We encourage readers to submit letters to the editor on issues of interest to East Valley residents. Submissions should be no longer than 300 words, factually accurate and original thoughts of the writer. Please be brief and include name, address, city and phone number for verification. Letters and call-in comments may be edited for clarity and length.
Thomas, Arpaio effective
Recently, Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas published and locally mass-distributed a well-written and timely pamphlet entitled “Road Map to Crime Prevention.” This action was not received well at all by the liberals at the county Board of Supervisors, who immediately cited inappropriate funding, political self-aggrandizement and lack of consultation with them as cause to criticize. Quite the opposite of this negative reaction was shown by the public at large for whom it was made available. The county attorney received voluminous praise for issuing this booklet. The media seemed to cover the reaction by the Board of Supervisors to a greater extent than Thomas’ office defending and explaining its actions.
Also, within roughly the same time frame, Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio and his office were consumed with problems arising from trying to enforce the laws of this land with regard to illegal immigrants protesting and ravaging private businesses. The sheriff made it plain, as he has always done, that he will enforce our laws, not back down, and the prisoners who result from that resolve will attest. He generally receives overall negatively biased press from his detractors but the public sees through that and rewards him through re-election.
When considering how the county attorney and the sheriff are usually treated by the media as they carry out their duties, there appears to be a thread of commonality running through them as it has run through many other successful people. That thread is called effectiveness. Both Thomas and Arpaio carry out the demands of their respective offices with a great deal of efficacy, which rankles many as they maintain their own templates and self-interests. Being effective in no way exempts them from being human and making human errors, but their failures are far outweighed by their successes.
What Israel should do
The Tribune reported Jan. 21 that “Israel blocked the shipment of fuel that powers Gaza City’s only electrical plant in retaliation for persistent rocket attacks by Gaza militants.” Lest readers of this news drown in their tears over this action, they should be aware that the same article advised that the Gaza strip continues to receive 70 percent of its electrical supply directly from Israel, and another 5 percent from Egypt, and neither of these sources would be affected.
The article went on to state that “Gaza officials warned (Israel’s) move would cause a health catastrophe while a U.N. agency and human rights groups condemned Israel.”
Those reactions were immediate, while Gaza’s daily rocket attacks have persisted for many months and outcries against those lethally intended civilian attacks have yet to be heard. Again, attacking Israeli citizens intending to kill or maim them arouse nary a protest. But a response by Israel to such terrorism draws immediate protests.
Perhaps Israel should remind the world that, as a legitimate nation intending to henceforth perform its primary function of protecting its population, it will do whatever any other country in the world would do if similarly attacked.
Then, Israel should declare that beginning in 48 hours it will lay waste to a strip two miles wide in Gaza along the Israeli border that will totally clear that strip of any ability to have rockets launched therefrom into Israel. The 48-hour announcement will give people in that area notice to vacate it thereby avoiding harm. For those who prefer to continue the rocket terrorism, and/or to act as shields for those terrorists, they will have been warned.
Until the rocket attacks cease, this response should be continued, with the buffer zone being gradually widened if necessary.
GERALD L. ANCHOR
Paul may end multiple wars
My oldest son recently attended a medical conference in Las Vegas. Ron Paul spoke to a large crowd of fellow doctors and mesmerized them. Paul is a Libertarian running as a Republican. Libertarianism was the core of both the Democratic and Republican parties in my grandfather’s day. A constitutional government with enforceable laws, secured borders and protected currency should not frighten educated people.
“Social orientation and class distinction” have been disguised as education in our schools. Rich kids are prepared for college and wealth while poor kids are prepared for poverty and war. Human rights are stolen and converted into power for the wealthy. Government and corporate payroll checks buy enough votes to keep them in power and the rest of us in a state of perpetual poverty, war and confusion.
The drug war casualties on our streets over the past 40 years mark an unprecedented epidemic of suffering, death and destruction. My children are victims of this war and they are sick of it. Paul is not just telling them what they want to hear. He is giving them the foundation that our government was originally based on (the formula for success). They understand Paul’s message and mission.
If you are a recipient of those government and corporate checks, you will vote for more war, I assume. However, you have sacrificed my liberty and values for your own security, well-being and advancement. My 17-year-old son just registered as a Republican so he can vote for Ron Paul when he turns 18. I have seven children who are “Ron Paul crazy” and all their Internet friends (in the millions) are going to end this 40-year-old drug war business. Next they will be talking about justice for these war crimes against humanity.
Need answers from McCain
In order for Sen. John McCain to get my vote for any elected position, he would need to answer three questions honestly.
He presents himself as a decorated veteran who supports veteran issues, yet he consistently votes against veterans’ needs when he does vote. As is chronicled in the Tribune, he very seldom does vote in the Senate, except when there is a vote that involves keeping troops in Iraq. Why do you want to be our president if you didn’t even represent us as our senator?
He often presents himself as a lifelong, hard-working underdog. How does that match up with the fact that he was the son and grandson of Navy admirals and had a Naval Academy appointment guaranteed from birth? How does that also match up with his involvement in the Keating Five scandal?
A recently published book, “An Enormous Crime” by Bill Hendon, which chronicles the hundreds of sightings of live American prisoners still in Vietnam decades after the war’s end, cites our good senator as one of the major roadblocks to getting these prisoners back. In fact, the senator refers to any of us who believe live prisoners were left in Vietnam after the war as, “swindlers, dime store Rambos, and just plain old conspiracy nuts” in his book, “Worth Fighting For.” Why doesn’t the senator want these men home?
I don’t think he can do it, but if the senator could give me honest answers to these questions, then and only then could he have my vote.
Don’t hold your breath!
Doesn’t matter what we say
I am writing in response to the editorial regarding the Hurricane Bay nightclub location at Main and 74th streets (Jan. 17). You say the club’s location has multiple traffic lanes and concrete medians providing extra separation from the closest residents. Is there also a multiple traffic lanes and concrete median behind the proposed club? The answer is no; an apartment building is behind it with no separation.
Postcards were handed out to people in other areas to mail into the city for the club and none were handed out to the people who live in the area. This club was a go from the beginning and no matter what the residents in the area said, it didn’t matter.
Everybody is confused
I have heard it said that people have become confused about right and wrong, and did not realize how true that is until the story about the 7-year-old boy on the bicycle broke. No doubt the Tribune reporter was trying to paint a sympathetic picture of a big, bad insurance company chasing after this poor little boy, but details that have emerged seem to indicate that the insurance company was correct in principle, but should have been pursuing the child’s parents.
Some letter writers strongly believe that this child’s age should excuse him from any responsibility for his actions. To an extent, that is true. What people do not seem to understand is that the parents are responsible for damage that a child does to another person’s property, be it accidental or intentional.
According to news reports, the boy’s bicycle had no brakes, he was riding against traffic and the boy ran into the rear of the van. The owner of the van would seem entitled to collect damages from the boy’s parents. Auto body repairs are not cheap; the $650 figure mentioned in the article no doubt includes some paint repair.
Bicyclists are required to ride with traffic and observe the same traffic laws that motor vehicles do. If parents do not teach their children how to ride properly, who is responsible for that? And why would a parent let a child ride a bicycle with no brakes?
The fact that school administrators are advising children to violate traffic laws by riding against traffic to avoid being abducted from behind seems absolutely ridiculous. Why are these educators advising children to violate traffic laws?
No wonder people are confused.
KELLEY J. KIMBLE