Try not to look too far ahead, but keep your eyes on the future.

NEWSDAY'S Letters to the Editor March 12, 2004

Number of Letters from the LEFT: 7
Number of Letters from the RIGHT: 0

---

Left Letters:

1) …Reading the paper recently, I found articles about a boyfriend being questioned in his girlfriend's grisly murder, corporate fraud, civil wars, deadly attacks in Pakistan and Iraq, the infiltration of criminals and terrorists across our borders, and a missing woman.
But the most incredible story was that the mayor of New Paltz could face a year in prison for marrying same-sex couples.
Imagine that in a society plagued with crime, we now have to deal with two people vowing to love, honor and respect each other. -Jennifer C. Ikeguchi Oakland Gardens>

Jennifer, purposely defying the law may be respecting each other but these people who ‘love each other’ and the mayors that are defying the law brought this situation on them by going around the law instead of trying to change the law. And why haven’t they tried to change the law because a large majority of Americans are against it and they know they would lose. Despite what Newsday wants you to think most Long Islanders are against it too.

2) …So George W. Bush is starting his ad campaign bragging about whatever he did before, during and after 9/11.
The country doesn't know yet what he knew before 9/11. He disappeared for hours on the day itself. He's been no help in protecting us since, mainly dropping bombs on a couple of countries and enraging more people, as well as cutting funds for our security. -Jane Troy Manhattan

Hmmm he disappeared for hours? Well let’s see we were unattacked and everything was crazy. He was on the air very quickly once he was secured away. Is Ms. Troy calling the President a coward? Ask most Americans if they thought that we would have another attack after 9/11 and I’m sure 90% or close to it would say imminently. It thankfully hasn’t happened thanks to the government and the citizens of the US. ‘Cutting funds for our security’? We know this is not true.

3) …On Jan. 23, 2003, George W. Bush said "I have no ambition whatsoever to use this [9/11] as a political issue."
But he is using the attack on the World Trade Center in his television ads. This only confirms the consistently arrogant and self-righteous attitude of his administration, which has little or no regard for any priorities but its own.
I was in New York on Sept. 11. The tremendous loss and grief suffered by so many have only been exacerbated since by Bush's insistence on violent retaliation, his fear-mongering and, now, his blatant exploitation of the tragedy. -Kat Hankinson Astoria

I still don’t see the exploitation of the tragedy. Are we to believe that no one can bring up the tragedy ever again? Politically or intellectually or spiritually? For any reason? Is it really off limits for everyone? This tragedy wasn’t a serial killer who terrorized one family or city. It’s a criminal investigation. It is war! The Kats of Astoria need to think about the tragedy and how our leaders face these tragedies before she votes.

4) …Seven years and 150 nations have not succeeded in moving President George W. Bush to sign the Mine Ban Treaty. Last week, his move backward from U.S. policy to ban all antipersonnel land mines, "smart" and dumb, allows for the indefinite use of smart mines and delays the destruction of dumb mines until 2010. The U.S. 1998 Directive to sign in 2006 is gone. Smart mines may be safer, but they are not safe. They can last as long as 19 weeks, 2 to 5 percent are damaged during the remote delivery by aircraft or artillery, and as many as 10 percent fail to arm properly, remaining intact without sign of whether they are live.
Rich nations' use of smart mines forces poorer countries to continue using dumb ones. A world with millions of anti-personnel mines in the ground of 80 countries, the 15,000 to 20,000 casualties a year, the dead, crippled and blind call on the United States to sign the treaty without delay. -Phyllis L. Reed Northport

I must say that I don’t know enough of this situation to comment. There are specifics that I have read and I am undetermined what course should be taken. I pray we make the right one. I urge everyone to let us know what you think on this issue.

5) …Our government allows uninspected food imports, which have already caused health problems in the United States, yet it does not allow the importation of brand-name drugs.
Does the government work to protect the people, or corporate profits? -Jeffrey Gurwitz Mount Sinai

The only question I have is which food imports specifically are not inspected and should be? Unless this is answered we can not even begin to discuss the issue. Though I believe unlike Mr. Gurwitz that corporate profits would be helped by the importation of brand-name drugs. A brand-name is generally corporate owned. Thus this writer hasn’t got a clue just likes writing about the ‘evils’ of corporate profits vs the ‘good’ of protecting people. Are these two these polar opposites? Really?

6) …I am overwhelmed by the depth of emotion of those dedicated to the preservation of the "sacred institution of marriage."
Although, I can't help but wonder if perhaps they could better serve society by directing their zeal toward discovering why such a sacred institution has spawned other sacred institutions, such as half-way houses and hide-aways for battered and abused spouses and children; swingers' and cheaters' clubs, swap chat rooms, no-tell motels; and divorce-dedicated law firms. -Brian O'Beirne Plainview

Mr. O’Beirne doesn’t believe in marriage. That’s fine. There are lots of problems with the institution of marriage. But it is not the institution themselves but the people in the marriage. There are hide-aways for battered women who aren’t married to their men but just live with them. And people who are not married but say they are couples constantly cheat on their counterparts, and children who grow up in broken homes are abused. Animals are abused too. Is this marriages fault. There are problems in the world. The institution isn’t it.

7) …Americans love to whine about the high cost of gasoline until it becomes cheap again, at which point they resume consumption patterns that guarantee a return to scarcity.
Last year, we worried about a heating-oil shortage, and who even remembers the energy crises of the 1970s?
Yet, we quickly went back to building the world's largest fleet of gas-gobbling SUVs, the great American status symbol.
What ever happened to conservation and fuel efficient motor vehicles? What we need is a serious energy policy for a long term solution. The sooner we stop using Middle East oil, the sooner we will stop funding terrorist groups.
Alternative fuels would be the answer, not more oil, no matter where it comes from. Our government could mandate the development and use of alternative fuels in the near future.
This is something it should be spending our tax dollars on. We put a man on the moon after a John F. Kennedy mandate, and that was in the 1960s. Think what we can accomplish with today's technology.
There are millions of motor vehicles in the United States - not to mention smokestacks - and a larger number across the world. They all pollute the air.
We need to stop poisoning our planet if we are to survive. And that is the real issue. -Steven E. Danish Oceanside

Supply and demand will determine the price. Mr. Danish makes a good job of pointing that out. However, alternative fuels to oil are quite expensive. And a federal mandate won’t make companies build alternative cars. It takes the will and wishes of the consumers to do that. Why do some people still takes their cars to work instead of taking the bus or train? They could do it but don’t for whatever reason. The consumers drive prices. You can’t change the manufacturers unless you change the minds of their customers.

Right Letters: