Letters for February 21, 2002

Needling officials

Re “War’s Latest Fronts” (SN&R Capital Bites, February 7):

Thank you for your insightful article. We need to educate the Board of Supervisors and all public officials about the validity of a needle exchange program in Sacramento County. People are already dying now who could be saved.

I myself used to be a sick dope fiend who injected dope into my arms and now am over five years clean from such sickness. I thank the Lord I never got AIDS or hepatitis. We should help whomever we can as we help lead them into progressive recovery from all forms of addiction.

What greater terror than those who have power and refuse to use it to help save lives?

Peter S. Lopez
Sacramento

What drives terrorism

Re “War’s Latest Fronts” (SN&R Capital Bites, February 7):

Watching a Super Bowl anti-drug commercial, I actually thought for a moment that gasoline addiction, not drug addiction, was going to be targeted as the financial enabler of terrorism.

I haven’t seen estimates, but I would guess terrorist organizations receive more of their money, indirectly at least, from the sale of oil than they do from the sale of drugs.

U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabia has been explicitly cited by Osama bin Laden as a cause for his actions. That military presence is there to protect oil supplies.

Even Ariana Huffington is now convinced it’s patriotic to get rid of SUVs. She sold hers.

Walt Seifert
Sacramento

Our two wars

Re “War’s Latest Fronts” (SN&R Capital Bites, February 7):

America is currently engaged in two wars on ideas: a drug war dating back to the spring of 1972 and a war on terror declared right after September 11. The former is very unpopular; 73 percent of Americans—according to a recent Pew Research survey (February 2001)—reject ONDCP’s claims of drug war “success” and consider it a failure beyond fixing. Since 1996, several state initiatives seeking to soften drug war enforcement have passed despite strenuous “official” opposition.

On the other hand, support for the war on terror is still strong, sustaining the president’s near-90 percent approval rating.

As the Enron scandal generates heated discussions of conflict of interest, it may be appropriate to suggest that the expenditure of millions of tax dollars for Super Bowl TV ads represents an attempt by the bureaucrats directing the drug war to link their unpopular policy to a winner. When they accuse high-school dope smokers of somehow supporting terrorism, aren’t they also defending the policy responsible for their jobs and political power?

At what point should bureaucrats (and elected officials) be restrained from using tax dollars to defend their failures and forced instead to seek a policy that works?

Tom O’Connell, M.D.
San Mateo

Break the big stick

Re “Pacifism is Dead” by Denis McMurray (SN&R Letters, February 7):

A letter writer claimed that pacifism died September 11. Sorry, dude, but 9-11 proved the need for pacifism. Someone ought to try it.

“Passivity” as the writer also called it, is different from pacifism. It isn’t pacifism that allowed the tragedies to occur; the U.S. is quite the opposite of a pacifist nation. In fact, a pacifist approach might have prevented a terrorist attack because a country that doesn’t carry or won’t use the big stick is going to emphasize the safety and security of its citizens. Pacifism is a preventive state of mind.

Not a single university or newspaper has ever claimed “America is responsible for all the evil in the world.” It sounds like the letter writer has college envy and media paranoia. The U.S. is the cause of a fair share of evil, though.

Make no mistake: pacifism is not weak. Like its often successfully used sibling civil disobedience, pacifism is more difficult to do than violence. Pacifism is a far better use of money, resources and people than a military response. Pacifism gives a country a broad array of options to pursue to bring about meaningful change.

Randy McClure
Rocklin

Go to hell

Re “Trial by Internet” by David A. Kulczyk (SN&R News, February 7):

I read your article on Max the Cat after an interview and what appears to be a very judgmental overview of your reporter. You made the public appear that we have already put the man on death row. He has not even gone to trial … my point being is that in every instance, this person seems to get a continuance.

I would like to know why there was such a biased opinion from a reporter. Shouldn’t he have reported both sides of this horrific crime? I think that what happened in Sacramento has happened in many places. Unfortunately for Max, this was an officer of the law. Where in the article does it mention that? Where in his article does he mention he guides already troubled teens? As an editor, I find your ink gone to waste from a very untalented reporter and more grotesque a very judgmental newspaper. I fear for people like you and Lacy, as you all are one in the same. May you repent in God’s name soon, or your wrath will be far worse than you or Lacy will ever imagine.

You can sue me, I couldn’t care less … you people sicken me with your self-righteous ways. How much did the police department and/or Mr. Brown pay you to sway the article towards Lacy’s defense? You see, Lacy has no defense. He murdered Max and it’s all a cover-up because he is a blue-collared, donut-eating, coffee-sucking cop.

How can you look into the mirror each day and say “I’m a nice guy … I did the right thing … I’m going to Heaven.” You can’t.

Catarina Wyatt
via e-mail

Soft on Lacy

Re “Trial by Internet” by David A. Kulczyk (SN&R News, February 7):

I just wanted to say that I thought it was a disgrace the way you portrayed the “Max the Cat” case. Lacy is an officer of the law, and deserves the stiffest punishment available for his crime on poor Max. And it’s proven that people who harm animals also eventually will harm a person.

It seemed that your article was a bit biased. Both sides of the story should have been presented; only Lacy seemed to get the spotlight. I think a retraction article is necessary, and an apology to Max’s owner for downplaying Max’s case.

Lacy is an officer of the law, and it seems that his fellow peers are sure protecting him from the courts and media. What a disgrace to our justice system. And you have contributed to this hideous act.

David & Daniela
via e-mail

Flak off

Re “In Defense of Davis” by Steven Maviglio (SN&R Guest Comment, January 31):

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Davis press secretary Steve Maviglio claims that Governor Davis has done nothing to cause California’s current fiscal meltdown. If Davis has been “frugal and careful,” as Maviglio asserts, I have only two questions for him: 1) Why are Californians paying their highest level of taxes in the state’s 150-year history? 2) How did Davis inherit a three-year $25 billion surplus and leave the state in a $12 billion deficit quagmire?

Maybe the governor and Maviglio should read Democratic Controller Kathleen Connell and nonpartisan legislative analyst Elizabeth Hill’s views on the budget.

Unlike his electricity crisis, the governor can’t blame evil out-of-state power generators, President Bush or the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for the state budget disaster. This one belongs to him and, sadly, the “buck” stops with him.

Stephen Wampler
Tracy

Pacifism lives

Re “Pacifism is Dead” by Dennis McMurray (SN&R Letters, February 7):

I hear pacifism is dead.

This is according to self-appointed expert and judge, Dennis McMurray. Mr. McMurray makes several other wild assumptions: 1) That pacifism led to the September 11 attacks; 2) That the “able bodied” passengers of the hijacked planes were passive and “dumb”; 3) That the pacifists (who obviously, according to Mr. McMurray, hoard together in our American university campuses) place all the evils of the world on the United States.

Well, as an educated pacifist, I have news for Dennis McMurray and his ilk: Pacifism never died, nor will it ever die.

Would you care to share your views with civil rights leaders both in this country and abroad? Would you say that Martin Luther King Jr., or Gandhi perhaps, were foolish in assuming that social justice could be attained by “active” non-violent protest? Are you now also God in assuming what the passengers of those fated flights should or shouldn’t have done? Maybe too, victims of the WTC should have brought parachutes. Were they too “dumb” for jumping hundreds of feet to their death?

Shame on you. Shame on you for assuming that the people who died on September 11, as well as those “pacifists/civil libertarians” who have died or have been jailed in the cause of freedom, (real civil liberties, not for the profits of the few oil corporates) were anything but heroes. As educated people we’ve read the history, and it’s plain as daylight.

In theory, the U.S. democracy is the greatest concept in the history of mankind. In practice, the U.S. government has not lived up to its theory with its support for undemocratic movements, countries and political assassinations.

The truth is that pacifism/non-violent action has made our democracy shine, not military action. This is the truth.

Pacifism is alive and kicking, and our desire for social justice and a peaceful world is not foolish. It is the truth.

James Burmester
Davis