GOODBYE?
Thanks very much. You gave me a true burst of laughter as I
read the global-warming article. What I laughed at was the picture of the maple
tree, captioned “Goodbye to all that? We could lose our maple trees, with
their fall colors.”
What? Do you know the range of the maple tree?
http://www.massmaple.org/treeID.html
God help us if Rochester
loses the maple tree due to global warming, because the rest of the country
would be darn near uninhabitable by that time. The maple tree grows all the way
down to Florida.
Don’t you folks realize that excessive hyperbole hurts your
causes? Don’t your advertisers, at least, if not your readers, deserve a little
fact checking in the articles they pay for?
Just last week I listened to Michael Crichton’s “State
of Fear,” in which the environmental terrorist group Earth Liberation
Front plays villain, exacerbating natural conditions to enhance natural
disasters. The media play into their hands, because, heck they need something,
anything, to report on, to get people to look, watch, listen, so the
advertisers will feel their money is well spent.
It’s a good thing your publication is free, or, like Howard
Stern, you would find out how little people value your material.
Joe St. Martin,
Penfield
From our caption, Mr.
St. Martin mistakenly assumes that the article states that Rochester’s climate in the future maples will become
extinct due to intolerable conditions brought on by global climate change. The
article makes the more subtle, distinct claim that maples “could be
out-competed here.”
Dr. David Wolfe,
the Cornell plant ecologist with whom City spoke for the article, clarifies: “It’s not that they wouldn’t grow here.” he
says. Rather, “over time, their dominance might be edged out.”
OUR SUCCESS IN IRAQ
Except for the boosterism by the perpetrators of the US
actions, most public discussions about Iraq
imply either outright failure or the lack of a plan for success. Although they
have been disingenuous about their goals and justifications, I think the
boosters are correct about their success.
Furthermore, the depth of their success has profound
implications, because success encourages repetition, adding to the thousands of
American soldiers’ lives and billions of ill-spent dollars.
To judge success, of course, we must know goals, but the
boosters’ invasion goals remain opaque — never as crisp as the tag lines
about terrorism, weapons of mass destruction, or democracy for the Iraqi
people. Americans need to discern and think about the US
strategy, then decide if it represents the America
they see for themselves and their children.
On the day of the invasion, I taught a sociology class to
Egyptian and other students at Egypt’s
AmericanUniversity
in Cairo. Issues of US
power in the Middle East are always cogent to these
students. Like many professors, I warm up students with current events, and so
I asked how the US
invasion would turn out. Most answered with a starkly honest but uninspired
“Who knows?”
One of the best students, however, had it right, I think.
She replied that while she could not be exact about the outcome concerning
Middle Eastern democracy or other details, she was certain about the main
outcome. Whatever the result, Iraq
would be a weak state.
Not in her lifetime would she expect Iraq
to militarily threaten other states in the region, develop nuclear power or
missiles, export its Baathist ideology, or choose to sell oil in Euros rather
than US dollars and thus influence the world’s events in a way helpful to Iraq
or other Arabs.
The overriding US
goal, she thought, was to neutralize independent challenges to American power.
This explains the invasion’s planning and execution: break it but no need to
fix it
A large invasion with detailed plans for reconstruction,
perhaps involving European democracies, other states with Middle
East knowledge and interests, or even the sovereignty-sapping UN,
might have successfully established an independent Iraq.
This perspective about the use of US
power also accounts for the successful career paths of those involved.
Strategic intellectuals like Paul Wolfowitz get promoted to the World Bank.
Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld (with the new preemptive strike concept, his
title should be renamed) gets to plan the use of his successful technique
again.
All those retired generals calling for Rumsfeld’s removal
apparently never understood their boss’s objective. With the extra troops they
wanted, American soldiers just might have sacrificed, in error, to fix Iraq
and make it a viable place for democracy and independent action.
So we really need to think not about our failure in Iraq,
but about our success. How should the US
build on its success in Iraq?
Or preferably, should the US
build on its success? These I think are the real issues.
Ralph Sell, Eagle Island, New York (Former Rochesterian Ralph Sell
is adjunct professor of sociology at AmericanUniversity in Cairo.)
CHOICE MATTERS
Regarding the recent abortion correspondence (The Mail,
April 5, April 19):
Having a choice does not mean you have a magically
convenient way of fixing circumstances. Choice does not make complex issues go
away. It can, however, offer some degree of comfort to those involved.
I’ve never had an abortion, but I can empathize with anyone
who faces a serious situation with no easy answers. I’ve been in a position
where any decision meant challenge and heartache, but at least I could make
choices, and just the ability to choose was of some help.
No one should question or inhibit someone else’s personal
decision that they feel is best for themselves and those involved. So you don’t
agree with someone else’s life-changing decision? Well, it’s not yours to make
in the first place. Count your blessings!
Mary Jane Bowman, Old
Bald Hill
Road,
Hemlock
COURAGE TO CHOOSE
We’ve all heard about voter apathy. The result of apathy is
low voter turnout. But have you ever heard about voter courage? Supporting candidates who are the best for the office, though they may
not be the most popular, characterizes voter courage. Voter courage is also
seen when citizens have gotten beyond simply wanting to support the candidate
who will probably win, according to the media.
Often voters settle for a mediocre candidate simply because
that candidate has name recognition. Few voters have the courage to voice their
support for lesser-known candidates. When voters lack the courage to speak
about the candidate they support and when the media fails to mention all the
candidates, the public is robbed of this knowledge.
As a Howard Dean supporter, I heard over and over that Dean
wasn’t electable and that John Kerry was. That
characterization turned out to be wrong. So why do voters continue to listen to
the media and allow themselves to be talked out of voting for the best
candidate?
There is so much more to voting than simply knowing who are
the Republican and Democratic candidates. Within those parties, there can be
both great candidates and mediocre ones. When a voter is not aware of all the
candidates or does not know pertinent information about each one, a sound
decision cannot be made. Unless voters do their research and have the courage
to support the candidate who best represents their point of view, they will
always be disappointed with the results.
Thomas R. Janowski, Hazelhurst Drive, Gates
WRITING TO CITY
We welcome and encourage readers’ letters for publication.
Send them to: themail@rochester-citynews.com or The Mail, City Newspaper, 250
North Goodman Street, Rochester14607.
Our guidelines: We don’t publish anonymous letters — and
we ask that you include your street name and city/town/village. We don’t
publish letters that have been sent to other media — and we don’t publish form letters generated by activist groups. While
we don’t restrict length, letters of under 350 words have a greater chance of
being published. We do edit letters for clarity and brevity. And in general we
don’t publish letters (or longer “op-ed” pieces) from the same writer more
often than about once every two months.
This article appears in May 17-23, 2006.
