Letters to the Editor



08/01/2007

       Along with showing George Bush's abysmally low approval ratings(does that 25% rock solid core of support have their head in the sand?) polls are showing that americans do not like the direction this country is going.  I'd like to point out two sets of statistical facts which I believe show why.  The current issue of National Geographic has a really astonishing map of the world which shows government level of support for paid maternal leave.  Countries like Russia, Ukraine, South Korea, and Slovenia guarantee 52 weeks of paid leave for new mothers. Almost all of the rest of the world give some guaranteed paid leave for new mothers, at least 14 weeks.   66 countries of the world even give dads time off.  On the other hand the United States, Australia, Liberia, Iraq, Afghanistan, North Korea along with a handful of other small countries provide no guaranteed maternal leave. Many americans do get paid time off given by their employer the extent of this is questionable.  My employer (a hospital) does not give paid time off for new mothers.  Many give lip service to "family values" when condemning access to abortion and gay rights, but I can't think of a more important time in developing character and values than the first year of life.  Bonding with parents is
promoted and infant and toddler security needs are likely to be met when a parent(s) is at home. 
        Our annual military budget, including "off the record" Iraq war funding, is approaching three quarters of a trillion dollars, more that the rest of the world combined. We have invaded two countries and many are contemplating
invading Iran and Pakistan.  Instead of mediating conflicts, we instead go for the "military solution". Our government manipulates "fear" to get what it wants. We dismiss elections if we don't like the results. We are putting up a missile "shield" so we don't have to talk to anyone. A major goal of our "defence" posturing is to promote corporate access and profits.  We are lied to when the president states:  "We are fighting them there so we won't have to fight them here". We spend nearly 2 billion dollars a day so we can feel "safe".  With global warming, the widening gap between the rich and the poor, the lack of equitable medical care, and lessoning job security, "safe" does not describe our society.
         These two patterns show where are values appear to lie. Despite our vast military spending, we are being eclipsed as a world power because we have lost our moral and ethical standing.  It's time to switch directions!



September 21, 2006

To the Editor:

With this midterm election upon us, it's time for us to take stock of where we are and where we want to be. Too often people focus on single issues and make important election decisions without looking at the big picture. Here is some information that might help us. I am decidedly an unapologetic "partisan" (a quality our republican leadership has mastered), but I think truth is staring us all in the face. This presidency and the republican congress have failed us and they are taking us in the wrong direction.

Failure No 1(the really BIG one): The Iraq invasion and occupation is a mismanaged, ethically challenged, and unnecessary war based on deception and a prior agenda. We didn't invade to bring democracy to Iraq, or to bring Sadaam to trial for a 15 yr old genocide charge. This administration's motives were considerably less altruistic (whoops, I guess there weren't any WMD's,... oh and I take that back, Sadaam and Osama were not in collusion after all!). OIL, PETROLEUM, and did I mention GASOLINE? Its hard to distinguish between dying from a terrorist suicide bomb, or as "collateral damage" from bombing campaigns. Both cause the recipients to get a little irate! We are now in the untenable position of having only bad options.

Failure No. 2: When we invaded Afghanistan (for legitimate reasons-they were harboring Al-Qaeda who attacked us on 9-11), many considered its terrain and the Soviet's experience, and said "quagmire". They seemed to be proven wrong, but now I am not so sure because this administration became distracted and now the Taliban is making a come back.

Failure No 3: Domestic car companies went for short term profits over long term sustainability by focusing on manufacturing and marketing their gas guzzling SUVs. Now they are in trouble and headed towards bankruptcy as we in Michigan are painfully aware. We could have had an energy policy that could have responsibly forstalled this catastrophe by promoting fuel economy and do what governments are supposed to do: safeguarding our future (oil consumption = global warming!). Instead they take the supply side approach, invading oil rich countries and opening wilderness areas to oil drilling. We lost 6 years (so far) in preparing for and alleviating an oil scarce, thermally enhanced future.

Failure No 4: Tax cuts for the rich have achieved their obvious result: the rich are getting richer and everyone else is staying the same. The "bottom" 80% are no better off during this alleged period of economic growth. This wouldn't be so bad since at least we aren't any worse off, but unfortunately, the future is at risk with deficits and government debt to pay off. The temporary social security surplus is being used to mask even worse actual deficits. Whoever heard of cutting taxes while we are at "war"? To top it off, they want to give a massive tax cut to people who inherit $2,000,000 or more, only 1% of the population.

Failure No 5: "No Child Left Behind" an unfunded mandate with a catchy "feel good" title has not lived up to its hype and has left our public schools (and our children) in worse shape. 47 out of 50 states are in varying stages of revolt because of its rigid "one size fits all" approach. Days of class time are being focused on "teaching to the test", hardly a real world measure of student achievement.

Failure No 6: The failure of government after Katrina is legendary and shows the monumental failure of the reorganized Homeland Security and the insensitivity of our president born with a silver spoon in his mouth. Everything this administration touches becomes broken!

While we can't vote this administration out of office this time, we can change the House of Representatives. They have rubber stamped everything the Bush people propose and have completely failed their responsibility in our system of checks and balances. We need to correct this lopsided balance of power by electing members of the "loyal opposition" to congress (that many republicans question our loyalty is an insult to us and to our democracy). Some of the conversation in the governorship race concerns putting Intelligent Design in our science curriculum (?)! I thought that inserting religion in our science classroom was decided 80 years ago, next thing they'll by telling us is that global warming is a myth, and smoking doesn't cause cancer! Pay attention to these people! Lets go forward, not backwards!

The choices cannot be any more clear this year. Responsible, ethical, and future oriented management of our human and natural resources or.... the wild wild west with its violence and robber barons run amok.

Jon Towne

Who's scaremongering who?
June, 2006

        The discredited neoconservatives are accusing Al Gore of scaremongering with 
his movie/book "An Inconvenient Truth". The irony is overwhelming. The Iraq 
war debacle is the direct result of these people's "scaremongering", easily 
propagandizing a vulnerable post 9-11 public into swallowing their agenda 
hook, line and sinker. Fortunately, Al Gore's version of "scaremongering" at 
the very least, won't result in 2,500 american deaths (and of course 40,000+ 
Iraqi casualties). Human caused global warming is accepted by the 
overwhelming consensus of the world's top scientists. If we can't believe 
highly educated, trained people who seek knowledge of the world through the 
scientific method, who do we believe, ExonMobil and the Bush Administration?! 
        These people have only one agenda, making sure their business and corporate 
interests can operate unfettered without taking responsibility (ie paying 
their fair share of taxes). Never mind that renewable energy technology and 
infrastructure could create a renaissance of new business and manufacturing, 
it just wouldn't benefit their business (mostly done overseas anyway). 
Advocating responsible policy to limit the release of greenhouse gases is 
caution-what I would call true conservatism- not politics. They betray our 
American "can-do" character with their "nay-saying". Don't let them put 
future wellbeing secondary to their short term profits.
        America's moral test (besides, righting the wrong of making an already bad 
situation in the middle east, much worse) is taking common-sense precautions. 
We can cut our oil use in half without really affecting our quality of life. 
This is the obvious moral choice, a corollary is that we won't have to invade 
oil rich nations to safe guard our energy supply. Responsible and ethical 
government policy means "thinking globally by acting locally".
        The people in power now, have a nasty habit of ignoring "inconvenient" facts. 
Lets vote more responsibly next time, okay?

Stewards of Creation
February 2005

Reading Pastor Van Kempen's article entitled “Nothing Natural about Natural Disasters” has me thinking about the “experiment” called “Homo sapiens” that we are. Biblical theology holds that Adam and Eve left the “Garden”, through the exercise of free will and became capable of “sin”. Since then, we are going through a series of “tests” which depending on whether we fail or not, results in “punishment” which might include disasters such as hurricanes, earthquakes, tsunamis and HIV Aids. Ironically, given my relatively non-theistic orientation, I some what agree with this conclusion, but not for the reasons Pastor Van Kempen's explained (I think).
I think the “the test” that will make or break humanity, is whether we can live together with and on this “spaceship” earth. We must maintain “god's creation” since it is our home. If we follow the tenets of Christianity, we would be exercising stewardship, and would be taking care that we leave the planet in better shape for our offspring that it was when we received it. Unless you believe that the excesses of capitalism- such as asphalting the countryside, factory farms, the direct manipulation of DNA, and climate warming- are all “improvements” in “god's creation”, we are failing miserably.
Tsunami's, and other natural disasters are part of the geologic history of our planet and (probably) many other planets in this universe as well. They disproportionately affect lower income people. I take issue with the belief that people are impoverished because they deserve it, (and conversely, wealthy people “deserve” tax breaks, leading to further impoverishment). The concept of a “benevolent” god causing tens of thousands of children to be summarily drowned is hard to swallow. Many people died on 12-26 because of the destruction of coastal ecosystems, such as mangrove forests, and overpopulation which forces people to live close to the water's edge. Wildlife, much closer to “god's creation”, survived with no apparent deaths. Climate change induced melting of the Antarctic and alpine glaciers (well documented) resulting in some sea level rise doesn't help. We control our destiny. I don't believe our species is particularly favored in the universe we live in and I believe we only “go around once”.
It seems that we are exporting arrogance and self-conceit along with a generous helping of greed and good old-fashioned imperialism. We have made an “in your face” refusal to join the consensus of the rest of the world about the need to control greenhouse gases. Believe it or not, we spend less than 1% of our national budget on non-military foreign aid, we are decidedly stingy helping others, compared to European countries, while at the same time, our increasing military budget is larger than that of the rest of the world combined. We demand “no nukes” from other countries, when we continue research and to maintain our own nuclear stockpiles. We seem to think we can solve problems at the point of a gun. As the richest country in the world, we need to get off our “high horse” and help out a little.
We need to get our own“house in order” or we will have a lot more to fear than the “terrorist next door”. We don't necessarily need less government, we need better government, neither of which we are not getting at present. Individuals must take responsibility for their lives. Only then can we get back to the “Garden” whence we came.

Jon Towne
A Postion column in the South Haven Tribune for the South Haven Area Democratic Club:  
October 2004

Long term inexpensive energy drives our economic engine and provides us with a good quality of life.  Energy prices can only go up, if we continue to be wasteful and future generations may face scarcities.  John Kerry recognizes this and with his native optimism has pledged to focus on energy conservation and fuel efficiency, while working to develop new and improved renewable technologies.

As we may recall, the early Bush administration developed its energy policy in secret meetings. Energy company leaders such as Ken Lay of Enron had a heavy hand in its crafting, while others such as very relevant environmental protection groups were shut out.  One possible result, over $30 billion in additional subsidies were to be handed out to oil, nuclear, and coal industries to ensure short-term, cheap energy supplies where the often more desirable renewable energy technology would be unable to compete.   In our free society, energy policy must be developed in an open, transparent manner with a free exchange of information so that all values are accounted for.

John Kerry proposes using tax incentives to promote the development, production and the usage of fuel efficient cars.  Incentives will also be used to help companies develop new and improved energy technologies, including renewable energy sources and using hydrogen for energy storage.  Improving existing nonrenewable technologies to make them cleaner and more efficient will also be promoted. Two goals of the Kerry administration are to produce 20 % of our electric power from renewables by 2020, while spending $10 billion over 10 years to develop less polluting and more efficient coal power plants. Our economy (and the future) will only benefit from these approaches.

Family values means conserving our non-renewable resources for future generations.  John Kerry has shown us he will work for long term goals not just short term solutions.  For example, the incremental benefits of drilling for oil in environmentally sensitive or multi use areas may not outweigh the resulting ecological damage. Also, with a sound energy policy we may find that in the future we are more respected and can avoid excessive dependence on oil rich countries and the foreign policy pressures that entails.  This is a test of leadership that John Kerry will meet and George Bush has not.

Jon Towne SHADC


October 2004     

  What ever you think of John Kerry (there wasn't much to criticize of his debate performance, very articulate, knowledgeable of the issues with sound policy focus, in my opinion), I can understand people thinking of him as a question mark. The Republicans have created a context where "liberals", "France" and "flip flopping" belong next to Stalin, Hitler and "Michael Moore" as issues of "character". Actually, to change one's mind based on evidence demonstrates positive character.  But there is one thing that is clear: George Bush as a president has failed miserably, has no record to stand on, and has resorted to "slash and burn" measures to maintain his presidency. He gets his strongest support on the issue of terrorism and has skillfully manipulated fear to maintain this support, something that he fine tuned to perfection in the last 3 years.  We have just been informed that a vote for Kerry is a vote for nukes detonating in our cities by our vice-president.  
        We are correctly improving homeland security and there is more to be done, but we are not going to solve this issue with this reckless unilateral foreign policy that generates ill will towards Americans.  The Iraq invasion clearly is a diversion from the war on terror.  A consensus of nonpartisan defense experts seems to think that invading Iraq actually increased our terrorism risk.   In any event the "justification of the day" for the Iraq invasion is that Bush has shifted the "terrorist's focus" elsewhere (Iraq) not here.  If this dubious excuse for the Bush invasion debacle is true, this leadership is morally and ethically bankrupt.  Iraqi civilian targets of terrorism deserve "life" just as much as our civilian population and don't deserve to be terrorist targets any more than we do.  Our troops would be well supported by changing leadership to someone who doesn't "change facts to fit his opinion" and doesn't have the "backbone" or "character" to admit mistakes. 
        All I ask is for people to step back and get a perspective, we will survive, and John Kerry is clearly the better choice for president.

Jon Towne


White Washing from the WhiteHouse		Jan 23, 2004

    It seems there is an extreme disconnect between the Bush Administration 
and the truth.  With the evidence pointing away from the unsupported 
arguments leading up to the preemptive invasion of Iraq by the US, becomes 
exposed, this administration has chosen to tiredly continue the tried and 
(proven to work) utterances of including terrorism, weapons of mass 
destruction and Iraq in the same sentence.  They skillfully nurture our fear 
and anxiety (“code orange”, “freedom is at risk”,“duct tape”) so that they 
can pass bad legislation, lucrative tax cuts (even though we can't afford 
it ), and score well in polls.  And the sad truth is that many Americans are 
swallowing this hook line and sinker.  The fundamental truth is that we 
committed aggression against a country to remove its government under false 
pretext, without anywhere near adequate international support, without 
truthful reasons(“imminent threat!?”, “associated with Al Quaida!?”) and 
operate under the allusion that “might makes right”, or “let's do this 
because we can” and Americans are too scared to disagree. 

  Don't let anyone believe that the administration was a victim of faulty 
intelligence.  Well before the last state of the union address with its 
“yellow cake” debacle, I saw  plastered all over the written media that the 
CIA had distanced themselves from these and similar administration 
assertions. Maybe if George Bush had read the paper, he would have known 
this.  This administration only “accepts” evidence agreeing with their 
ideology and purposes. They are clearly vindictive against those who seek to 
shed light on the truth: witness the “outing” of  the CIA agent, Valerie 
Plame,  wife of Joseph Wilson, who was guilty of nothing more 
than promoting truth in government.  Someone in the white house close to the 
president has committed a felony.  It would seem that the president would 
pull all stops to get to the bottom of of this crime bordering on treason, 
instead of giving us the warning: “that person's identity may never be 
known”. Sounds like a coverup, which is what they do quite effectively since 
the Democrats are too cowed to investigate anything.   What is clear is that 
this administration is beholden to ideology and special interests more than 
they are beholden to the truth, this country, and its citizens. 

 With the milestone of 500 American soldiers dead just passed, how many people 
know how many have been seriously injured enough to be airlifted out of Iraq?  
How about: 9 thousand soldiers, a figure you never hear mentioned.  As an RN, 
I am aware of how capable modern medicine is saving people who would have 
died 13 years ago(the first Gulf war) or 35 years ago (the Vietnam war), so 
the real casualty rate is much higher considering the permanently maimed 
people that has to result when homemade bombs go off. Is this the result 
meant when Dick Cheney stated the Iraqis would welcome us with open arms?  
Ridding the world of a nasty dictator is a seemingly noble goal, but make 
100% sure something better will result and get very broad international 
support to give it legitimacy, especially when our leaders are intricately 
entwined in the oil industry, otherwise we are just another imperialist 
aggressor after natural resources and “lucrative contracts” better relegated 
to the dustbins of history.  Many Iraqis apparently don't agree with us that 
they are better off with intermittent electric power, no jobs, and many women 
being deprived of rights they formerly enjoyed because of the resurgence of 
fundamentalist Islamic ideas formerly repressed. 

  This new American empire (clearly a collusion between the administration and 
its beholden corporate interests) is the new world order that we have 
created.  This president and his cohorts are fundamentally lacking in the 
depth of character and integrity necessary to lead the most powerful country 
ever.  As a citizen, I am embarrassed, and this leadership needs to be held 
accountable to those soldiers who have been killed and maimed, by being 
summarily voted out of office. This administration is bad news and have torn 
down our international standing, as they continue to fester in the shade of 
their greed and ideology.  

Jon Towne

The Rosy Glow over Baghdad
July 20, 2003

    Three months after President George Bush’s speech announcing the end of the conflict in Iraq, American troops find themselves being picked off by hostile fire.  Whether this is a result of a last ditch orchestrated action of Saddam loyalists or the beginnings of a native born hostility to occupation, however altruistic, is the question the administration wants desperately to be answered by the former.  Otherwise everything we try to do is going to be undermined by being perceived as self-interested power grabbing by an invading power.  With American companies, uncomfortably close to members of this administration, being given lucrative contracts, is it hard to imagine an American style cynicism running rampant there?  Let’s call a spade a spade, we’re occupying them and now they’re mad (wouldn’t we be?!).
    As I perceive it there were three general arguments for this invasion: #1.  Iraq has and is pursuing weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and poses an immanent threat to the US.  Well...  It turns out that the administration at best, misled the country (I won’t call it lying, some would call this a cheap shot, in revenge for the harassment of a previous president who committed the mortal sin of lying about an adulterous affair), at worst, they conspired to carry out their foreign policy fetish, which will result in monetary gains for many of them at the cost of scores of American lives and thousands of Iraqis. Reason #2.  Related to #1 and is another self-defense argument.  Saddam Hussain has been colluding with Osama Bin Laden and was prepared to hand over the (missing) WMD’s.  The veracity of this assertion is similar to the present “yellow cake” debacle, the evidence of a clandestine Czech meeting had been proven erroneous, but the administration kept bringing it up.  More lies and deceits.  Reason #1 and #2 can be grounds for unilateral invasion if clearly proven, (by the way I consider troops from the US, Great Britain and Australia to be “unilateral”, because of our common ethnic heritage).  The truth seems to be: there was no (or minimal) eminent threat to our national security.
    Reason # 3, the only one with some merit, was the truth that Saddam Hussain was a murderous thug and the people of Iraq needed some relief.  Because there was no eminent threat to us, where we would be justified to go against international consensus and proceed with an invasion, we would be ethically required to get broad based international support.  Fundamentally there is no difference between this invasion and the USSR’s invasion of Afghanistan, China’s invasion of Tibet, or even... Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait based on a dislike of those in power.  You know if I was any more cynical, I could bring up reason #4, a very relevant motivation in these cases, the economic motivation, for example, access to oil.  Invading another country to remove its government has no legitimacy unless it is supported by a broad international consensus.
    The “Buck stops here” was forgotten when George Bush shifted blame to the “fall guy” George Tenet (conveniently, a Bill Clinton appointee), for the deceit this administration has orchestrated.  It has been common knowledge that the CIA had grave reservations about the veracity of the evidence for the WMD, the defectors testimonies, and the Al-Quaida connection.  The climate that the administration was fostering discouraged expression of this kind of doubt.  This sounds more like what goes on in a corrupt corporation boardroom where juggling of the books is done to give everything a “rosy glow”.  For all we know they already achieved their objectives, the removal of Saddam from power and the protection of the oil fields(they did a good job on this one).  I’m sure you are thinking that to criticize this president is unpatriotic and ungrateful to our troops, but maybe that is how they want you to feel, in order to quell criticism.  And of course “we can’t turn back now”. It would be hard to advocate bringing the troops home before some kind of political stability.  They created this predicament. This administration with its “shoot first ask questions later” policy along with the continuing undermining of environmental protection, favoring the wealthy with its tax policy, in fact, doesn’t represent me.
    This president needs to be removed from office in 2004 with all the decisiveness and consensus that was lacking when he was “voted” into office.


Two letters to the editor from Feb-March 2003


March 16, 2003:

    It's been my contention that George W. Bush has missed the boat in the war on terrorism.  Quite correctly, we need to punish the instigators and go after people who plot attacks on civilians.  Bush did an admirable job in overseeing the destruction of the Al Quaida infrastructure in Afghanistan and pursuing them elsewhere.  Only a few will deny America the right to contest the refusal of the Taliban to turn over those who would plot mass murder.
    Unfortunately, George W. Bush has squandered the post 9-11 goodwill towards America in his maniacal and unpopular pursuit of the military option with Iraq, a single minded goal he has had since taking office.  The justifications are not only controversial, but fall far short of proving its necessity.  Now he has put himself (and the US) in a box, where possibly a primary reason for invading Iraq is to "save face", counting on a hopefully short and successful military incursion, with a palatable number of casualties and a minimal amount of "reported" "collateral damage",  to serve in itself as the justification.  Hardly a way to conduct foreign policy. By seeing "black and white" Bush has displayed "two dimensional character"  falling far short, in my view,  of the "depth of character" needed to lead the most powerful country ever.
     We should  react to  9-11 by routing out the Al Quaida as we are, but at the same time we should be pursuing a crash program to rid ourselves of our oil dependence while spending less energy fighting international treaties such as the Kyoto accords, which address the same problem: excessive fossil fuel consumption. We are 4% of the world's population using 20% of the worlds' resources.  Can we honestly say to the world:  Follow our lead and you will live like us?  It can't happen, as we are pushing the limits of our ever shrinking planet. A US style developed China alone, would waste our planet with CO2 emissions and pollution.  Our foreign policy serves the interests of big business, along with our superfluous and conspicuous consumption, while our governmental and corporate face to the world is a deception, based on an abundance that isn't there.    But we can't,  our heads of government are made up of former oil executives who don't have the imagination or will to think outside their box and their special interest.  Instead of Tom Ridge making a mockery of our country by suggesting duct tape and plastic (rather like the "duck and cover" defense of the cold war), he should proclaim security through energy independence.  Planting a garden for America, driving an energy efficient vehicle, and using compact fluorescent lights powered by wind and solar would be a start.  Conserving our natural resources, without supporting predatory multinationals, is how to show we love our country, not by invading oil rich countries so we can  put flags on our SUV's.    Even if this is not truly our primary motivation, the appearance is there.  
        A world unfriendly to Americans is not my idea of a safe place.  
America's defense strategy is in a shambles.   Americans have the capacity for bountiful generosity, I just don't think its being seen at the moment. This administration needs to pull itself togetherand represent America as it should be!

Feb 2003

George Bush:  The First Two Years.
    Perhaps it is time to evaluate our man in Washington whom we elected(?) in those distant times, two years ago.  He was hired by the American people to serve our interests as American citizens.  Its time for a mid term job evaluation.
        When debriefed by the outgoing Clinton cabinet, the new cabinet was informed that the number one defense issue was terrorism.  Rumsfield, Cheney et al,ignored this advice and instead focussed on upgrading the military and missile defense(terrorists don't use missiles).  Can anyone doubt that with a defense budget larger than that of the rest of the world combined, that we will have a military second to none for the forseeable future?  The Bush people were caught with their pants down on 9-11. Strike one against George
Bush.  
        The Bush people suspended talks with North Korea, which kept their nuclear ambitions in check, and then went out of their way to insult their leader.  Angry, sensing vulnerability because of a preoccupation with Iraq, North Korea reopened its nuclear weapons program, now we have a nuclear armed North Korea with a capacity to build many more nuclear weapons in months. 
Strike two against George Bush.
     An unpopular and unjustified invasion of Iraq (itself a secular country),  will without question, create a perceived opportunity for martyrdom in the Middle East and the Islamic people.  It doesn't take much intellect to imagine "breeding ground for terrorists" "fertilized" by the United States.  Even without an actual connection to oil, the perception of ulterior motives will exist, when  the United States, lead by two former oil executives, invades the second largest oil reserve.  This would by very difficult to defend. Strike three for George Bush.
        A world unfriendly to Americans is not my idea of a safe place.  America's defense strategy is in a shambles.  Our actions and rhetoric are like that of a  hysterical wounded animal.  This administration needs to pull itself together!

Feb 2003

     The likely preemptive invasion of Iraq will be morally and ethically wrong and will create a dangerous precedent. It is much to early in the game to consider this "last resort" and fundamentally reflects  the weaknesses of this administration.

      This administration likes to think of things in terms of "black and white", "good and evil" and "moral clarity".  This is evidence of a refusal to consider all aspects of an issue. We have not been "attacked" by Iraq and the thousands of lives that this invasion would entail is an unacceptable beginning of the 21st century.  This simplification of an enormously complex situation into a simple "black and white" issue will form a precedent that any country can use if it feels insecure about another country.  "Thou shall not invade another country unless attacked"  a truly useful "black and white" code of ethics,  in no shape or form justifies invasion to "protect against a theoretical future attack". 

    No matter how many times the words: "weapons of mass destruction" or "evil" is used, it does not create a justification to invade a country that has never attacked us (and has not attacked another country since 1990). Those at risk, include thousands of innocent Iraqi lives who are worth no more or no less than the 3000 lives  we lost on 9-ll. The relationship between Iraq and 9-ll cannot be reached by any stretch of the imagination and for this administration to fabricate, or at best, exaggerate such a relationship when the actions and history of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan make them culpable, is not justified.  We will increase risk to ourselves.  To invade an Islamic country with out a clear justification will create fertile pasteur for terrorist ideology.  War is a last resort, an admission of defeat and I am surprised at this administration with its self-described Christian underpinnings, would arrive at such a conclusion this early in its endeavors.
   
      Let the inspections work! They did contain Iraq in the 1990's and with renewed, enhanced and consensual support, weapon inspections can work.  To genuinely make the attempt is always preferable to war!   The United Nations is the legitimate approach.  Consensus must be reached, but not through blackmail. Countries that oppose or refuse to go along with our plans, are not our enemies!  Find common ground, reach consensus, don't polarize the world with rhetoric! The power of democracy and the United Nations should not be sidelined by the hysterical reactions of a wounded animal!

   This administration has short circuited its rationality and ethics and is proceeding to make this ever shrinking planet more unsafe for Americans.

Placed in the South Haven Tribune and the Kalamazoo Gazette in Oct 2001:


A Turning Point?

     The tragedy of September 11 is, by all accounts, one of the most
important events since World War II.  Not only because it is the first time
we have been attacked on our soil since the War of 1812 (Hawaii was not a
state in 1941), but because of the made obvious anger and threat we seem to
invoke in many countries.  Unfortunately, Americans(and the media) don't
seem to want to look beyond hysteria, anger and the urge to retaliate to
look at deeper issues such as our dependence and gluttony on oil.  It's
absurd to think we can have an objective policy concerning the middle east
when we import half of our oil from regimes that  profit directly and care
little about the welfare of the average person of that region.  We help prop
up monarchies and dictators to safeguard our national interest and you
better believe that the common person there is acutely aware of this(think
breeding ground for terrorists).  We've been told by our leader that we must
sacrifice.  The only thing he could come  up with is waiting longer in
airports.  What I propose is a Marshall plan-reduce our consumption of oil
by a half in ten years.  Only in that way can we have an objective policy
and can those societies evolve without our meddling and us becoming the
objects of their hatred. Oil, not terrorism, may shortly be assimilated into
our purposes in this war effort, when our initial anger wears off.
     Patriotism is cheapened by defining it as the placement of a flag
bought at Walmart on the antenna of our cars.  My dad, as a former boy
scout, expressed offense that a symbol which invokes deep meaning and
reflection from many who have genuinely sacrificed, become just another mass
produced consumer item to be placed on our gas guzzling SUV's.  The irony is
overwhelming and adds evidence that we don't think very deeply about
important issues.
    Obviously we have to respond in the short term to this attack.  I have
to commend President Bush for his obvious restraint.  He is getting a lot of
pressure to expand this "war".  As long as he continues to listen to Colin
Powell, performs constant diplomacy with Arab governments, and exercises
restraint, we may be okay.  Those people are constantly subject to
"terrorist actions" from their governments and have nothing to lose by
killing Americans if they perceive us as the enemy.  So we need to also, as
Americans, think about the long term.
     As a society and as consumers, we have power- we can create the society
we want!  There are hybrid gas-electric cars that get many times the mileage
of larger so-called "safe" vehicles. Wind generators and photovoltaics will
drastically become cheaper with mass production.  A recent study shows that
wind energy already is competitive with nuclear power, but guess what is
getting cut and what is being promoted!  Be conscious of where your energy
and food comes from, better yet, produce some of it for yourself. What could
be more pleasant than plugging our electric cars into our houses roofed
which inexpensive photovoltaic panels, to be recharged. We are constantly
told that change is good.  Well, it's time for these dinosaur industries-oil
and nuclear power - to be demphasised by our government, and earth and
people friendly industries be promoted.  We (and the world) deserve it.
     Quality of life(a better measure than "standard of living") demands
that our conscience be clean knowing we are doing what we can to reduce
superfluous consumption and doing our part to pass on an intact and safe
planet to our children.  We have just been introduced to the horrors that
many in the world confront every day.  Let us make sure we become truly
innocent as citizens of this planet and exhibit the patriotism needed to
make ourselves better.

Jon Towne