Home | Writing

What is more unacceptable than the argument that Iraq become the "strategic petroleum reserve" for the U.S. because the world owes us, is when this argument comes from a man who served as a former U.S. Energy Secretary. John Harrington (Commentary, Mar 23) claims that the U.S. goes around the world with a "kick me" sign, and that the world takes advantage of its largesse through the IMF, World Bank, foreign aid and the U.S.-led wars of liberation (Germany, Japan, Kuwait). This is supposedly the basis for which the world must provide retribution in the form of Iraq's oil. Independent of the ridiculousness of the idea that organizations like the IMF and the World Bank exist to provide charity, the world obviously does not see us as a victim. Big, bad bully is more like it.

Dissent during war -- a disservice to our troops? (Santa Barbara NewsPress, 3/29/2003)
Published

The spin doctors are at it again. Expecting a national chorus to back them up, their latest jingoistic tune is "don't express dissent now; the troops expect our support". This is the biggest, most foul-smelling chunk of dung that's ever been flung on the American public.

Perhaps this fear-mongering old wartime bromide makes sense in a traditional war of defense, when our borders are being attacked and our troops are desperately trying to defend our lives by putting their lives in front. But this war, this "fictitious war" as Michael Moore calls it -- this is no war of defense. Troops aren't trying to protect our lives. Sure, they're putting their lives at risk, but only because they're hunting a "fictitious enemy" which would much rather we just go away and leave them alone.

Really, folks, all you nervous nationalists out there. What's the worst that can happen if we express enough dissent that the troops take notice and start questioning why they're there. What's the worst? That the soldiers lay their weapons down and take the next plane back. Let's say, whole divisions come back and the siege on Baghdad is stopped. What then? Less Iraqi and less U.S. casualties and less of our hard-earned taxes going toward the likes of Halliburton? Perhaps Saddam would still be in power thumbing his nose at us. And like after Vietnam, perhaps we would express humility and regret. And just perhaps Bush would be shown the Whitehouse gate. Now, isn't just the last thing worth everything! After all, if you truly loved your country, would you want a President so intent on destroying it.

View from India on Iraq (Santa Barbara NewsPress, 2/13/2003)
Published

Having been an active peace activist in Santa Barbara for the past few months, my feelings are mixed to be in India now, just when the Bush government is ratcheting up its propaganda for war and getting ready to invade Iraq inspite of world-wide opposition.

Iraq doesn't occupy center stage in Indian newspapers or TV. However, from conversations with its people, inspite of a regrettably strong anti-muslim feeling among the majority Hindus, the Iraq war is clearly seen as an illegitimate imperial adventurism in pursuit of oil and geopolitical dominance.

I hope and pray the peace movement can convince Americans to shed their blind trust in the Bush war cabinet and stop this war from happening.

Should Hollywood have a role in politics? (Santa Barbara NewsPress, 12/18/2002)
Published

Jonathan Gurwitz (Commentary, Dec 7) may have a point. Perhaps Hollywood should stay out of politics. Should Sean Penn be an anti-war activist when he was arrested for assaulting a photographer? I think not.

Everyone should follow the simple rule that if you break the law, you should stay out of politics. Bad things happen when you break this rule.

If you don't believe me, take George W. Bush for instance. He was arrested, not once but 3 times. For theft, disorderly conduct and drunk driving. He disobeyed the rule and got into politics. Look what happened. He stole, not a wreath but the U.S. presidential election. From a brawl at a football game, he is now threatening an international illegal brawl with Iraq. And finally, his drunken driving. The White House may as well be a humungous white SUV that our president is driving drunk. Burning up precious non-renewable natural resources, his drunken driving of our country is threatening the environment, the U.S. constitution and the people of the entire world.

Iraq and No-Fly zones (Santa Barbara NewsPress, 10/6/2002)
Published

The headlines on the NewsPress Oct. 1 print edition stated in big bold letters: "U.S.: Hussein defying U.N. on No-Fly Zones". It is tragic that this newspaper and other media have not the will and integrity to put a stop to this administration's blatant propaganda for its immoral war on Iraq.

The no-fly zones are not part of any U.N. Resolution. U.N. Resolution 688 demands simply that Saddam Hussein end repression of the Iraqi people. To interpret this as a license for imposing a no-fly zone over Iraq is such an incredible stretch that even the U.N. Secretary general Kofi Annan has argued that no resolution justifies the no-fly zone (according to the U.K.'s "The Guardian").

It was tragically ironic then that the U.S. took upon itself the mantle of savior of the repressed Iraq people; after it had used 640,000 lbs of depleted uranium in its shells during the Gulf War. A study by the University of Waterloo, Ontario found that the augmented risk from cancer in the Basra area was 7 times higher as a result.

Please don't believe everything you hear from this administration on this war. They lied before, and they're doing it again.

Politicians, Businesses Collude in Corruption (Los Angeles Times, 8/14/02)
Published

Neal Gabler (Opinion, 8/11/02) has a new patsy for why there is
corruption in big business: In the good ol' days of the Ivy-educated
upper-crusts like the Bushes, these things never happened, he says; it
is only when the money-grubbing, lowly educated middle-class (like the
Greek immigrant Rigas of Adelphia) takes over the corporate reins that
they succumb to the temptations of wealth and celebrity. What rot! The
collusion between politics and big business corruption has been going
on for some time and perpetrated by the likes of Bush as well. It is
just that their good ol' boy network has always protected them. How
else do you explain Martha Stewart getting nailed for insider trading
on a stock she had no direct relationship with while Dubya gets away
with it pretending that while he was on the board of Harkin (and on its
audit committee) he did not know.

Affordable Housing is necessary for community (Santa Barbara NewsPress, 6/26/2002)
Published

Re: Mr. Alcorn's opinion piece ("Housing and Hard Choices", June 23), as one of the lucky homeowners in Santa Barbara, I don't share his vision for our city. His prescription is short-sightedly simple: "If you can't afford it, leave. We're not going to make it easier." With the median house price above $500,000, and rental vacancies at 1%, this forces a lot of not just low-income but also middle-income families out of the city. So, what is he saying? That, we don't want our nurses and teachers in addition to our restaurant workers and gardeners to afford to live here?

When I visited our sister city of Puerto Vallarta, Mexico, I saw that most of the town's residents were rich American, European and Mexcian tourists. The "locals" had either sold out, or if they were not so lucky, commuted from the nearby town of Pitillal to work in Puerto Vallarta. I don't want this to happen in Santa Barbara, where rentals give way to condos, prices become so high that only the ultra rich can afford to live here, and where all the local workers commute from Lompoc or Santa Maria.

My vision is a community where everyone is a local, and where the nurse, teacher and restaurant worker who work in this city also live here. I want the city council to make this possible. I applaud their decision to prevent the erosion of the affordable rentals on 1620 Garden St, and urge them to declare a moratorium on all such projects.

Paying the Living Wage is a drop in the budget bucket(Santa Barbara NewsPress, 5/17/2002)
Published

While your article ("City: Paying Living Wage is not impossible", May 13) is positive on the whole, some statements are egregiously misleading. The city does not need to "dig deep into its reserves to fund a living wage ordinance". By its own numbers, only $147,993 needs to come from a healthy General Fund reserve of $20 million, which is only about 0.75%, hardly characterizable as a deep dig. The General Fund reserve is extra money that we should find good uses for. Paying less than a penny on a saved dollar so that 200 city workers can afford to live in the city that they work in, is a worthy way for the city to spend our money.

The article also focusses on the cost of just the Living Wage program to the proposed budget and thereby projects an unbalanced picture of the budget being pinched by only this program's cost. A more balanced view of the budget would compare this program with comparable increases that other programs have quietly carved out. For instance, the city's Conference and Visitor's Bureau and Film Commission (CVB) will get an additional $250,000 which is a 23% increase from last year, bringing their total proposed budget to $1.35 million. Why? To further market and promote Santa Barbara. I suggest the CVB use the city's Living Wage Ordinance to its advantage and promote Santa Barbara as a just and caring city.

Cowboy Bush has a corporate agenda (LA Times, 2/26/2002)
Published

William Schneider's open admiration for President Bush's cowboy diplomacy is nauseating (Opinion, Feb. 24). Rather than trying to convince us that the "axis of evil" reference appears to be working and that the axis is running scared, he should look more critically at the fallout of this remark. All the members of the "axis" did was to return words with words. They succeeded in looking accommodating while we looked like bullies spoiling for a fight. If the "axis" reference was such a big part of Bush's diplomacy, I submit he would not have backpedaled as he did in the face of angry demonstrations on his visit to South Korea.

No, the reality is simpler: Bush needed to create the backdrop of a larger, different terror to justify his huge defense budget. It doesn't take a learned political analyst to figure out that loyalty to its corporate sponsors is this administration's first priority.

Sanctions Have Targeted Innocent Iraqi Civilians (LA Times, 10/23/2001)
Published

It was ironic that the Oct. 19 front page featured both the Iraqi sanctions and anxiety over the shortage of anthrax vaccines ("U.S. Plagued by Chronic Shortage of Key Vaccines"). The anthrax scare is possibly related to the Sept. 11 tragedy, which was rightly classified as a terrorist attack.

After the attack, there was one burning question in everyone's mind: "Why?" To which a host of pundits spewed a whole lot of reasons from the ridiculous "They hate us because we love freedom" to the plausible "They hate our foreign policy." But, whatever the reason, we were all unified in that it was an act of terror, wherein innocent people were held accountable for wrongs they did not commit.

So how is it not also wrong that our government has targeted the civilian population of Iraq for the wrongs that its dictator Saddam Hussein committed? After all, they are innocent too, and especially so, since they can't claim to live in a democracy with the power to influence their government. How can it be right that we wring our hands and worry about the shortage of vaccines for a possible terrorist threat when the Iraqi people are forced to live with hunger, disease and death every day?

Re "NATO's New Frontier" (Op-Ed, Mar 30):

Thomas Friedman argues (about post-war Iraq) that "Nation building can't be done by the U.N" since it can't be done by a committee. Instead, he would like to see a force that is "multilateral, legitimate and still led by the U.S." and suggests NATO as just such a force. I very much doubt, given the world's suspicion of U.S. motives vis-a-vis Iraq, whether any force led by the U.S. would be seen as "legitimate".

Given the expectation of a long conflict with heavy casualties, our only hope of salvaging any legitimacy is to go to back to the committees of the U.N. and work with that body to rectify the mess that our leaders have gotten us into.

Balzar's play on the word "containment"(LA Times, 3/30/2003)

John Balzaar (Commentary, Mar 30) makes a specious argument. He plays on the word "containment" which he defines to mean sanctions. Containment , as understood by most, is simply whatever it takes to contain Saddam from acquiring weapons of mass destruction. Placing restrictions on the import of medicine and other necessities for the civilian population, which is what is considered responsible for the deaths of so many children, clearly doesn't fit the generally understood defintion of containment.

Jackals Gather Round (New York Times, 1/9/2003)

Re "Jackals Gather Round" (Op-Ed, Jan 8):

Perhaps the Times should give William Safire a paid vacation so that he can help the U.N. inspectors discover the "smoking guns" that have evaded their search so far.

After all, considering what he claims to know, shouldn't the Times do all it can to foil the jackal-nations' evil intentions of stopping this war; a benevolent war whose only purpose is the "freedom of the Iraqi people".

A war-mongering Times urges Bush's madness (LA Times, 1/7/2003)

Your editorial ('A pinched Iraq yells "Ouch"', Jan 7) might very well have been written by a member of Bush's war-at-any-cost administration. Iraq needs to be contained, yes, but so also should Washington from dragging this country toward a war which 72% of us feel is unjustified.

The inspectors who've had unfettered access have found "zilch" according to a recent Times news article. Yet, you end your skewed analysis by saying that Saddam Hussein should be forced into exile "before he pulls Iraq into war." It looks to me that Mr. Bush, more than Saddam is the one spoiling for war. Perhaps we should ask him to resign instead.

Lifesaving Trade Policies (LA Times, 1/2/2003)

Your editorial ("Lifesaving Trade Policies", Jan 2) claims that the world's fears on genetically modified crops are mostly irrational, and urges Agriculture Secretary Ann M. Veneman to work vigorously to quell them.

In the last month alone there were two "accidents" that prove that such fears are far from irrational. First, on Dec 7, as reported in the New York Times, a biotech company called ProdiGene was fined $3 million for contaminating corn meant for human consumption with genetically modified corn used for growing pig vaccine. Second, on Dec 28, as reported in the Los Angeles Times, StarLink corn which originally massively contaminated the U.S. food supply in 2000, was found in an American shipment meant for Tokyo.

Luckily, both these accidents were discovered, but not by an industry incapable of addressing the very real concerns of health risks and cross-contamination; an industry eager to monopolize the production of food and which fought, with widespread misinformation, a ballot initiative by the people of Oregon to label GMO products.

With the Bush administration eager to cater to every corporate whim at the expense of its citizens' real needs, what is irrational is to expect it to push for GMO labeling let alone feed the world's hungry.

Bush More Hopeful for Diplomacy With Korea Than Iraq (New York Times, 12/31/2002)

Re "Bush More Hopeful for Diplomacy With Korea Than Iraq" (news article, Dec 31):

President Bush started the year as a wind-up toy trying to combine "Saddam Hussein", "weapons of mass destruction" and "terrorism" into sentences, and it looks like he's ending the year in much the same fashion: "I have made the case and will continue to make the case that Saddam Hussein -- a Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction, is a threat to the security of the American people". Never mind that 72% of the American public (as determined by a Dec 17 Los Angeles Times poll) believe he hasn't made any such case.

Questions on North Korea, its nuclear weapons and the U.S. economy seemd to stump Mr. Bush. Apparently his programmers didn't expect that these phrases would need to be part of his vocabulary. Hopefully, a more relevant President Bush will be released by his programmers in the new year.

Terrorism and Moral Clarity (New York Times, 12/27/2002)

Re "A Toast for Moral Clarity" by Nicholas Kristof (Op-Ed, Dec 27):

After opening with the admission that a U.S. invasion of Iraq will terrorize Iraqi civilans, Kristof posits a defense of President Bush's campaign for "moral clarity": by stigmatizing terrorism as evil, "the next Savimbi, Begin or Arafat should know that violence against civilians will not propel him into a presidential mansion". Apparently presidents in white houses can throw stones of "moral clarity" with impunity.

Cries for Peace Fall on Deaf Ears (LA Times, 12/11/2002)

It looks like the decision has been made. We're going to war with Iraq. With or without the people's support. Inspectors haven't found any weapons of mass destruction. About which, the administration declares that it knows they're there, but won't tell the inspectors where to look. Opinion the world over is that the U.S. should not act preemptively. The administration has declared that not only will it act preemptively, but that it may include nuclear weapons in its attack as well.

The people have been robbed of a voice. Our government is no longer representing us, and wants to go to war for reasons other than the protection of its people. Our cries for peace are falling on deaf ears. We need to do more to prevent this war.

One way to do this is to pledge to go for a two-week trip to Iraq. If enough of us go, or even commit to going, a war cannot happen. A site to do just this and tally up the pledges has been set up. Let's stop this unjust war by taking the pledge at becomethechange.org.

Iraq War and Oil (LA Times, 11/7/2002)

Finally, a member of the Right admits to oil being a reason for this war. Norah Vincent (Commentary, 11/7/02) says we will go for "other, less presentable reasons" that, "as we did in 1991, to secure our oil interests in the region, to wrest an indispensable commodity from the hands of a hostile vendor".

Thank you Norah, for bringing to light something that the American Left and the Europeans have been saying all along, and that the mainstream media, kowtowing to the Bush admininstration's propaganda machine and its corporate sponsors, has been shamelessly shielding from the American public.

The Left has always said that Saddam Hussein is a brutal dictator, even when the Reagan administration was coddling Saddam and providing him our biological and chemical weapons for him to use on his own people and on the Iranians. The Iraqi people do indeed need our help, and the way to help them, while keeping Saddam in check is to bring U.N. inspectors back in, lift sanctions, and provide the people humanitarian assistance. Using the cover that its ruler is a dictator to go into a country and grab control of a valuable resource like its oil, befits a rogue nation, not one that purportedly subscribes to higher, humanistic ideals.

Iraq and North Korea (LA Times, 10/20/2002)

It is apparent that the Bush administration wants to invade Iraq for reasons other than the much repeated weapons of mass destruction threat. Iraq clearly does not possess nuclear weapons, N. Korea does. Iraq's delivery systems are infantile compared to N. Korea's. Yet, the administration wants to deal with N. Korea peacefully, and with Iraq forcefully; never mind possible American casualties, never mind that such actions could inflame the middle east and incite more terrorism.

This administration withheld information about N. Korea's nuclear program till after the congressional vote on the Iraq resolution. What else is not telling us? That the reason for an invasion is Iraq's 2nd largest oil deposits? That war would give it absolute power over our country? That war would benefit the oil and defense industries with which it has close ties? That war would distract attention from a recession caused by massive corporate corruption and failures, not unlike Bush's Harkin dealings and Cheney's Halliburton ones?

Dangerous War Mongering on Iraq (LA Times, 10/14/2002)

First, we demolish the Taliban and install our man as President of Afghanistan. We call our operation a success; inspite of 1000s of innocent civilian deaths; inspite of letting the Al-Queda leaders responsible for 911 slip through our fingers. Then we inflame the Arab street with a resolution to unilaterally attack Iraq, a position that most Americans don't support.

Now, we have terrorism in Kuwait and Bali, where many innocent people have died. Pakistan's recent elections have yielded more power to the Islamic extremists, which could dangerously escalate the conflict with India.

Is the Bush administration stupid, incompetent or just plain evil? Let me spell out a simple plan to them: "Catch the bad guys and make friends with the moderates". Assuming their intention is really to stop terrorism and not to colonize the Middle East.

Include Camejo in the Debate (LA Times, 10/7/2002)

Apparently the Times won't include the Green Party Candidate in its debate because his candidacy doesn't fulfill a 15% threshold in a poll. Well, I buy your newspaper to get educated and informed. You don't use polls to fulfill your responsibility to me, do you? After all, the Rezulin story you broke on the dangerous side-effects on this diabetes drug, which in part helped take the drug off the market, may never have been published had you taken a poll of how many readers were informed about this issue.

Your newspaper has the capability of influencing polls. Don't be a follower of them, like Governor Davis, who is either following the pollster or the fat cat with a big wallet. Inform us of candidates who have the potential to make a difference. Include Peter Camejo in your debate.

Los Angeles Times on Iraq (LA Times, 9/25/2002)

Why is the Los Angeles Times being such a wuss in opposing this impending war on Iraq. You claim in your Sep 25 editorial that German Chancellor Schroeder's posturing is threatening to subvert the Bush adminstration's intention of giving the U.N. a shot at "defanging Hussein". Yet, it is apparent to everyone that the U.S. has no intention of stopping at any stage short of "regime change". War is imminent, and you dance around, writing irrelevant editorials instead of taking a strong stand against it. Where is your integrity?

Dick Cheney vs Scott Ritter on Iraq(LA Times, 9/9/2002)

Contemplating an attack on Iraq, we have Dick Cheney claiming that we can't afford to wait, while Scott Ritter says that Iraq is no longer a threat. Who can we believe? Let's see. Ritter is a former U.N. Chief Weapons Inspector, and served in Iraq for 9 yrs. He is a former marine, a Republican, who has nothing to gain and risks being branded a traitor and ostracized by his countrymen. Cheney, on the other hand, has always put oil interests ahead of national interests, as in the formulation of his Energy policy. As CEO of Halliburton, he is accused of defrauding investors, and since the Gulf War, Halliburton under his leadership, did $23.8 million in business with Saddam to rebuild his oil fields. Now, c'mon Dick, can you not play nice with Saddam, or do you just want all his marbles?

Zambia Declines Gene-altered Corn (LA Times, 8/28/02)

Wouldn't it be nice if we, in the U.S., had the choice to decline it too! Congress, in cahoots with the agribusiness lobby, won't even mandate a label to tell us which corn is genetically modified.

Corporate corruption has nothing to do with U.S. culture (LA Times, 8/11/2002)

Neal Gabler (Opinion, 8/11/02) has a new patsy for why there is corruption in big business: In the good ol' days of the Ivy-educated upper-crusts like the Bushes, these things never happened, he says; it is only when the money-grubbing, lowly educated middle-class (like the Greek immigrant Rigas of Adelphia) takes over the corporate reins that they succumb to the temptations of wealth and celebrity. What rot! The collusion between politics and big business corruption has been going on for some time and perpetrated by the likes of Bush as well. It is just that their good ol' boy network has always protected them. How else do you explain Martha Stewart getting nailed for insider trading on a stock she had no direct relationship with while Dubya gets away with it pretending that while he was on the board of Harkin (and on its audit committee) he did not know.

What Bush knew and when? (LA Times, 5/21/2002)

Ron Brownstein (May 21) thinks the question: "What did Bush know and when did he know it?" is a silly one because he thinks Bush would have taken steps to prevent the Sept 11 tragedy had he known about it. Well, how about if he only knew that a plane was going to get hijacked in the U.S.? Would he have planned to wait in complicit silence, like he did when California was going through its electricity crisis? To then use the crisis to further his political ends like drilling in Alaska, corporate tax cuts, war on Iraq, a super-fat military budget?

It certainly seems like Dick Cheney is again stubbornly resisting inquiry, this time on the president's briefing much like he did when questioned about his policy-forming meetings with Enron officials. Really, what could have been said in a briefing to a president on vacation, then definitely clueless about foreign policy and known for his hands-off management style, that would "damage intelligence gathering" (if it hasn't been damaged already)? And, if there was so much valuable intelligence in that briefing, why was so little done with it?