LETTERS 08/24/08

U.S. response to Georgia crisis

The Aug. 7 Georgian military attack on Tskhinvali, the capital of South Ossetia, and the predictable Russian response, has resulted in much gnashing of teeth about Russian aggression and violations of the sovereignty of a “fledgling democracy.”

In truth, Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili is a thug who has packed Georgian prisons with political dissenters and has built up his military over the past year with the aim of attempting to retake the “breakaway” provinces of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Saakashvili’s assault, which hit largely civilian targets and resulted in the deaths of more than 1,500 innocents, should have earned him universal condemnation.

The comments on this issue by the presumptive nominees for the presidency point up the similarities of the two parties on foreign policy issues. John McCain, whose senior foreign policy adviser was a paid lobbyist for the Georgians, predictably accuses Russia of seeking to “restore the old Russian empire,” while Obama condemns “Russia’s aggressive actions.” Both candidates take seriously the claim of Georgian sovereignty over a province that broke from Georgian rule nearly two decades ago.

Vladimir Putin is not Joe Stalin. Saakashvili is not a freedom fighter, and a responsible foreign policy would not encourage him to commit future acts of reckless carnage.

Alan Kent

Kansas City

Russia attacked Georgia, a new democratic sovereignty and the kind of country we want in the world. Has Putin put Russia on a path to being the Big Red Bear again? Shouldn’t we defend this new democracy?

Our commitment of troops in the unnecessary war in Iraq, aka the George W. Bush “doctrine of pre-emptive strike” has left us with insufficient troops in Afghanistan. The result is a stronger Taliban, a flourishing heroin trade and increased U.S casualties.

The greatest foreign policy blunder in U.S. history has left us without the military capacity to effectively respond to any additional conflict. Do we think that Putin doesn’t understand that?

Musharraf gave sanctuary to bin Laden and al-Qaida by providing them with a “safe zone” in Pakistan.

Bush’s legacy: He was a fine judge of character.

Joe Zucht

Lenexa

Jack Whitaker’s letter (8/14, “Cheap oil isn’t coming back”) wonders why Congress has failed to renew $18 million in tax breaks for renewable energy sources set to expire in December. Well, here are the facts.

Democrats insist the tax breaks be recouped by offsetting tax breaks to oil. This increases renewables’ competitiveness with oil and natural gas companies, which have received subsidies for decades. Consequently, this will not add to the budget deficit. The Republicans want to pay for them by borrowing more.

The Democrats’ version passed the House on May 21 (supported by Reps. Dennis Moore, Nancy Boyda and Emanuel Cleaver), but was blocked by conservative Senate Republicans. Republicans couldn’t stomach diverting money from Big Oil to bolster our future energy sources. It’s a shame that renewables get nothing compared to what Oil’s lobbying machine can secure.

So please call your conservative Republican senators — including John McCain — and ask them why they continue to mortgage our future for campaign contributions

Erin Musko

Kansas City

There was a time when the foundation of our country was credited to three peoples: the Germans, the English and the Jews. The Germans contributed their work ethic, the English and the Jews contributed their expertise in governance and law. That foundation resulted in a nation of English-speaking people that was the envy of the world.

Today we are a nation fragmented by languages and ethnicities. The broad base of our population cannot be pleased with this loss of feeling of unity and pride. It is more than possible that our legislators have not represented those who voted them into office. There is more than ample evidence those legislators, once in office, give the impression that they are intellectually superior to those who elected them. They then act from this superior position in legislating.

Polls say 75 percent of our population wants approval to drill for oil, and 83 percent of our population wants English-only as the nation’s official language.

Any legislator who in any way does not support such legislation does not represent the people

Russell Means

Leawood

I would disagree with letter writer Bud McKay (8/14) that the auto industry hasn’t evolved much since the 1800s. With modern pressure charging and direct injection, there are many cars out there achieving more than 100 horsepower per liter with mileage from 20 to 30 mpg.

Another major difference in regard to airplanes is that jet engines use a similar fuel to early rotary piston engines.

However, the automotive fuel cell that is considered the next leap in automotive propulsion would be the most efficient running on pure hydrogen. The chance of having a reasonable hydrogen infrastructure in the next decade is very slim.

The auto industry, like other manufacturing industries, profits when it builds what customers want. During the last decade in the U.S., that has meant large SUVs and crossovers.

Even Toyota, long considered infallible, brought a large pickup to market before high gas prices and has since been forced to cut production.

The argument that automakers are responsible for high gas prices is tenuous at best.

Andrew Thull

Olathe

Terry Love (Letters 8/18) sees Barack Obama’s “change” as containing three points — three points that for him indicate Obama is a communist.

He sees the points as a massive increase in the size of government, redistribution of wealth and more government control.

Let’s see. Who has reigned over the most massive increase in government in the last 50 years? George Bush, with his bloated Office of Homeland Security.

Who has reigned over a massive redistribution of wealth from the middle class to the very top 2 percent of this country’s wealthy? Again, George Bush.

Who has taken apart a number of constitutional rights including those of privacy, judicial restraints on search and seizure, rights to fair trial and restraints against torture? You got it. George Bush again.

So, Mr. Love, does that make Bush a communist?

Richard L. Strickland

Mission

•A massive increase in the size of government and an explosion of the national debt.

•The further redistribution of wealth in American society, from the middle class to the wealthy.

•More government control, intrusion into and of my life with less individual accountability and responsibility, warrantless wiretaps and government control of medical procedures.

To Mr. Love, when Democrats do it, it is “communism” when Republicans do it, it’s “good government.”

Jeffrey Reese

Liberty

Well, here we go again. The right wing is trying to scare us into voting for their candidate. I find it sad that after eight years of being scared into an invasion of an insignificant Mideastern country, scared into giving up our privacy and civil rights and scared into following a despot and his cronies or be called “un-American,” we are now being scared about returning to the Cold War.

For those with eyes to see and ears to hear, it is time to rise up and say, “no more.” “No more” to re-fighting the Vietnam War in Iraq, “no more” to national arrogance, “no more” to creating enemies out of friends, and “no more” to listening to a man and party whose only claim to the presidency is the desire to take us back to the days of quiet battle between the U.S. and the Soviet Union.

Kevin Fewell

Kansas City

You wonder why Congress has such a hard time coming to grips with the energy problem? Simple. Their attention span is two, four or six years, depending on their personal election cycle.

To solve the problem of energy requires a long term plan, some 10 to 20 years. To many of these “short-term-attention-span” politicians, it’s not worth the effort. They need your votes now.

This applies to other long-term problems such as Social Security, where inaction has become the rule of thumb.

Tom English

Overland Park

It used to be the Democrats and Republicans. Now it is the donkeys, elephants, conservative, mainstream, liberal, left wing, right wing, red and blue.

I was a Democrat or Republican, depending on who was running for office, but now I don’t know who “I am” and who “they are.” Oh, for the good old days.

Jack L. Hatchitt

Lee’s Summit

Some shelters in the Kansas City area call themselves “no-kill.” The public perception of a “no-kill” shelter is positive — animals are euthanized only for illness and aggression, not based on lack of space.

But what happens to the animals that these “no-kill” shelters don’t even accept into their facility? When they are turned away from “no-kill” shelters, for some, this is essentially a death sentence in and of itself. They could eventually wind up in a “kill” shelter or, worse, be dumped on the streets, left to fend for themselves.

I applaud the individuals who work at so-called “kill” shelters. Their job is not an easy one. It can be heartbreaking and extremely depressing. They have the unenviable task of making life-and-death decisions that “no-kill” shelters avoid.

Please remember to spay and neuter your pets. It’s the only effective long-term solution to pet overpopulation. And if you know of someone whose pets are not spayed or neutered, please encourage them to do so. There are several low-cost options available to those who need assistance.

Jenna Schipull

Overland Park

While it does seem unfair to deny an 18-year-old the right to drink at the same time they are allowed to join the military or vote in an election, there are strong arguments against it as well. Most of them are heady and backed by statistics about drunken driving and binge drinking.

My reason for supporting the drinking age at 21 is more selfish. I work in and frequent bars, and I don’t want a bunch of drunken infants ruining my night at work or on the town.

People in their early 20s are bad enough without allowing teenagers to invade the bar scene, too.

Leave the drinking age alone and focus on more important legislation.

Scott Beskow

Westwood

It will be interesting to see whether the more stringent conduct policies of the Chiefs and NFL will make the Arrowhead game day experience more pleasant.

For quite some time now, it has been commonplace to see all manner of offensive behavior and language at the games. I honestly do not know what it must be like to take your young son or daughter to the game for an education in the various ways to use the F-word and behave like a drunken jerk.

We love the game and our Chiefs. It’s not time to give up our tickets. It is long past time for the league to do some behavioral housecleaning.

And, by the way, no matter how much we love the Chiefs, changing the lyrics to the national anthem is sacrilege.

What’s next? The Lord’s (Chiefs) Prayer? And yes, it’s that important.

J.W. Dennis

Independence