israel is the only country in the Middle East where the rule of law actually rules; that a new anti-Semitism is rising. In his introduction Dershowitz writes, "Most important, I will argue that those who single out Israel for unique criticism not directed against countries with far worse human rights records, are themselves guilty of international bigotry." He argues persuasively that " � judged by any rational standard, Israel deserves the support - though certainly not uncritical support - of all people of good will who value peace, justice, self-determination and fairness." Further, he quotes Thomas Friedman of The New York Times: "Criticizing Israel is not anti-Semitic, and saying so is vile. But singling out Israel for opprobrium and international sanction - out of all proportion to any other party in the Middle East - is anti-Semitic, and not saying so is dishonest." Dershowitz's book is the very best case for Israel I have read. As an advocate for Israel, I suggest it should be required reading for the world. LINKS: DAILY TIDINGS: Main | News | Sports | Obituaries | Opinion | Columnists | AP News | Subscribe | Archives | Weather | Classifieds | Contact Us | Privacy REVELS: Main | Calendar | Dining | Movies | T.V. OTHER: Road Cams Copyright 2003 Ashland Daily Tidings 541.482.3456. 1661 Siskiyou Blvd., Ashland, OR 97520. Ottaway Newspapers, Inc. - Advertisers -