|
|
|
MailTribune.com
  • LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

  • The Monday editorial from the Fort Worth Star-Telegram claiming the "public has a right to be skeptical, but a responsibility to support the president" if he bombs Syria is way off the mark. We have a responsibility to dissent when we see a moral wrong. Bombing a country that has not attacked us is not only in violation of international norms, it is foolhardy. I will not support another warmonger president.
    • email print
  • The Monday editorial from the Fort Worth Star-Telegram claiming the "public has a right to be skeptical, but a responsibility to support the president" if he bombs Syria is way off the mark. We have a responsibility to dissent when we see a moral wrong. Bombing a country that has not attacked us is not only in violation of international norms, it is foolhardy. I will not support another warmonger president.
    Do not let more government lies fool us again! Even if the lies were not lies, is bombing the answer? More innocents killed. More terrorists created in response. Do we honestly believe there will be no retaliation? No escalation? No war?
    Kathleen Parker's column on the same day entitled "It's not possible to wage just a little bit of war" was well reasoned and put the editorial to shame. — Julian Spalding, Talent
    Regretfully, due to a schedule conflict with my long-planned wedding, I was unable to attend the recent "Democratic Forum on Mental Illness and Addiction," a government-sponsored forum at Medford's beautiful downtown library.
    As suggested by the forum's title, mental illness and drug use (from individual souls to institutional unifications) are something like individuated yet frequently entangled twins. Easy-chair cynics would have us believe that this is usually healthy drug-choosers who over euphoric years toxify their lives to the extremis of clinical insanity, or just to theatric alibi-chasing.
    But in reality, many of the mentally ill (including myself) carry Treblinka-like levels of fuming, festering traumatization to soothe and cool. To worsen matters, unconstitutionally disarmed, we remain scientifically the favorite victims of violent criminals.
    See, the biggest American human rights story was never Guantanamo, unappetizing though that island alcove's happenings have been, but rather how a confluence of social forces have on a national and even local level led to the neglect, revilement and dehumanization of two vulnerable minorities (inside the wealthiest world power history's ever known). As racism, anti-Semitism and eventually homophobia became sociopolitically taboo, demagogues recast us as the new subhuman "others" to pass laws against and scapegoat with yellow stars. — Sean Lawlor Nelson, Ashland
    I watched BBC World News America coverage of the U.S. intervention in Libya in early 2011. The Obama administration and our military did an amazing job aiding the rebels and moving Ghadafi along. So why when President Obama wants to intervene in Syria to stop their use of chemical weapons do the news reporters and analysts only talk about "2003" and "Iraq"? Since no reporter or analyst ever says the name "Bush," I suppose some of the public remember the Iraq War as Obama's war. Well, it wasn't. President Obama had to get us out of all of Bush's messes.
    When he intervened in Libya President Obama and the military did a great job. The U.S media, who are led by the nose by the Republicans, loved to cover the attack on the Libyan embassy, but if one was watching BBC the big story was told of President Obama's successful intervention for months before that. Remember the liberation of Libya. — Dawn Sinnott, Medford
Reader Reaction
      • calendar