Steve is a Baker County Democrat, he asked me to put this up.
It’s hard to miss the latest round in Oregon’s land use wars. The Governor, Thousand Friends of Oregon and, The Portland Oregonian, are pushing hard to repeal measure 37. If we don’t, they contend Oregon will lose open space, wildlife habitat, farm land and quality of life. It’s almost laughable. Our land use wars and environmental problems in general are a direct result of too many people fostered by an immigration policy that should have been altered years ago. You’ve heard it from me before so how about hearing it from one of the icons of the American environmental movement, Edward Abbey, the inspiration for Earth First and other groups. In a letter to the Industrial Worker Oct 1st 1988 he had this to say. “…..As I have said and written many times, in many places, I am opposed to all further mass immigration, legal or illegal, from any source, and my reasons for this position are quite conventional. Like all Earth Firsters, almost all environmentalist, most union members and (according to polls) the majority of blacks and Hispanics, I think we should seal our borders for the following good, clear and obvious reasons:1. The USA is overcrowded already.2. A large influx of cheap labor- docile, uneducated and desperate foreigners- will put bona fide native-born (or naturalized) American working people at further disadvantage in their struggle with big business and big government;3 A growing population means greater pressure on all resources, including clean air, clean water, clean soil, open space, schools, medical facilities, wildlife, wilderness and our public lands in general;4. A growing population leads inevitably to more government laws, regulations, police, centralized control, authoritarian policies and a generalized stifling of personal freedom for all but the very rich. Yours fraternally, Edward Abbey, Oracle Arizona. In a nutshell there is the basis of Oregon’s land use wars. We had 210 million people when we passed Senate Bill 100, the law that created our draconian land use laws. We have 300 million now and are growing rapidly because of immigration. Others warned us too. In Sept. 1974, a year after Senate Bill 100 passed in Oregon Garrett Hardin, a prominent ecologist wrote, Life Boat Ethics: the case against Helping the poor. Garrett Hardin’s writings can be found on the internet. We were warned decades ago what the effects of unrestricted immigration would be. We are now at a crossroads. Congress will soon debate an immigration bill. Its time to get real. No longer can we spout a cliché like “we are a nations of immigrants” and think that says anything. That’s history. We have to look at the future now.
Steve Culley Baker City Or
Monday, February 26, 2007
Friday, January 26, 2007
Iraqi Surge: some things cost what they cost
I have to admit my main objection to continuing the war in Iraq is that the only thing worse than pulling out is to continue the war with George W. Bush calling the shots. I think pulling out will be catastrophic, but losing in the long-run is assured as long as America will neither conduct serious diplomatic efforts to end the civil war there or supply enough troops to actually control the territory on which our forces our deployed.
"Controlling the territory on which it is deployed" is actually the real purpose of the Army. Ignore the increasingly publicized body counts and other benchmarks of success until the territory is under control. It's not. And that's why this surge is so ridiculous, because it won't accomplish that--22,000 more wasn't enough when this started and it's far too few now.
Suppose you go to the store to buy a candy bar to share with your friends. The price is $1.00 and you go in with a quarter. You argue with the clerk, but he won't sell. After serious reflection, you go home, smash your penny bank, and decide you can only part with a quarter more. You go back to the store the next day with fifty cents. But that stubborn clerk still won't sell you a candy bar! Obviously he must hate you and all you stand for--that's it: he hates your freedom.
You go back to your friends and say, "Oh well, at least I tried. I even DOUBLED my efforts. But it's all that mean clerk's fault for not selling to me when I did all I could." Heck, maybe you even get together with your pals and graffiti tag the store or egg the windows. Why not? He's got it coming, right? Maybe the clerk's name is Maliki?
That's what this surge is all about--a too little, too late effort, which even W. must know is doomed but which gives him a good story to tell about how hard he tried. If Democrats oppose the surge, he can even try blaming the inevitable failure of his policies on them.
Want to win in Iraq? It'll take a couple hundred thousand more troops at this point, now that Iraqis on the street hate us for the years of hell they've been through. But with recruitment down and "stop loss" the only thing keeping our existing units full, the only option is a draft. (Start with the membership of the College Republicans, IMHO.) But even proposing a draft has political costs, which the four-flushing G. W. Bush is the master at ducking.
But regardless of your position on a draft, I doubt most folks--hawks or doves--are any more likely to trust W. with the lives of draftees than they would be to trust him to bring back that candy bar. That leaves withdrawal as the only serious option on the table. That is, unless we get serious about impeachment. . .
"Controlling the territory on which it is deployed" is actually the real purpose of the Army. Ignore the increasingly publicized body counts and other benchmarks of success until the territory is under control. It's not. And that's why this surge is so ridiculous, because it won't accomplish that--22,000 more wasn't enough when this started and it's far too few now.
Suppose you go to the store to buy a candy bar to share with your friends. The price is $1.00 and you go in with a quarter. You argue with the clerk, but he won't sell. After serious reflection, you go home, smash your penny bank, and decide you can only part with a quarter more. You go back to the store the next day with fifty cents. But that stubborn clerk still won't sell you a candy bar! Obviously he must hate you and all you stand for--that's it: he hates your freedom.
You go back to your friends and say, "Oh well, at least I tried. I even DOUBLED my efforts. But it's all that mean clerk's fault for not selling to me when I did all I could." Heck, maybe you even get together with your pals and graffiti tag the store or egg the windows. Why not? He's got it coming, right? Maybe the clerk's name is Maliki?
That's what this surge is all about--a too little, too late effort, which even W. must know is doomed but which gives him a good story to tell about how hard he tried. If Democrats oppose the surge, he can even try blaming the inevitable failure of his policies on them.
Want to win in Iraq? It'll take a couple hundred thousand more troops at this point, now that Iraqis on the street hate us for the years of hell they've been through. But with recruitment down and "stop loss" the only thing keeping our existing units full, the only option is a draft. (Start with the membership of the College Republicans, IMHO.) But even proposing a draft has political costs, which the four-flushing G. W. Bush is the master at ducking.
But regardless of your position on a draft, I doubt most folks--hawks or doves--are any more likely to trust W. with the lives of draftees than they would be to trust him to bring back that candy bar. That leaves withdrawal as the only serious option on the table. That is, unless we get serious about impeachment. . .
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)