|
Tuesday, 12 September 2006 18:53 |
Islamic terrorists, America
not morally comparable
In Professor Bill Walzës attempt (Aug. 16 Daily Planet) to blame the West for the current conflict he goes back only to the end of WWI, since when, he says, "the West has dealt arrogantly and selfishly with the Middle East." To quote him again: "What absolute and tragic nonsense."
In the centuries before then, the Ottoman Empire dealt quite "arrogantly and selfishly" with the Balkans in their attempt to impose Islam on Christian Europe. In the 15th century Islam "arrogantly and selfishly" invaded Spain before the arrogant and selfish Christians evicted them. In the eighth through eleventh centuries Muslims abandoned their initial tolerance and became quite arrogant and selfish as they destroyed or suppressed the numerous Jewish and Christian cultures and societies throughout the Middle East. The professor should learn history before attempting to give lessons.
His
attempt at moral equivalence between Islamic terrorists, who purposely
blow up Muslim markets and wedding parties, and we who bomb them,
causing casualties among the civilians who shelter them, is pathetic.
The black stuff that lay for centuries under the sands of the Middle
East was given value only by Western culture. Rather than "exploit" it,
we pay sometimes-extortionate prices for its use.
JERRY ORR, Black Mountain
Editorial on development
termed myopic, biased
I was so
surprised at the recent unsigned opinion piece, "Development: Time to
get a life" dated Aug. 30 on www.ashevilledailyplanet.com that I wrote
the editor of the paper to find out who it was written by.
The lack of
credibility associated with a published piece listing no author fits
nicely with the lack of accurate information and disregard for
citizensë expectations of a functional municipal government that
follows the rules they enact.
The article
asked if anyone but a single resident on Maxwell street (whose property
and quality of life have been significantly impaired by Green Life
Groceryës illegal loading dock) even cared about the development
problems our city is struggling with.
The article suggests that any cityës development process can be summed up by "you canët always get what you want."
The editors,
however, fail to mention that the three developments in question are
illegal, violating the cityës Unified Development Ordinance. There is
no confusion about this whatsoever, regardless of multiple ploys citing
complex ordinances and conflicting rules ÇƒÓ even misinterpretations by
city lawyer Bob Oast and head of planning and zoning Scott Shuford;
misinterpretations that might otherwise have gone unnoticed were it not
for the hard work and truth-seeking efforts of the Coalition of
Asheville Neighborhoods.
Professional
planners, everyday citizens and now an unbiased third-party review have
all determined that Greenlife, Prudential and Staples are all operating
outside the law. These are structures which should have never been
permitted in the first place, but made it through Scott Shufordës
planning and zoning department without any trouble, which has become
the Asheville developerës expectation ... business as usual.
I, for one,
simply canët believe the anonymous opinion published by the Daily
Planet truly represents the "institutional views of the paper." If it
did, the editors would be openly supporting a condition of lawlessness
and lack of accountability within city government.
A cityës
development process may result in some parties not getting what they
want, but I would suggest that we can always achieve, at least, a legal
outcome.
Who should be
concerned about the rules governing development in Asheville and their
enforcement? Everyone. Every citizen, every tourist and especially
those who have the potential ability to shape the opinion of everyday
citizens ÇƒÓ the editors of the media.
Biased and
myopic statements belittling factual information that highlights the
grave state of affairs in the regulation and enforcement of Ashevilleës
development process are unacceptable for any paper when published as
anything other than a personal opinion piece.
We expect more
from the "editorial staff" of this paper and hope that in the future,
youëll do a better job of representing the facts and true public
opinion, or at the very least ensuring that your opinion pieces lists
the author so that we may more accurately distinguish personal opinion
from true "institutional views."
Peter Brezny, Asheville
Letter writer sees value
in fighting for rule of law
Iëm writing in response to your editorial: "Development: Time to get a life."
Frankly, Iëm
shocked that you would publish such an insulting and one-sided
editorial. Apparently you believe that fighting for the rule of law is
not a worthwhile pastime?
This city
banned billboards in 1997. Staples, in direct violation of our laws,
installed four billboard-sized signs on their building.
You say we
should ignore this? Doing so would render our sign size laws
unenforceable, as Professor Owens indicated, as happened in a precedent
in Boone and which fact your editorial failed to mention.
In a recent
survey, the Staple building was overwhelmingly picked as the example of
what development should not look like. That look is a direct result of
breaking our development laws.
We are not
talking about a six-inch height violation, here, as you belittle the
activists for doing; the signs are approximately five times the legal
size limit.
Benjamin Gillum, Asheville
Illegal immigrants blamed
for hurting working poor
One problem with
the City Councilës lack of enthusiasm is that the discussion focused
only on Chief Hoganës comments vis-?Ü-vis "major" criminal activities.
Completely ignored were two other aspects:
(1) That
illegals were already committing criminal acts by definition of their
status and since when did our law enforcement agencies get to "pick and
choose" which laws theyëd uphold?
(2) The fact
that many US citizens who might want jobs, e.g., construction work, are
replaced by illegal workers who will accept much lower wages. Where is
our "progressive" councilës concern for low-income U.S. citizens now? I
thought "progressives" (liberals) were "all for" the "working man!" How
can they scream for a "working wage" and then accept laborers who
undercut our own citizens? That is blatant hypocrisy. But isnët that
what liberals do routinely? Itës in their blood!
WALTER M. PLAUE, Asheville
|
