fb pixel

Log In

Reset Password

July 18, 2006 Response to Israel, Lebanon The two militarily aggressive democracies in the Middle East, namely Israel and the United States, are presently wreaking havoc in the area. The American democracy maintains its criminal occupation o

Response to Israel, Lebanon

Thetwo militarily aggressive democracies in the Middle East, namely Israel and the United States, are presently wreaking havoc in the area.

The American democracy maintains its criminal occupation of Iraq, which nation is descending into murderous anarchy and civil war with no end in sight. Predictably, the American leadership is now laying the groundwork for further aggressions, against Iran and Syria, just in time for America’s November elections.

The Israeli democracy is presently retaliating (the necessary euphemism) on one neighboring sovereign state (Lebanon, which had nothing to do with the alleged incident being used to justify the Israeli onslaught) while continuing to inflict collective punishment on an entire people, the Palestinians who have no state because the Israelis will not allow it. For 40 years Israel has been dispossessing, relocating, imprisoning and killing and maiming Palestinians, men, women and children. There are two reasons for this Israeli aggression: the Palestinians are living there on their own land but they are in Israel’s way and must be forced out; and they have a stubborn streak which leads them to resist their humiliation and victimization.

Given the track record of aggression of these two “democracies” the solution is clear: democracy must go.

Gerald Cavanaugh

Response to

the ACLU

In response to the article about the local ACLU attorney’s comments to the Ashland police department forwarding information on criminals, in the area, to the Chamber of Commerce, I question his logic.

The state has a list of sex offenders on their new web site, which had a million hits the first day from the public and they expected a like amount on day two. The Oregonian newspaper has articles, complete with pictures of wanted criminals. The U.S. Post Office always had their gallery, not to leave out police logs in a multitude of local papers, all for “the people’s right to know.”

The police are charged with protecting public and private life and property, so awareness is the name of the game, besides, all this information is available on the Internet and can be accessed by anyone. Businesses are interested in protecting their employees, property and customers, so where does attorney Ralph Temple rationalize, “the mercantile class is using the police to go after the poor.”

These “lists” are for all of our protection and such lists are good. Might want to add the ACLU to one of them.

G.L. Anderson

Frisco gun

law unacceptable

San Francisco’s anti-gun ban was overturned. San Francisco Superior Court Judge James Warren issued a 30 page decision in “Fiscal it al v. San Francisco,” a timely challenge to this damnable, oppressive and discriminatory ordinance banning handgun possession and firearms sales in the city. The court likewise held the anti-gun ordinance was preempted by state law, and invalidated the ordinance in it’s entirety. This decision is posted at www.stfc.org. Case number is CPF-05-505960. If this socialist ordinance had prvailed, all San Francisco residents would have been politically targeted, jailed without due process for a minumum of 90 days, and up to six months in the local Gulag, if caught in possession of a handgun.

Since the vast majority of gun owners are innocent, honest, working class people who desire to only “mind their own business,” this vile anti-gun agenda would have had negative and punitive repercussions. Also, most people can’t afford an armed body guard 24/7, as do political elitists (usually at taxpayer’s expense via extortion and graft). Thus, endorsing a .38 caliber revolver or other handgun remains sound both morally and historically where affordable and effective “security protection/life insurance” goes.

James A. Farmer

Stop proposed noise ordinance

On , the Ashland City Council will consider whether or not Ashland’s Noise Ordinance should be modified to allow the legal operation of street sweeping equipment between the hours of 4:30 a.m. and 8:30 a.m. Some equipment currently in use is illegally loud and far surpasses sound limits set by the noise ordinance. The Ashland City Attorney and Public Works Department attempted to push through a variance to change the legal noise limits where city function is concerned. Due to inadequate notice by the city, this attempt was set aside and the issue will be heard at the City Council meeting of July 18 at 7 p.m.

The city should observe and obey the law in this case and set an example by obeying the spirit and letter of a law designed to make it possible for all to obtain proper healthful rest rather than making a sneaky run at changing the law. Under the noise ordinance the continuing operation of illegally loud equipment constitutes a public nuisance; the city wants to make this nuisance legal and permanent. If you care about this issue or have been awakened and/or have lost sleep due to the early morning operation of the street sweeper or other city equipment, it is vital that you attend and voice your support for the law as it stands.

We have nothing against clean streets; we support a law designed to protect the health and well being of our citizens.

Lars Traci Svendsgaard

. '/var/lib/mysql/mysql.sock' (111) in /home/daily/public_html/opendb.php on line 3Could not connect