Letters to the Editor

Council ‘myopic’ on Iraq

Editor: I am dismayed by the failure of our councilmembers to refuse to act on Ken Brown’s resolution on the war in Iraq.
Two of these members proclaimed that they did not have enough information to make a decision. I would suggest that they start looking closely at that position. Because I question, with that kind of attitude, how will they be able to make any decision while on city council if they fall back on, “I don’t have enough information.”
Their ability to be fiscally responsible for our city’s finances is seriously in doubt if they cannot see the correlation between the monies being expended in Washington for this war and what they could do to fix potholes and aid in flood repair. Just the increase in feeding these extra troops required for “ the surge” will run $1.8 million per day. How far would that go on a local basis?
August Sebastiani’s comment about being “five, part-time, small-town councilmembers” pretty much sums it up. Why would a “Republican,” as August identified himself, expend so much time and money to be a “ part-time, small-town, councilmember” without any power?
It is telling that the response and turnout was large. This is an issue that needs to taken up on the local level and our city council needs to educate themselves about what is going on in the world around them rather than be so myopic that they can’t even see as far as “The Springs.”
Gerard F. Orme

Council right,
Congress wrong on Iraq

Editor: Judging from the nature of recent letters to the editor regarding our city council’s decision not to legislate regarding the Iraq conflict, I am sure that most of the citizens of Sonoma are gratified that our Congress has passed a non-binding resolution criticizing the President’s newest strategy for the Iraq conflict.
I am also sure that most Sonoman’s views on this are well-intentioned.
However, since 9/11 and since I am retired, I have had time to study various books regarding Muslim religious terrorism and its threat to Western values and civilization and I can’t help thinking that the step Congress has taken will be understood by thousands, if not millions, of Islamic fundamentalists worldwide that Osama bin Laden was correct when he asserted that Americans do not have the will to fight and the first step towards the worldwide Caliphate is to get Americans out of Iraq.
I also can’t help thinking that in spite of the resolution’s verbiage “supporting our troops” that the resolution will have a crushing, demoralizing affect on those troops who in fact will see in it that a majority of Americans do not support the great risks they are taking to defend our freedoms.
I do support them and the war on religious terrorism and deeply regret the recent actions of our Congress.
Gregory B. Smith

Be more than
bureaucratic clerks, councilmembers

Editor: To have a democracy, there must be some means by which the will of the people can be expressed in and through their government. One such means is elections, but they work best if all political parties are given representation in accord with their share of the vote, rather than in the “winner take all” system that we currently have in the United States. And in recent years, we have also been faced with some wicked meddling in the election process.
However, thankfully we have a second great means of expressing the peoples’ will. If enough city governments take a position for or against something, then counties begin to follow suit; if enough counties act on an issue, state governments will also get into the act and so on up to the federal government. We are presently seeing this process at work in California in response to the threat of global warming.
Thus, our city councilmembers should keep in mind that they are one of the means by which the will of the people is made known; they are not simply elected to be efficient clerks in a local administrative apparatus. They are a vital part of the process of democratic self-government, which is a sacred trust.
Jim Syfers

Sun’s take on Iraq War wrong

Editor: In response to your editorial on Feb. 1, “War and Peace,” I would like to comment. Is the death and maiming of our local young men and women fighting in this unjust, illegal occupation not a local issue? Is the fact that both federal and state monies are being taken away from law enforcement, emergency services, and the education of our children not a local issue? Not to mention healthcare and how this affects our local hospital, again, is this not a local issue?
What I understand you to be saying is this: That one person, one group of people, one community cannot make a difference in the course of action taken by our government. You are informing the people that it is only the selfish, self-interest of the community that is important. This is not the premise of what our country was built upon. To stand back and do or say nothing only gives impetus to the already apathetic view of many Americans across the country.
This is not a time to be only self-indulgent, but a time to come together to make a stand for what is the basis of what this country was built upon.
Or could it be that, again, the potential loss of tourism, which equals a loss of money, to this already impotent, wealthy community, is the true underlying factor in your view?
What does it take for a wealthy community to come together and stand up for the common good of all Americans? Our high school history books tell us that this great nation of ours was built upon the premise of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That We The People have the moral responsibility to speak out against atrocities done in our name.
We all have a voice and must use it or lose it forever! We all equally share the responsibility of protecting the Constitution and the Bill of Rights!
Is it not time for each of us to question our own humanity? What will it take? Just because the horror is not directly in your face, affecting each of us individually on a daily basis is no excuse to look the other way or hide our head in the sand. If not now – when? If not us – who?
M. Mayer

Cohen, Sanders voted before on
federal matters

Editor: A critically important piece of information regarding the city council’s almost debating the Iraq resolution has not come to light.
I say “almost debated” because the ground rules for consideration of the resolution set by Mayor Stanley Cohen for the council and speakers from the public were to first discuss whether the agenda item (the resolution) was within the council’s jurisdictional responsibility so as to warrant taking a policy position, i.e., why should the council consider a national issue outside its usual purview. If the council, after hearing public testimony, voted to proceed – then the merits of the resolution would have been debated and voted on.
It was brought up during the first phase – why should the council discuss a national issue? – that twice in 2006 the council had considered and voted on two issues far outside its ordinary purview and for which it had no jurisdictional effect. These were: Resolution 45-2006, “…authorizing the mayor to encourage the U.S. Congress to endorse criteria for fair immigration reform laws,” and Resolution 24-2006, calling for a salmon restoration plan for the Klamath River Basin directed to the Secretary of Commerce.
It should be noted that Mayor Cohen voted for the immigration resolution, and councilwoman Joanne Sanders voted for the salmon restoration resolution, both of which plainly fall under federal jurisdiction. This is being brought up because both of these council members voted against considering the Iraq resolution because it’s a national issue that falls outside the City’s jurisdictional responsibility.
When this point was made during the public-comment portion of the meeting it was never addressed by either Cohen or Sanders. So the question still remains why those two council members chose to participate in prior national issues, but ducked out on what is conceivably the most important national issue before us?
Will Shonbrun