Letters to the Editor
October 2001
World Trade Center tragedy
As we write, Manhattan feels under siege, with all bridges, tunnels and
subways closed, and tens of thousands of people walking slowly north from Lower Manhattan.
As we sit in our offices here at War Resisters League, our most immediate thoughts are of
the hundreds if not thousands of New Yorkers who have lost their lives in the collapse of
the World Trade Center. The day is clear, the sky is blue, but vast clouds billow over the
ruins where so many have died, including a great many rescue workers who were there when
the final collapse occurred.
Of course we know that our friends and co-workers in Washington, D.C.,
have similar thoughts about the ordinary people who have been trapped in the parts of the
Pentagon which were also struck by a jet. And we think of the innocent passengers on the
hijacked jets who were carried to their doom on this day.
We do not know at this time from what source the attack came. We do
know that Yasser Arafat has condemned the bombing. We hesitate to make an extended
analysis until more information is available but some things are clear. For the Bush
Administration to talk of spending hundreds of billions on Star Wars is clearly the sham
it was from the beginning, when terrorism can so easily strike through more routine means.
We urge Congress and George Bush that whatever response or policy the
United States develops it will be clear that this nation will no longer target civilians,
or accept any policy by any nation which targets civilians. This would mean an end to the
sanctions against Iraq, which have caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of
civilians. It would mean not only a condemnation of terrorism by Palestinians but also the
policy of assassination against the Palestinian leadership by Israel, and the ruthless
repression of the Palestinian population and the continuing occupation by Israel of the
West Bank and Gaza.
The policies of militarism pursued by the United States have resulted
in millions of deaths, from the historic tragedy of the Indochina war, through the funding
of death squads in Central America and Colombia, to the sanctions and air strikes against
Iraq. This nation is the largest supplier of "conventional weapons" in the world
and those weapons fuel the starkest kind of terrorism from Indonesia to Africa. The early
policy support for armed resistance in Afghanistan resulted in the victory of the Taliban
and the creation of Osama bin Laden.
Other nations have also engaged in these policies. We have, in years
past, condemned the actions of the Russian government in areas such as Chechnya, the
violence on both sides in the Middle East, and in the Balkans. But our nation must take
responsibility for its own actions. Up until now we have felt safe within our borders. To
wake on a clear day to find our largest city under siege reminds us that in a violent
world, none are safe.
Let us seek an end of the militarism that has characterized this nation
for decades. Let us seek a world in which security is gained through disarmament,
international cooperation, and social justice, not through escalation and retaliation. We
condemn without reservation attacks such as those which occurred today, which strike at
thousands of civilians. May these profound tragedies remind us of the impact U.S. policies
have had on other civilians in other lands. We also condemn reflexive hostility against
people of Arab descent living in this country and urge that Americans recall the part of
our heritage that opposes bigotry in all forms.
We are one world. We shall live in a state of fear and terror or we
shall move toward a future in which we seek peaceful alternatives to violence, and a more
just distribution of the world's resources. As we mourn the many lives lost, our hearts
call out for reconciliation, not revenge.
Anne Marie Staas Niedorf
War Resisters League
This is not an official statement of the War Resisters League but was
drafted immediately after the tragic events occurred. Signed and issued by members of the
staff and Executive Committee of War Resisters League at the national office, Sept. 11,
2001.
Klan coverage
I want to thank you for the latest issue. In particular, I was very
impressed by the article on the KKK rally by the 15-year-old girl. She is very mature in
her judgment and insights. I am having my teenagers read it as an example of looking
beyond the slogans to analyze the dynamics of what is going on.
I don't know how you found out about this article, but it was a
wonderful piece.
Your own news bias comes through so colorfully in your paper. All news
reporting includes some kind of bias and you are more upfront about yours than most. Even
though I don't always agree with yours, I appreicate your frankness.
I'm a 52-year-old white Catholic guy who has lived on 31st and Park for
20 years, deliberately raising my seven kids in the city and loving it.
Colin LaVergne
Housing and poverty
I am writing in response to the article “Do social services
concentrate poverty?” As a homeowner in the Phillips neighborhood and someone who
works in the Powderhorn neighborhood, I am no stranger to the issue. One question that
never came up in the article is the chicken and the egg discussion.
Which came first, the poor or the agency? It seems to me that agencies
set up shop where their target population will be. The folks in Ventura Village will most
likely have this problem just because of the nature of the inner city—the poor rely
on a good transportation system, sidewalks to walk on, close proximity to downtown and
other pedestrian amenities the suburbs, or even the outer regions of the city, don't
possess.
If I were poor, no amount of enticement could get me out to the
suburbs, like the recent efforts the government is making to “decentralize
poverty,” where I would have to rely on a car, which most poor people cannot afford.
Agencies have to be in places that are accessible to the poor.
I also agree with McCormick in that the PPL housing that will be built
in the neighborhood will not decrease the property values. Their offices on the 2500 block
of Chicago are always well maintained and are the most attractive structures on the block.
Their housing, which is scattered throughout the Southside neighborhoods is also well
maintained. I'd have them for my neighbor any day.
Donna Pususta Neste
Minneapolis
Landlord and Tenant’s Rights
I have just finished reading your September issue and I would like to
tell you, I am shocked and cannot believe what I read. I have worked for Meyer and Meyer
Investments LLC, run by Mr. Steve Meyer, since Oct. 1, 1990, as a resident manager. Your
article on the Clinton Building, located at 2535 Clinton Ave. S., is unfair and not true.
When this building was taken over by Meyer and Meyer, it was very rundown and full of drug
dealers and crime was very high. It is the job of the resident managers and caretakers to
see that the residents’ needs are met. The residents are to fill out work request
forms and give them to the manager, who then in turn gives them to the maintenance staff
to do. The owner has a three man maintenance team that travels between his buildings. The
past manager of Clinton Apartments was let go because she was not doing her work, and let
the building fall apart. Therefore, the residents suffered. As soon as Meyer and Meyer
found out what was not getting done, they took steps to fix the problem. One of the
maintenance men also had to be replaced.
Repeated damages and the cost of repairs, are the reason why rents must
go up. Meyer and Meyer try very hard to keep the rent levels lower than what most other
landlords in the same areas charge in the city.
I feel that it was unfair not to have asked Mr. Steve Meyer to the
meeting held by ACORN. Every resident is given the name and phone number of the owner when
they move in and are told to call. If the staff does not know there is a problem, it
cannot be fixed. Also, when the residents will not follow the rules or policies of the
building where they live, it causes everyone to get upset and the building as a whole will
suffer.
Please weigh the owners’ and the landlords’ side as well when
printing your articles.
Judy Mae Rye
I recently became aware of some pretty slanderous articles you have
printed about me and my company's property at 2535 Clinton Ave. S.
I am not sure how I will handle the unfounded accusations you have
made, but for now and to set the record straight I will let you know that you are mistaken
by targeting me and my property for numerous reasons.
1. I have three full-time maintenance people for just 240 units and my
maintenance expense is 19 to 20 percent compared with industry averages of 8 to 10
percent.
2.It is our policy to properly maintain our property because it keeps
our residents happy.
3. I am known for turning problem properties around, bringing some back
from condemnation
4. You interviewed a very small minority of 220+ residents (52 units)
at this building and those were people we have had problems with in the past. A large
majority of our residents are very content.
I would like to know why no one from your organization contacted me by
phone or mail. I am very accessible so there is no reason why I wasn't informed of your
meeting or its purpose until two hours prior.
Are you aware that I have two very disgruntled ex-employees of this
building that maintain relationships with the three people you interviewed in your
article?
Also don't you think it would be more constructive if you would have
met with myself and my staff to discuss my residents concerns? I admit there are concerns
but I can assure you that any deficiencies in maintenance and repairs are problems left
over from managers who I let go in June. We are taking steps to catch up on the
maintenance that was ignored by previous management for up to two years.
Also in a building more than 30 years old there will always be needed
maintenance and not all residents will be totally satisfied, but we do well in keeping the
majority happy and if those people in your article are so unhappy, why have they lived in
this building this long? Is it because my rents are 10 to 15 percent lower than my
competition? What is that worth over a long period of time?
Steve Meyer
Cycle of Violence as Myth
September's issue gave voice to plenty of people from the left —
the Communist Party USA, Women Against Military Madness, staff and Executive Committee
members from the War Resisters League, and a seriously misguided socialist individual.
Surprisingly, the Communist Party is the only one that didn't place all the blame on
Judeo-Christian capitalists and American militarism.
Allow me to present a different perspective.
The "cycle of violence" is a myth. At some point, there was a
first person to commit an act of malicious violence. Each of us makes the choice
throughout our lives whether or not to violently give in to malice. Those who advocate
"breaking the cycle" implicitly admit that the "cycle" is nothing more
than the result of a series of choices freely made. In other words, there's no excuse for
such acts.
The myth of a "cycle of violence" was invented by
well-meaning individuals who suffer from the misguided notion that the natural state of
life is a socialist utopia. In the mind of these people, the evil capitalist imperialists
drive the "cycle of violence," keeping all the worlds plants and animals from
living happily ever after in perfect harmony. The truth is that life naturally expands to
use available resources, creating competition, which forces life to develop the robustness
to survive environmental change.
Does this mean we should forcefully shape the world to meet our
desires? No. We have the capacity to rise above instinct, improve social cooperation, and
plan for future generations. We should use this ability. However, we should learn from
history and base our plans and actions on reality, not on utopian fantasy.
Reality is that some people choose to be antisocial. As much as we
desire peace and safety, these people will not let us have it. We can be prepared to use
force, when necessary, to protect ourselves and those who can't protect themselves; or we
can be dead or enslaved.
Some pacifists speak of turning the other cheek. Yes, that is the New
Testament admonishment. But it wasn't my cheek that was struck. It wasn't your cheek,
either. If someone strikes your daughter, are you going to turn her face to be struck
again? I hope not. That's what the arguments of some of these peaceniks amount to, though.
I'm not aware of any Biblical teachings that even suggest you should allow the innocent
and defenseless to suffer while you stand by, holding your candle and singing “Give
Peace A Chance.”
I agree the United States should act carefully and deliberately to
bring the responsible parties to justice while minimizing danger to others. We must also
weigh the importance of preventing further attacks. Do we risk “escalation”? The
British and French tried to appease Hitler, rather than risk escalation. The result was
escalation. On September 11, passengers on three airliners were afraid to risk escalation,
until it was too late. Passengers on a fourth chose to “escalate.” They are all
equally dead, but those who risked escalation saved hundreds or thousands of others.
We can be better, individually and as a country. However, peace
protests in Minneapolis and Washington are not going to stop tyranny in other parts of the
world. I have some suggestions for those of you people who are sincere about stopping
anger and hatred with your love and warm fuzzies. Take your buses to Afghanistan and
Baghdad. Hold hands with Usama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein; turn your other cheeks to
their bullets, bombs, gas, and germs; and give your homes to the world's poor and
oppressed.
You women can allow the Taliban to perform female circumcision on you
and keep you locked away barefoot and pregnant. You men who can grow beards long enough,
fast enough, can join in enslaving the women, striving for your reward of virgins in the
hereafter.
Is that too high of a price? Is it more comfortable for you to stay
here in relative comfort and safety, telling the Jews to turn the other cheek as they're
wiped off the face of the earth? Is it easier to blame capitalism, while you enjoy the
security and luxury it has created?
The actions the United States must take in coming months are not driven
by a lust for revenge. They are driven by the need for survival. When we are successful,
we should take no satisfaction in the demise of those who planned and paid for the
attacks.
We shall resolutely do what we must, for our own survival and that of
the free world. We'll remember that people did bad things before we were here, they'll
continue to do bad things after we're gone. We will strive to act justly, recognizing that
some will not. We will not all gather in feel-good peacenik groups, pretending that
terrorists are only terrorists because of our oppression.
Kelly Bailey
Minneapolis
Housing and poverty
I am writing in response to the article “Do social services
concentrate poverty?” As a homeowner in the Phillips neighborhood and someone who
works in the Powderhorn neighborhood, I am no stranger to the issue. One question that
never came up in the article is the chicken and the egg discussion.
Which came first, the poor or the agency? It seems to me that agencies
set up shop where their target population will be. The folks in Ventura Village will most
likely have this problem just because of the nature of the inner city—the poor rely
on a good transportation system, sidewalks to walk on, close proximity to downtown and
other pedestrian amenities the suburbs, or even the outer regions of the city, don't
possess.
If I were poor, no amount of enticement could get me out to the
suburbs, like the recent efforts the government is making to “decentralize
poverty,” where I would have to rely on a car, which most poor people cannot afford.
Agencies have to be in places that are accessible to the poor.
I also agree with McCormick in that the PPL housing that will be built
in the neighborhood will not decrease the property values. Their offices on the 2500 block
of Chicago are always well maintained and are the most attractive structures on the block.
Their housing, which is scattered throughout the Southside neighborhoods is also well
maintained. I'd have them for my neighbor any day.
Donna Pususta Neste
Minneapolis
A Statement by the Communist Party USA
The terrorist attacks that killed and wounded thousands of innocent
people Sept. 11 are crimes that call for universal, worldwide condemnation. At this
writing the toll of dead and wounded is not known but is certain to be in the thousands,
the deadliest terrorist attack ever.
The Communist Party USA expresses outrage and profound sorrow at this
horrendous assault. We unequivocally condemn terrorism in all its forms.
We extend heartfelt sympathy to the families of the victims including
the thousands of office workers at both the World Trade Center and the Pentagon and those
who died in the four plane crashes. We mourn the rescue workers, hundreds of whom died in
the line of duty in the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings. Amid the carnage and
the horror, they displayed uncommon courage and self sacrifice as they struggled to save
the wounded and dying.
The people have responded generously, from ironworkers in their
hardhats, who raced to the scene to help search through the piles of rubble, to the
doctors and other medical workers who worked through the day and night, to the thousands
across the country who lined up to donate blood. We urge that everyone who can participate
in such efforts.
This tragedy has traumatized the nation. The people understandably
shocked and angered, and are coming together to mourn just as we united in sorrow after
the bombing of the Federal Building in Oklahoma City.
We must guard against a rush for military reprisals even before the
perpetrators are known and apprehended. There are calls for more military spending, more
intrusive surveillance both at home and abroad and curtailment of democratic rights.
Innocent Arab people both at home and abroad and immigrants across the United States face
a danger of racist and xenophobic attacks. We call on the Bush Administration, and all
state and local authorities to take measures to guarantee everyone's safety. The danger is
that the cycle of violence will spiral out of control with more death and destruction.
This moment calls for calm, not hysteria; initiatives for peace, not
war; democracy, not repression. This crisis must be answered by a united world community
of all nations and peoples. The goal must be multilateral political solutions that
eliminate the causes of violence and promote a just and equitable world, the best and only
true memorial to those who have died.
Erwin Marquit
Cycle of Violence as Myth
September's issue gave voice to plenty of people from the left —
the Communist Party USA, Women Against Military Madness, staff and executive committee
members from the War Resister’s League, and a seriously misguided socialist
individual. Surprisingly, the Communist Party is the only one that didn’t place all
the blame on Judeo-Christian capitalists and American militarism.
Allow me to present a different perspective.
The “cycle of violence” is a myth. At some point, there was a
first person to commit an act of malicious violence. Each of us makes the choice
throughout our lives whether or not to violently give in to malice. Those who advocate
“breaking the cycle” implicitly admit that the “cycle” is nothing more
than the result of a series of choices freely made. In other words, there’s no excuse
for such acts.
The myth of a “cycle of violence” was invented by
well-meaning individuals who suffer from the misguided notion that the natural state of
life is a socialist utopia. In the mind of these people, the evil capitalist imperialists
drive the “cycle of violence,” keeping all the worlds plants and animals from
living happily ever after in perfect harmony. The truth is that life naturally expands to
use available resources, creating competition, which forces life to develop the robustness
to survive environmental change.
Does this mean we should forcefully shape the world to meet our
desires? No. We have the capacity to rise above instinct, improve social cooperation, and
plan for future generations. We should use this ability. However, we should learn from
history and base our plans and actions on reality, not on utopian fantasy.
Reality is that some people choose to be antisocial. As much as we
desire peace and safety, these people will not let us have it. We can be prepared to use
force, when necessary, to protect ourselves and those who can’t protect themselves;
or we can be dead or enslaved.
Some pacifists speak of turning the other cheek. Yes, that is the New
Testament admonishment. But it wasn’t my cheek that was struck. It wasn’t your
cheek, either. If someone strikes your daughter, are you going to turn her face to be
struck again? I hope not. That’s what the arguments of some of these peaceniks amount
to, though. I’m not aware of any Biblical teachings that even suggest you should
allow the innocent and defenseless to suffer while you stand by, holding your candle and
singing “Give Peace A Chance.”
I agree the United States should act carefully and deliberately to
bring the responsible parties to justice while minimizing danger to others. We must also
weigh the importance of preventing further attacks. Do we risk “escalation”? The
British and French tried to appease Hitler, rather than risk escalation. The result was
escalation. On Sept. 11, passengers on three airliners were afraid to risk escalation,
until it was too late. Passengers on a fourth chose to “escalate.” They are all
equally dead, but those who risked escalation saved hundreds or thousands of others.
We can be better, individually and as a country. However, peace
protests in Minneapolis and Washington are not going to stop tyranny in other parts of the
world. I have some suggestions for those of you people who are sincere about stopping
anger and hatred with your love and warm fuzzies. Take your buses to Afghanistan and
Baghdad. Hold hands with Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein; turn your other cheeks to
their bullets, bombs, gas, and germs; and give your homes to the world’s poor and
oppressed.
You women can allow the Taliban to perform female circumcision on you
and keep you locked away barefoot and pregnant. You men who can grow beards long enough,
fast enough, can join in enslaving the women, striving for your reward of virgins in the
hereafter.
Is that too high of a price? Is it more comfortable for you to stay
here in relative comfort and safety, telling the Jews to turn the other cheek as
they’re wiped off the face of the earth? Is it easier to blame capitalism, while you
enjoy the security and luxury it has created?
The actions the United States must take in coming months are not driven
by a lust for revenge. They are driven by the need for survival. When we are successful,
we should take no satisfaction in the demise of those who planned and paid for the
attacks.
We shall resolutely do what we must, for our own survival and that of
the free world. We’ll remember that people did bad things before we were here,
they’ll continue to do bad things after we’re gone. We will strive to act
justly, recognizing that some will not. We will not all gather in feel-good peacenik
groups, pretending that terrorists are only terrorists because of our oppression.
Kelly Bailey
Minneapolis
Housing and poverty
I am writing in response to the article “Do social services
concentrate poverty?” As a homeowner in the Phillips neighborhood and someone who
works in the Powderhorn neighborhood, I am no stranger to the issue. One question that
never came up in the article is the chicken and the egg discussion.
Which came first, the poor or the agency? It seems to me that agencies
set up shop where their target population will be. The folks in Ventura Village will most
likely have this problem just because of the nature of the inner city—the poor rely
on a good transportation system, sidewalks to walk on, close proximity to downtown and
other pedestrian amenities the suburbs, or even the outer regions of the city, don’t
possess.
If I were poor, no amount of enticement could get me out to the
suburbs, like the recent efforts the government is making to “decentralize
poverty,” where I would have to rely on a car, which most poor people cannot afford.
Agencies have to be in places that are accessible to the poor.
I also agree with McCormick in that the PPL housing that will be built
in the neighborhood will not decrease the property values. Their offices on the 2500 block
of Chicago are always well maintained and are the most attractive structures on the block.
Their housing, which is scattered throughout the Southside neighborhoods is also well
maintained. I’d have them for my neighbor any day.
Donna Pususta Neste
Minneapolis
How to Treat a “friend”
President Bush said when he addressed the nation, “The United States of America is a
friend to the Afghan people.” Bombing and destroying is not how my parents taught me
to treat a friend. We must learn to work diplomatically rather than striking out for
revenge. The military operation against Afghanistan is called “Enduring
Freedom.” Going to war and killing beings of our own species will not result in a
free world. More likely it will create bitterness toward the United States. We must listen
to the words of M.K. Gandhi, “An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.”
Ellie Wiener, 14 years old
Minneapolis