OUR VIEWS

Road to Palestinian state

To get there, he urged the Palestinians to replace their current leadership by holding fair, multi-party local elections by the end of the year with national elections to follow. He promised outside help in drafting a new constitution, creating a true legislature and an independent judiciary, and rebuilding and reforming the security services. Above all, he called for concrete steps to end the terrorism against Israel. If all this comes about, he promised generous amounts of aid and U.S. recognition.

And one other thing: Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat has to go. Bush said he would not accept any leader "compromised by terror."

He called on the Israelis to withdraw from the West Bank and Israeli settlements in the occupied territories as well to unfreeze Palestinian revenues and allow the Palestinian economy to recover.

The problem is that it looks like Bush will get precious little help from the Israeli and Palestinian leaderships. Both sides reacted to his proposal with lukewarm and disingenuous praise.

Arafat, even though it would benefit his people, has no intention of stepping aside. As a Palestinian spokesman pointed out, it's not truly a free election if Bush can say who is an acceptable candidate. And there is no guarantee that the Palestinians won't elect somebody worse. Bush faces a structural problem, too: a complete lack of democratic Palestinian institutions and no tradition of such institutions. What he proposes would be a daunting challenge even if the region was not paralyzed by violence and immobilized by ill will.

Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon ignored Bush's call for a military pullback from the West Bank when the president first called for it in April, and indeed has reoccupied much of the West Bank and is threatening to go into Gaza. Sharon continues to refuse to freeze West Bank settlements, a key point in the Bush-backed Mitchell Plan. And the Sharon government has refused U.S. requests to stop "extrajudicial killings," assassinating a Hamas leader and five others on the day of Bush's speech.

Bush's plan, while laudable and certainly worth trying, may prove a noble but futile gesture. But in one respect he has significantly shifted the terms of U.S. involvement in the Mideast from what the United States and Israel can do for the Palestinians to what the Palestinians can do for themselves.

Keeping Amtrak on track

But one clear fact, obvious even to the giddiest rail buff, of whom Amtrak has many, is that in its current configuration Amtrak will never make money. One other fact is also obvious: Despite Amtrak's dubious economics, Congress won't let it die. Congress loves Amtrak, much to the chagrin of economic purists — and even many who accept the fact that comprehensive accounting would show every form of transportation in this country is subsidized in one way or another.

If Amtrak can stagger along to Oct. 1, the start of the federal fiscal year, Congress may well double its budget. The chairmen of the House and Senate transportation committees both propose generous funding, with the House transportation panel chairman, Don Young, R-Alaska, proposing $71 billion be spent on both rail passenger and freight infrastructure.

The Bush administration has produced a hurry-up plan of five principles for restructuring Amtrak. Some of the plan may be wishful thinking: Private operators may not want to get into the rail passenger business, and the states won't want to pay a greater share of the cost of intercity rail service.

But the plan does edge in a positive direction in this sense: Amtrak's Northeast Corridor and its long-distance passenger service should be treated separately, even made into separate entities.

Maintaining and improving the Northeast Corridor, from Boston to Washington, makes public-policy sense. While not profitable, it does cover quite a bit of its upkeep. It has a large and growing passenger volume in an area growingly prone to auto gridlock. Post-Sept. 11, it proved vital as transportation backup when air travel was shut down. And one day, with a vastly upgraded roadbed and European- and Japanese-style super-trains, it might, while not likely to become profitable, at least break even.

Long-distance rail passenger service cannot be made profitable under any conceivable economic scenario in the foreseeable future. The reasons it survives are both sentimental and political. The route structure was laid out with an eye to inclusiveness — 500 destinations in 47 states — and serving key congressional districts. And there is a powerful feeling in Congress that rural America has endured enough without losing its last public transportation.

The Northeast Corridor can be run as a business. As for long-distance train travel, it's a heavy price for nostalgia, but members of Congress seem willing to pay it and their constituents seem willing to let them.

OTHER VIEWS

In Middle East, abnormal has become all too normal

By GREG DOBBS
ROCKY MOUNTAIN NEWS

But it was out of sorts because there was warfare all around her. This was the early '80s, during the civil war in Beirut. My camera crew and I had to zigzag down her street and crouch as low as we could before her front door just to ring and ask whether we could use her back deck as a vantage point to videotape the fighting in the valley below her home. It was only a couple of miles uphill from Beirut's often closed airport. Two militia were battling for control. Our U.S. Marines were encamped nearby.

So why the curlers? This woman wasn't going anywhere that night. She wouldn't make it safely across her own street. There would be no gourmet meals at Beirut's marvelous restaurants, no bands, no dancing. No reason, you'd think, to worry about how you look.

But then, from just a few words with the woman, I understood. While the camera crew was crawling to the edge of the deck and this woman and I were sheltering just inside, I struck up a conversation about the only thing we could possibly discuss.

"Pretty bad out there today," I said.

"Oh," she responded, "no worse than lots of other days."

Had we been in any American city, this would have been worse than any other day. This would have been the worst day of this woman's life. The constant rat-a-tat-tat of bullet fire, the shattering sound of the cannons, the random explosions of mortar. Had this been an American city, the woman wouldn't have shrugged off the fighting and been going about her daily routine. For sure, she wouldn't have had her hair in curlers.

But it wasn't San Francisco or New York or anywhere in-between, it was Beirut. Everyone there was used to the fighting. Everyone. Unless you got on a boat for the island of Cyprus, there was no escaping the war all around you. That doesn't mean people liked it, or even coped well with it. It simply means they had been forced to live with it, and to go about their daily routines despite it. There was no choice.

Think of this when you think today about the Middle East. Palestinians must dread the sound of Israeli tank treads.

More of their houses, suspected as bomb factories, might soon be demolished. More of their men, suspected of militancy, might soon disappear. But they have no choice. They must carry on with their lives, even though as long as other Palestinians with bombs strapped to their chests continue to terrorize Israelis, those tanks will keep coming.

And what of the Israelis? Have their lives worsened since terrorism became almost a daily occurrence? Can they ever relax when they get on a bus, or walk through a mall, or line up for pizza? Can an Israeli parent feel comfortably secure after dropping the children for day care, knowing that suicidal terrorists somewhere are bent on blowing them to smithereens? No they can't. Yet their lives go on too. They must. They have no choice.

The trouble is, when the abnormal begins to feel normal for citizens going about their daily lives, it begins to feel normal too for the people who have turned life upside down in the first place. The soldiers. The bombers. The fighters. The funders. They probably were raised with a sense of respect for their fellow man, and for the distinction between combatants and bystanders. In all likelihood they once would have considered the lives they now are leading — and the pain they are causing — abnormal.

But not any more. For all the death and destruction shared by Israelis and Palestinians, that may be the saddest part of it all. They have gotten used to having an enemy, and to living in fear of that enemy's next move. They have grown accustomed to war. It's the norm. In effect, they're all wearing curlers in their hair now, whether there's good reason or not.
— Scripps Howard New Service

Greg Dobbs can be reached
c/o the Rocky Mountain News
400 W. Colfax Ave.
Denver, CO 80204
or dobbsnews@yahoo.com

Maybe it changes in translation

By ARGUS HAMILTON
THE DAILY OKLAHOMAN

Yasser Arafat issued a statement on Monday saying he thinks President Bush's speech was a serious effort for Mideast peace and he welcomes it. It sounds like he didn't hear it. Apparently, all his translators have been hired away by the FBI.

President Bush pleased Israelis and American evangelicals by his support for Israel in Monday's remarks. He quoted a New Testament passage. It's just like a Republican to ask Jews and Muslims to settle their differences like good Christians.

Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta met Monday with Amtrak's Board of Directors to try to avoid a shutdown. The railroad loses two dollars for every dollar it takes in. It's easily the best-performing company on the NASDAQ this year.

President Bush takes an aerial tour of the Arizona fires today amidst debate over the fire's ecological value. It's a 3-mile wall of solid flame. It may be rough on the Ponderosa pines, but it sure keeps the suicide bombers out of Flagstaff.

Oklahoma Governor Frank Keating was named by the Catholic Church to oversee their sex abuse policy for priests. He's very religiously observant. President Bush has overlooked him for so many cabinet posts, he's begun celebrating Passover.

Zimbabwe Monday completed the seizure of 3,000 white-owned farms and gave them to squatters. The outrage is just beginning. International observers carefully checked the land records and, wouldn't you know, Martha Stewart got out just in time.

Calcutta reports that a wild elephant went on a rampage in India Monday. The elephant trampled dozens and escaped capture. Ever since Newt Gingrich joined Fox Network as a commentator, you can't stop him, you can only hope to contain him.

Radio Berlin issued a news bulletin Monday that 1,500 sheep had to be slaughtered in central Germany to prevent livestock disease. It made a lot of people uneasy. Just the sound of it was enough to set off air raid sirens in Warsaw.

The New York Times said Monday that Sen. Hillary Clinton has almost finished writing her memoirs, however, her husband's autobiography is way behind schedule. They work well together. Yesterday they were in the den typing away, and she asked him if skirt chaser is one word or two, and he asked her if ice queen was hyphenated.
— Scripps Howard News Service

Argus Hamilton can be reached
at argusjokes@aol.com

YOUR VIEWS

Keep sanctity of human life in mind

The author bases his argument on "conception" and "right to life" on his secular interpretation of scripture and disjointed application of logic. Furthermore, he attempts to ascribe the intent of believers to some evil motive and imports as "gospel" his perspective of the foundation upon which believers, and others I might add, base their opinions and actions.

If his purpose is nothing more than a veiled attempt to "reason" God out of existence, well, nothing new there — folks have been doing that for years.

Might I suggest the author apply the following approach to his exegesis of scriptures and, as a result, be able to exercise a meaningful hermeneutical use of the passages he so readily references. Most individuals with knowledge of the Bible, when including the entire canon (Old & New Testament) would say that God's ultimate and primary message was one of love — "perfect love," according to many theologists, ethicists, and philosophers.

Perfect love, in this sense, means love of God and love of your fellow man (humankind), as evidenced through one's acceptance of and devotion to the former, and through one's "never ending aspiration for all of love's fullness" (particularly toward others) for the latter. Perhaps by using reason, along with experience and tradition, the author will better understand what is really said in the Bible and the motives of those who ascribe to its teachings. In doing so, he may be able to craft a more effective argument.

Perhaps with a cooler head, a warmer heart and a softer hand, all parties can entertain a more meaningful discussion of this very important, contemporary social issue. Whatever considerations one takes in developing perspectives on the issue, take great care. Once the sanctity of human life has been violated, to what extreme will we then not go? History is replete with examples of where many did go — it was not a pretty sight!

Robert L. Baldwin, M.D.
president, chairman, and director
Alabama Ear Institute
300 Office Park Drive, Suite 210

Thatcher right

Our country last visited this situation at the end of World War II when to the surprise of our enemies, rather than assume "rule" of this planet, we opted to allow our enemies to rebuild within a framework that would promote peace. This act alone should have made it clear to the world our honorable objectives.

Obviously, we overestimated the civility of others, which has now led us to a point of serious world danger. As Thatcher declares, it's time to revisit, and this time with a proactive stance toward achieving the same objective. To the dismay of the politically correct, this approach to peace may necessarily involve the launching of pre-emptive attacks on the "evil empires" who've chosen not to honor the merciful worldwide agreement to peaceful coexistence offered and sworn to at the end of World War II.

Armond "Si" Simmons
104 Wadsworth Lane
Pell City

Demand oath

Would you fire a disloyal employee if she/he votes to deny you protection and votes to weaken laws that constraint the immoral behavior of your competitors, people that President Bush classifies as "the haves and the have-mores" — his elite — his acknowledged base? Which class are you a member of, the "haves," "have-mores" or "have-nots"?

The Senate and House passed bills S. 420 and H.R. 333 that allow predatory lenders to make loans in violation of truth-in-lending laws, force the borrower to submit to binding arbitration controlled by the credit industry, and take advantage of the bankruptcy system to collect on such loans.

In the Senate, Jeff Sessions (R) and Richard Shelby (R) voted for S. 420 and in the House, Robert Aderholt (R), Spencer Bachus (R), Sonny Callahan (R), Terry Everett (R), and Bob Riley (R) voted for H.R. 333; only Earl Hilliard (D) voted against the House bill.

Study history and you may agree with me that Abe Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt, patron saints of the Republican Party, would have vetoed those bills in a second.

Fellow citizens of the "have-nots" class, before you vote this November, demand that your chosen candidates, your potential employees, take a solemn oath to follow in the footsteps of Lincoln, Roosevelt and other champions of "We the People" and protect your interests, not the wealth of Bush's "the haves and the have-mores."

Joe Boyett
3807 Rouse Ridge Road
Montgomery

LOOK BACK

Top of page