Document text
Letters to the Editor: LWVA lines up against war The board of the League of Women Voters of Ashland believes that U.S. national security is dependent on international cooperation, and that a doctrine of preemptive attack on Iraq appears to be in contravention of the UN Charter and international law. The board of LWVA feels that the U.S. has not yet made it clear that the benefits of a war with Iraq outweigh the probable consequences, nor that a Saddam under UN watch is more dangerous than a Saddam under attack. The establishment just three weeks ago of an office of postwar planning (by the Defense Department) suggests that continued work with the UN on the Iraq issue could be helpful for long-term success in peacekeeping or nation building. The board believes that working with the UN on the Iraq issue not only ensures a fuller debate of the long-term impacts of policies and actions, but it also builds unity of purpose and objectives that reduces suspicions that the U.S. is only pursuing its own objectives in Iraq. The board believes success in stopping criminal acts by al-Qaida militants is now dependent on effective international police work, rather than on a "war" directed by the U.S. Defense Department. LWVA also believes that characterizing the criminal acts of al-Qaida militants as a "war" aids the efforts of al-Qaida to define their acts as a jihad between Moslems and non-Moslems. Condemnation and action by the UN is crucial to the world seeing al-Qaida as acting against international law. The board believes that characterizing criminal acts as a "war" has provided opportunities for people in this country who are uncomfortable with our liberties and open society to curtail and put in danger crucial elements of a successful democracy. The board believes that the U.S. should continue to support UN efforts to advance international security. Harold A. Cloer, LWVA Board of Directors, Ashland Checking pablum and war rationale Pablum is not pablum is not pablum according to K.. Richard Berlet (Tidings; Guest Forum; March 5, 2003): "� leaders who satisfy themselves with this Pablum ('defining ideals and creating vision') are nothing but demagogues �" On the other hand, "Leaders who are doing their jobs must make difficult trade-offs." - "To suggest that the current administration's foreign policy is either politically or economically motivated is just plain naive." - "Our leaders have determined that Hussein is a real threat �" "And I, for one, can't pretend to evaluate the trade-offs required to eliminate that threat." It all depends on which brand you relish. Hal Jamison, Ashland Guest forum, War, then relief; a strange picture By Virginia Govedare Ashland We frequently hear that the Bush administration is confident that a war with Iraq would be short and "successful." We hear very little about the toll in human agony. United States Sen. Robert Byrd, in a moving speech on the Senate floor on Feb. 12, said: "On what is possibly the eve of a horrific infliction of death and destruction on the population of the nation of Iraq - a population I might add, of which 50 percent is under the age of 15 - this chamber is silent � I truly must question the judgment of any president who can say that a massive, unprovoked military attack on a nation which is over 50 percent children is 'in the highest moral tradition ofour country.'" The Pentagon says that in the first 48 hours of bombardment, an operation glibly dubbed "Shock and Awe" (an act of terror itself), a bomb will fall every four minutes, totaling more than all those dropped in the first Gulf War, and equaling the firepower of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima. The Pentagon has said that not a single square inch of Baghdad's earth will be usable after the U.S. is finished. Newsweek magazine cites estimates of deaths, injuries and humanitarian fallout for U.S. troops and the 26 million Iraqis. The 1991 Gulf War killed an estimated 100,000 to 120,000 Iraqi soldiers, along with 3,500 to 15,000 civilians. Studies show that an additional 110,000 civilians - nearly half being young children - died from war-related diseases, food shortages and other hazards in the first year alone. If the U.S. launches a full-scale attack, the projected death tolls range from 48,000 up to 260,000, and civilians will bear the brunt. New reports indicate that as bombs destroy Iraq's transportation networks and electricity grids, millions will lose access to basic medicine, adequate food and potable water. Iraqi civilians are far more vulnerable today than they were during the 1991 Gulf War, when most had jobs and basic assets. A decade of sanctions has left 60 percent of the population dependent on food baskets distributed by the Iraqi government. If military combat paralyzes that system, 3 million mothers and young children will face dire food shortages. The Newsweek article further predicts, citing the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, that 7.4 million Iraqis will require humanitarian assistance if the U.S. invades. More than 5 million will need food and 2 million will need shelter, 39 percent will need potable water and 500,000 may require treatment for injuries. The Bush administration says that post-war plans include humanitarian relief. Is there something wrong with this picture? Anti-bicyclist sentiments are simply 'amazing' By David Martelli Medford I read "with amazement and wonder" Thomas Howser's diatribe against bicyclists after returning from a bike tour in Taiwan, where the anti-bike sentiment expressed in his article is non-existent, as it is throughout the rest of the world. It is, for some reason, only here in America that one encounters bike-hating drivers - everywhere else in the world bikers are accepted for what they are, merely one more part of the traffic flow. One is reminded of Michael Moore's recent movie, "Bowling for Columbine," in which he persists in asking the question of why it is that only in America are gun deaths so rampant. Likewise, only here in the U.S. are drivers angry that bikes are part of the traffic pattern. When riding a bike in Taiwan, one is not only accepted as part of traffic, but is actually loudly and vociferously encouraged in their efforts - on a four-day tour, I had several HUNDRED motorists shout "jiayou" at me (Chinese for "go, go!"), give me the thumbs-up sign, clap, wave, and use other assorted methods to encourage me in my efforts. I have done no fewer than five major tours in Taiwan, as well as four years of everyday riding there, and I have always encountered this phenomenon. Here in America they throw things at me, or tell me to "get the hell off the road." Mr. Howser's article made no logical case for why monies should not be spent making the roads safer for bicyclists, instead sinking to petulant name-calling and a patronizing dismissal of bikers. It is ironic that he calls me, a biker, "elitist" - what exactly is elitist about riding a bike, and what does elitism have to do with his supposed argument that bike lanes should not be built with public money? This method of "discourse" does not rise to the level of one with his education. Merely making unsubstantiated claims and resorting to name-calling does not mean that one has made a compelling argument, and Mr. Howser's case is lost on me, other than his dislike for bikers and his belief that he has more "important" things to do. Bicyclists are here to stay, and given the worsening state of the air quality in the Rogue Valley, one would hope that our numbers will grow substantially. As a result, a public discourse on the topics Mr. Howser tried to address is necessary. However, if Mr. Howser insists on carrying on such a discourse in the manner expressed in his strange article, it will be best if he stays out of the process altogether. More problems with anti-bike commentary William Southworth Ashland As a cyclist and resident of Ashland for 23 years, I was astonished to learn from Tom Howser's recent commentary that I am one of a pampered elite, powerful enough to cause the city to undertake an expensive renovation of Siskiyou Boulevard just for us. If the boulevard renovation project is being done just for cyclists (which I doubt), does it matter if it serves a minority? Safer bike lines on arterial streets can only allow for usage to increase. Perhaps more parents will allow their children to cycle to school rather than driving them in gas guzzling SUV's. As for taxing and licensing bicycles? Not totally without merit, I suppose. But $100, when auto licenses are $30 every two years? I wonder if Mr. Howser would also advocate taxing wheelchairs, since the public cost of providing handicapped access serves such a small proportion of our residents. I put about 4,000 miles a year on my bicycle, probably a fourth of which is on city streets doing errands, shopping, recycling, etc. My wife and I together run up approximately 12,000 miles on two automobiles, the vast majority of which is outside city limits. I don't know enough about distribution of gasoline tax revenues to be able to say how much of this comes back to our fair city as highway funds, but it might possibly be as much as Mr. Howser pays for the privilege of wearing out our streets with his car. His was not the first anti-bicycle diatribe to appear on these pages over the years. Writers have often cited cyclists' discourteous and lawless behavior on our streets and sidewalks. Partly true, I'm afraid, and I apologize for them. For my part, I try not to provoke motorists into making me a victim of road rage, although I confess I occasionally roll through a stop sign, when traffic permits, to avoid the necessity of unclipping to put my foot down. It's also often motivated by impatient motorists rolling up behind me. I advocate cyclists having the same rights and privileges as motorists, and obeying the same traffic laws. But if obeying traffic laws were a requirement for street improvements, automobiles would deserve even less consideration than bicycles. One cannot pass through Ashland by bike or car, or on foot, without witnessing flagrant disregard of speed limits, stop signs, and cross walks, with far greater risk to public safety than any hazard from bicycles. Trash and broken glass, which must be removed at public expense, is largely jettisoned from car windows, not from bicycles. I'm sorry, Mr. Howser, that sharing our streets with cyclists piques you so. Please try to get over it. On burning of America's flag By Roger Golden Brown Talent Forget the First Amendment argument. I can't stress that enough. Forget the First Amendment argument. That only confuses the issue. In fact, to say that someone is allowed to burn or "desecrate" the flag because of the First Amendment, says that they have the right but assumes that this right is the right to be nasty about something sacred. Perfectly fine, and people ought to have that right, but the assumption that it is sacred is where the real issue lies. The real crime in prohibiting burning of the flag is that the assumption is made that the flag, as a symbol (or any symbol, for that matter), must mean the same thing to one individual as it does to someone else. What's assumed is that because I live within the boundaries of the United States, I must believe what someone else believes about the flag. I must have the same opinion and must think like them. If that isn't the brain police, I don't know what is. If that isn't fascism, I don't know what is. The most fundamental thing that this country was based on is that it is "of the people, and by the people." And also it was to protect the rights of the individual. That means that the people, in their varied lifestyles and beliefs and approaches, through the democratic process, shape the government. NOT the other way around; which is a totalitarian government insisting that all individuals must accept the paradigm of those currently in power. And it means that the individuals shape the society and not even those in majority have a right to shape the individual. Through the democratic process, laws are made to protect the rights of the individuals. And to protect the security of the individuals. But protecting the security of individuals cannot - absolutely cannot - be extended to demanding that others believe what you believe because you think their beliefs threaten your way of life. If a bunch of flag burners threaten your way of life to the extent that the fabric of society is changed, well � maybe, in time, you will, indeed, become a minority or outsider. Whatever. To prohibit flag burning, by law, is nothing more than using force to protect the status of those in power; flaunting the power and demanding that others believe what you believe or it's off to the concentration camps. A week after writing the above I found this quote from Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. - "If there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other it is the principle of free thought - not free thought for those who agree with us, but freedom for the thought that we hate." LINKS: DAILY TIDINGS: Main | News | Sports | Business | 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 -