In harm’s way
I’m writing this first and foremost as a parent who has
recently lost my only son in a rather meaningless way. This made me think of
all those other parents who have sons and daughters in harm’s way — and some
who are already dead.
I am
revolted by these losses and the senselessness of these sacrifices. The extent
of the feelings that I can spare from my own loss is quite limited; I’m still
rather numb. However, that a cold, indifferent regime can arbitrarily cause
this agony is beyond my ken. No one but a parent knows what it means to lose a
son or daughter. That these people in the Beltway should have this kind of
power is monstrous.
We
need to have due process for war. A criminal has that right; why shouldn’t our
sons? Perhaps we could have a panel of randomly selected parents who could
weigh the evidence and make a fitting determination. If that had been done now,
I seriously doubt that our children would be in harm’s way in southwest Asia.
Robert Benvenuti, Delaware Avenue,
Rochester
The Lej and the war
Regarding Jack Spula’s April 2 Metro Ink piece, “War of
Words”: I’d like to clear up an error, and add some further thoughts to
the discussion. Mr. Spula wrote about two recent resolutions submitted by
members of the Democratic caucus to the president of the County Legislature.
One, put forward
in January by Bill Benet, called on President Bush to reject a military attack
on Iraq and to focus efforts against al-Qaeda. Our staff mistakenly informed
Mr. Spula that I was the only other legislator who had signed the document; in
fact, Lynda Garner Goldstein and Calvin Lee also added their signatures.
A second
resolution, submitted by Christopher Wilmot, expresses support for American
troops in Iraq, now that they are engaged in military action. Ten of 13 caucus
members have so far signed the letter.
In both cases,
legislators and staff-members struggled hard and argued passionately over the
wording and sentiment of the resolutions. The documents were offered to all
legislators for signature. While only Democratic members chose to sign Mr.
Benet’s resolution, legislators have until April 11 to decide whether to sign
Mr. Wilmot’s letter. That document is still circulating among members of both
caucuses.
But the decision
to sign either resolution is not an easy one. Among our own caucus, reasons
vary: Some members decided that the issues in question were too personal; some
serve constituents with family members in the service; some felt the language
to be either too pro-war or not pro-war enough. Mr. Spula may see these two
resolutions as contradictory, but not all of us do. The documents and their
signatures are an expression of the complexities of the issues, as well as the
respected differences in our caucus.
Speaking for
myself (although three of us signed both resolutions), I chose to sign both for
the following reasons: I support our troops, but I do not believe that
supporting the troops requires me to support the prosecution of this war. Our
loyal troops now serve what, in my judgment, is a misguided policy. I believe
that we best support our troops when our foreign policy is wise, patient, and
thoughtful. I do not “buy” that to question George W. Bush’s foreign
policy is disrespectful of our troops.
To form a clear
opinion about war, and about this war in particular, is not an easy task for
everyone. Yes, there are people on both sides of the issue who are fortunate
enough to feel unshakable moral certainty about their opinion. Among them is
President Bush, who stated a few days before he declared war, “If anyone
can be at peace, I am at peace about this.”
But the rest of
us aren’t so lucky. The resolutions that emerge from the Democratic caucus, and
the signatures that are subsequently added or withheld, reflect the complicated
spectrum of public and personal opinion that has emerged over the last few
months. It is not unusual in our day to oppose the war and support the troops,
or to support some aims of the war but oppose US unilateral military action.
Dissent and ambiguity will be part of our national dialogue until the war is
over and well beyond. These are messy times. Unfortunately, we all must get
used to the uncertainty that is modern life, and we must keep grappling with
the difficult issues.
Stephanie Polowe-Aldersley, Democratic Leader,
Monroe County Legislature
Jack Bradigan Spula responds:
If the troops are engaged in an immoral, illegal war, it’s flat-out wrong to
support them, except by demanding they be demobilized and brought home.
Otherwise, you inescapably support the military mission. The hawks understand this and exploit it.
I
might react differently if the support were for conscientious objectors or
military resisters. Their numbers will grow as this “war on terror” expands,
and they’ll need all the help we can give.
I feel
sorry for youngsters who enlisted without understanding what war means.
Likewise for longtime soldiers who wake up to the fact that violence is not the
way. But what about the gung-ho crowd? Servicemembers who favor this war and
carry out their orders deserve criticism. And if they have a hand in war
crimes, they bear responsibility to some degree.
Nobody
is above the law. And orders from the White House and Pentagon don’t repeal the
law. In fact, servicemembers have a duty not to obey a “patently illegal order, such as one that directs the commission of a
crime,” says the Uniform Code of Military Justice. “Any person who commits an
act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefor
and liable to punishment,” according to the Nuremberg Principles. The relevant
crimes include “planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of
aggression.”
That
might implicate a lot of us outside the ranks, too. All the more reason to
oppose the war — consistently and unambiguously — in the political realm.
Out with the old?
According to the news, some of our wounded soldiers have
been transported to a US military hospital in Germany. It seems, then, that
Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld did not move our military’s medical facilities to
“New” Europe after dismissing Germany as part of “Old” Europe. This may have
been because there wasn’t enough time (due to our rush to war), or because Old
Europe remains a suitable place for our facilities.
The
secretary may see this as a minimal contribution on Germany’s part, and so he
may choose to miss the irony of it. If he does, let him also ignore those of us
who offer Old Europe a discreet danke schoen.
Basil
Marasco Jr., Wills Road, Chili
Patriotic protests
Some esteemed members of our current administration say that
protesting the war on Iraq is unpatriotic and harms our men and women serving
over there. This should come as no surprise from a far-right leadership whose
idea of policy is to invent witty catch phrases (“Operation Iraqi Freedom” is
my favorite) and issue false rhetoric to a sleeping American public.
America
is a democracy; that means debate and discourse are not merely to be
encouraged, but are fundamental to its survival. We who protest act not against
those in the field, but for them. Anger and resentment is thrust not at the
soldier, but at those people who zealously put them in harm’s way.
A
great man once stated that patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.
Cloaking oneself in the flag does not automatically put a person on the side of
justice. I am insulted when my patriotism is questioned for stating my
disagreement with the direction this nation is headed in. It is because I love
this country that I do so.
Richard Kusminsky, Beverly Street,
Rochester
Racist reference
“Tightening the noose” as it relates to Saddam, Iraq, and
the war: This expression is offensive, racist, irresponsible, and insensitive.
This racist statement was echoed throughout the black community in the Deep
South when white people searched for innocent blacks and hung them.
I do
believe that the war and the president both are racist, and neither one
deserves respect.
The
Rev. Raymond L. Graves, Horseshoe Lane North, Henrietta
The war isn’t moral
There isn’t a shred of evidence that anyone of Iraqi descent
committed crimes against US citizens. On the other hand, the US has killed as
many as 100,000 Iraqi troops, and there are reports that well over 50,000
civilians, mostly children, have died because of US-enforced sanctions.
The
UN inspectors did not uncover any evidence that warrants the massive US killing
force.
There
is no moral ground for this war. Moral ground involves concern for human life
and alleviation of human suffering. People in Middle Eastern, African, and
Latin and Central American countries know that the US cares only about valuable
resources.
The
US action in view of UN Resolution 1441 destroys any moral grounds for military
action. I charge the Bush Administration with crimes against humanity and with
violating my moral beliefs.
I am
a disabled Korean War veteran who majored in history and has studied history
for 50 years. I have lived through three major, brutal military conflicts. The
military response in World War II and Korea was justified. Vietnam was also a
misguided, tragic, futile effort. But the Bush Administration’s policy has the
potential to cause continuous guerilla warfare. It has done severe damage to
the US image everywhere and is destroying the US and world economies.
Ray
Bliss, West Henrietta Road, West Henrietta
Sibley flaws
Having ridden on RTS and Greyhound/Trailways buses as well
as Amtrak trains since the mid 1970s, I’d like to think my first-hand
experience trumps that of people who’ve only been in cars during that period.
As
such, I found the cover story about the proposed downtown transit center
(“Street Fight,” March 26) quite interesting. While RGRTA’s “Temple of Transit”
proposal is flawed for a wide variety of reasons, the so-called “Sibley
Station,” while better, is also flawed because:
• It
can’t accommodate east and southbound RTS buses.
• It
doesn’t address the RTS buses that line up at the rear of Midtown.
•
It’s based on an outmoded “hub and spoke” route system, which hasn’t kept up
with changes in work and shopping patterns.
• It
doesn’t address relocating the Greyhound/Trailways station from a place where
it never belonged. (The Andrews Street building is still available, though
waiting for “redevelopment” 18 years after it closed.)
•
Unlike the plans in cities who’ve dealt with this successfully, trains aren’t
part of the mix.
Given
the economic malaise we’re in, it’s hard to justify spending scarce money on
separate bus and train projects. Instead, these can be combined on Central
Avenue, recreating Claude Bragdon’s building with modern-day features. Besides
returning to an above-ground format, the project would breathe new life into
this portion of the city; it would provide ample room for buses to maneuver,
and it can be configured to handle long-overdue high-speed passenger trains.
If
postal officials are finally serious about cutting costs, the north side of
Main and Clinton can be turned into a central “Downtown Station” combining
State Street, Cumberland Street, and Midtown. Or, when the marketplace can
support it, a developer can be brought in to do a Rochester version of Park
Centre in Cleveland.
Just
as with Frontier Field, this community can reach consensus on this, if there’s
an open and honest dialogue.
Jeff
Goldblatt, Parkside Crescent, Irondequoit
Left out
In his allegedly favorable review of the film Power and Terror: Noam Chomsky in Our Times (March 19), Jon Popick describes the film as “incredibly one-sided
ass-kissing.” While this remark displays all the wit and charm for which
Mr. Popick is well known, I must protest the political naiveté underlying it.
It is
true that Power and Terror does not
give people who disagree with Chomsky much of a hearing, and that the film is
rather flattering to Chomsky. However, the mainstream perspective Chomsky
critiques is heard constantly in the media — it’s impossible to avoid, in
fact — and critics like Chomsky are almost never given a chance to respond.
And virtually every piece of coverage given to George W. Bush on TV these days
qualifies as “ass-kissing.”
People
who talk about the “one-sidedness” of the Left media never seem to
talk about the even worse one-sidedness of the mainstream media. The Right does
this as part of a calculated strategy to suppress dissident voices; after all,
the Left can’t say very much at all if the mainstream press ignores them and if
the Left press has to waste its scarce media resources giving views they
dislike yet more chances to be heard.
But
when people at City repeat this
criticism of the Left media, I can only attribute it to sheer cluelessness.
There’s
no reason for the Left to feel it has to give the other side a chance to speak,
as long as the dominant position it criticizes is as prevalent as oxygen. And
I’ll be happy to criticize the Left for not giving the mainstream opportunities
to be heard — as soon as the mainstream starts giving the Left the same
opportunities.
Dr. Peter C. Stone, Political Science
Department, University of Rochester Rochester
Jon Popick responds: The City’s Choice I
wrote for Power and Terror was, in
fact, an analysis of the documentary — not an essay about American politics
and how it affects the modern media structure. And I’d make the same
“one-sided ass-kissing” comment about any other documentary that
focused on any other person and came across like one big fluff piece.
For
the record, my review was neither positive nor “allegedly positive.”
It did not side with or against Chomsky’s political beliefs. It did not
criticize Chomsky (other than his boring delivery) or any of his followers. It
was simply a non-biased, fact-driven review of an 84-minute film that I believe
could have been better had it not been quite so eager to glorify its subject.
Incidentally,
the professor’s letter would probably have given Chomsky himself a good
chuckle, especially since he believes both sides of the political spectrum are
equally guilty of manipulating the media. Chomsky would also agree that even
lowly members of the “bewildered herd” would be entitled to an
opinion of their own without being marginalized by the intellectual elite.
Being prepared
My four children attend School 23 in the city. I recently
received a letter from Superintendent of Schools Manuel Rivera on the subject
of “providing a safe school environment.” I read it with a mixture of amusement
and incredulity.
At my
children’s school, a nurse is on duty only two hours per week. I would like to
know how the district proposes to take necessary measures in the event of an
emergency when even basic needs have not been met. As an example, when one of
my children recently became ill at school, he had no place to rest while
waiting to be picked up. Yet the letter speaks of “medical preparedness.”
With
no medically trained personnel in our schools, who will be the first responders
in the event of a crisis? Today our schools are incapable of properly treating
a hangnail, much less an emergency situation. If, as Dr. Rivera states in his
letter, the Rochester School District is truly “committed to maintaining the
safety and well-being of our children,” it will immediately place a fulltime
nurse in every school building.
Eileen
Scardino, Berkeley Street, Rochester (Scardino is treasurer of the School
23 PTA)
RPO’s ‘redundant’
Once again the Rochester Philharmonic Orchestra cries
“poor mouth.” Current headlines tell us that this crisis could
threaten the orchestra’s existence. Pardon me while I yawn, but I’ve been
hearing this — almost every year — since the RPO was managed by the Civic
Music Association 40 years ago.
The
sad truth is: Rochester does not need
a philharmonic orchestra. Aside from being a rather tired ensemble, the RPO is
redundant. On any given day of the week, Rochesterians can see variety of
performances throughout our community. The venue might be the Eastman Theatre,
Kilbourn Hall, Downtown Presbyterian, the Hochstein Performance Hall, Christ
Church, or Temple B’rith Kodesh. Not only are these usually free concerts, but
the performers are world-class talents; neither can be said frequently by the
RPO.
Our
small town is saturated in exceptional music and performers. We already boast
having one of the finest orchestras in the world: the Eastman School’s
Philharmonia. Under the baton of Neil Varon, the Philharmonia is mesmerizing,
and it’s light-years beyond any ensemble in New York State. (Don’t believe me?
Go and hear ’em yourself. It’s free!)
Frankly,
it’s impossible for the RPO to compete with the free musical offerings
available in Rochester. Every town, village, and college has an orchestra;
another such ensemble is unnecessary and redundant. It would be wiser to
encourage and support the Rochester Chamber Orchestra — a truly world-class
chamber orchestra. Not known nearly well enough, the RCO could easily be in
league with the renowned Saint Paul Chamber Orchestra, English Chamber
Orchestra, or Moscow Chamber Orchestra, to name but a few. Also, such an
ensemble is sustainable.
This
is a time of making hard choices. Should we spend money to improve education
for our children, or should we piss more money down the drain for the RPO? This
is not a test question.
Louis Richards, Rising Place, Rochester
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, Rochester 14607.
Our
guidelines: We don’t publish anonymous letters — and we ask that you include
your street name and city/town/village. 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 once every three months.
This article appears in Apr 9-15, 2003.
