The real pain
Listening to President Bush’s bellicose speeches against
Saddam, I am reminded of the old surgical practice performed in classical
Greece. As an anesthetic, the surgeon would induce a new pain more severe than
the pain the surgery would cause in order to divert “pain attention.”
There
is no question that Saddam is a tyrant, a despot, a murderer, and a dictator.
By anyone’s standards, he is not fit to be a ruler of a country. He has been
violating UN resolutions for the last nine years. Why the sudden urge to remove
him from power “within days”? If we have waited this long, why can’t
we give diplomacy a chance? Could it be that we are being induced with a
Hypocritical (ooops, I mean Hippocratic) “surgical pain diversion”?
Our
economy is in shambles, corporate greed is rampant, the stock market is at the
lowest it has been in years. The criminals who robbed the sweat equity of
hard-working, honest, law-abiding citizens are allowed to go free or are not
prosecuted. Kenneth Lay (remember him?) is still free, and his associates are
skiing in Argentina!
As I
approach retirement, I watch my IRAs diminish by the day. I am at the point
where I don’t even open my statements any more. We have problems to take care
of before we embark on a unilateral war against Saddam. We can start by holding
accountable the Lays, the Sullivans, the Kozlowskis, the Welshes, the Rigases,
and all those who have violated the public’s trust and ruined the lives of
countless innocent people.
Peter Gekas, Beresford Road, Rochester
Return to Somalia
If we put aside any questions of political intrigue or bias
— like the CIA’s careful evaluation of USSR missile forces, which turned out
to be severely inflated in order to get the US government to buy into increased
defense expenditures during Kennedy’s tenure — we are faced with the
following:
1)
Iraq, a country controlled by a cartoon dictator (much as Cuba was during the
’60s and ’70s), possesses some/unknown/huge reservoirs of toxic weapons.
2)
These stockpiles were known and talked about even before Operation Desert
Storm.
3)
There is probably a strong apparatus in place in Iraq to deliver threatening
quantities of nuclear bombs. The materials, delivery mechanisms, dates, and
targets are not even hazy, they are so unclear.
Therefore,
there is a need today for the US to
“take out Saddam Hussein.” This has nothing to do with the state of
the economy (or lack of it). It is a need so severe that it can take place
without world support.
The
United States is acting as a Global Good Scout, helping keep the world safe. We
will not eradicate the stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons. Nor will
we remove all remnants of al Queda, martyrs, freedom fighters, terrorists, etc
— even from Afghanistan.
This
is the likely outcome:
Osama
bin Laden (who cannot go a month without kidney dialysis yet escapes detection
by the world’s intelligence agencies) and the whole sick crew of al Queda,
Hezbollah, Intifada, etc., will rally in support of their dear beloved brothers
and sisters slain by “intelligent, precision” bombs, which
nevertheless will generate collateral damage.
Huge
stockpiles of nerve gas and toxic biologicals will be delivered to random and
dispersed collections of civilians by political ideologues who hate the United
States, and whose actions are justified by men of honesty and religion.
Politically
complex governments containing significant populations of respectful Muslim
believers will be instantly polarized by their more extremist fundamentalist
brothers, seeking to paint things as Good and Evil (as most politicians do) and
will ignite, spreading the insanity throughout India and Pakistan, Afghanistan,
Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, and the rest of the
Caucasus xxxistans, Indonesia, the Philippines, etc.
And
how much more?
R. Rapport, Rush
Shades of the ’30s
The “Homeland Security Act,” its administration, personnel
and personnel relations, and implementations as sought by Bush II is a
corporate chief-executive-officer’s dream.
Bush
proposes to run that portion of the government without legal restraints or
restrictions. He wants no interference from the Civil Service, any union
agreements, or the courts.
He
wants the right to hire, fire, promote, demote, reassign, transfer, and issue
orders of conduct without restraint. In brief, forget the Constitution or any
other legislation. All in the name of security.
Shades
of the ’30s in Germany. Is this the rebirth of National Socialism (Nazis)?
This
citizen hopes that the up-to-now craven leaders and members of Congress find
some courage and put a stop to this power grab. If not, we all may live to
regret it.
Remember
the fate of the “good” Germans who said it couldn’t happen there. The worst did
happen, and it can happen here.
Me? I
don’t want to be that secure.
William Gaden, Stowell Drive, Rochester
Heed the warnings
Every morning I read about another of the unending acts of
belligerence, arrogance, and shortsightedness of the Bush administration.
Our
government threatens war, refuses to support a ban on landmines or
accountability in a world court, and abolishes civil liberties. It resists
developing sustainable energy sources, wipes out environment protections, and undermines
efforts by other countries to reduce poverty, over-population, and pollution.
Our
president threatens countries that do not surrender to the belief that the US
has dominion over the resources of the world.
Our
government’s lack of political perception and absence of a humanistic and moral
approach is appalling. This has contributed greatly to placing Americans at
risk around the world, as we alienate others and lose respect. With policies
driven by the oil barons and special interests, Bush appeals to our fear and
greed, not our compassion.
Bush
is not a man of courage, wisdom, or
peace, and his terrorist policies are a threat to world peace. His draft plan
for global dominance is appalling (and unfortunately little reported by the
local press).
Weapons
of mass destruction are frightening in the hands of both Bush and Hussein. Americans need to heed the warnings coming
from the rest of the world about the direction in which this administration is
taking our country — before it is too late.
Lynda Howland, Brook Road, Pittsford
Next with FIF’s
I must commend Jack Spula for writing a very informative
column about a very complicated subject, the Rochester police department’s
practice of stopping and not arresting thousands of persons in the city (Taking
the FIF,” August 14).
The
report of the New York Civil Liberties Union on the subject (of which I was a
part as counsel) revealed a practice that focuses on young black males in
high-minority neighborhoods. These neighborhoods are also areas of the greatest
criminal activity in the city. To the police and some members of the public,
this correlation justifies the practice. To the NYCLU, the correlation is the
beginning of the discussion, not the end.
This
discussion should be based on policy, not law. Do the benefits of this level of
intense community policing outweigh its costs? The report and the NYCLU’s press
releases identify some of the costs — the public perception that race is a
basis for these stops, the retention indefinitely of the intelligence gathered.
The
burden has now shifted to the Rochester police department to identify and
quantify the benefits.
Scott A. Forsyth, Rochester
Maladies
Letter writer, Michael Kopicki, citing cuts in libraries and
parks, wonders in his September 4 Letter to the Editor if we are being led by
“maladroit politicos.” Were these cuts affecting only those items,
crucial as they are to quality of life in a free and democratic society,
“maladroit” might be OK. Throw in the human-service cuts and some of
the other Doyle proposals and “mal-evolent” seems somehow more
accurately descriptive.
Robert C. Insull, Lynnwood Drive, Rochester
This article appears in Oct 2-8, 2002.
