Hope McKewon Paid, Thanks for the Truth and Gruber Misses Point

September 30, 2003

Dear Editor,

I hope that McKeown and the Green Party paid you for the opinion piece, "No is Not Enough," that ran September 30, 2003.

It's a blatant political advertisement for the Green Party candidate for Governor.

Bill Bauer

September 30, 2003

Dear Editor,

Thank you Surf Santa Monica for Kevin McKeown's editorial. I was wondering when a paper would find the courage to publish "truth to power." The Mayor pro tem told it like it really is -- he let us know that this recall election can be a good thing. He gave us a real choice in Peter Camejo.

I am appalled and ashamed of the corporate-driven media which has covered this recall race. To allow the Republicans to gouge on the celebrity of Arnold Schwarzenegger at the expense of Californians is ludicrous. It is obvious who owns the media but it is also telling that once this recall election is over, the media will not take responsibility for shoving a Republican clown down our throats.

Of course the Democrats, unorganized, unfocused, and without articulate, passionate spokespersons, are just as bad. The Democrats should have "fessed" up to the incompetence and total corruption of Gray Davis. They should have come clean, admitted Davis' faults, agreed that he must go, and unite behind a viable replacement. Instead they chose to support Davis who is a real setback for the 5th largest economy in the World.

Enter Peter Camejo. The Democrats would do well to admit that Peter Camejo would be a far better governor than any of the replacement candidates. The media would right a huge wrong by doing the same.

Your paper is only one of two (the Eureka Times was the other) who had the fortitude to publish Camejo's tax rate chart which showed the poor playing the highest tax rate. Thank you for publishing the chart, thank you for publishing McKeown's editorial, thank you for publishing the truth. For without truth, democracy dies!

Donna J. Warren
Grassroots Activist
Hawthorne, CA

Sept. 30, 2003

Dear Editor,

I applaud Frank Gruber's attempt to shed light upon the recent debate on the federal government's demand that public school districts make available student information in return for Uncle Sam's monetary contributions to education (at last reckoning -- 14 cents for every 40 cents promised). And although Frank does a fine job on the facts, I think he misses the point... which is philosophical. ("WHAT I SAY: Errors Typographical and Otherwise," Sept. 29, 2003)

In the middle of his argument, Frank wonders if the military doesn't offer a better future to our children than do MacDonald's or WalMart. I wouldn't imagine that there are many who would argue that the golden arches can match the golden flashes as an avenue to higher learning. That's not it. Nor is it the inherit danger in military service. My son might just as easily be killed tending a till at WalMart's during a holdup as serving his country. Or by crossing the street. Death is an everyday risk associated with life.

The problem with the comparison is that neither MacDonald's or WalMart is likely to teach either of my sons how to kill. Or that it is all right to slaughter your fellow men (and women & children) given the correct circumstances.

By my count, 85 years have passed since the War to End All Wars ended. I cannot count how many wars have been conducted in the interim. I doubt Frank for all his skill at research could even come close. No person could hope (or want) count the number of men, women and children who have perished in the pursuit of peace by other means -- but is it certainly in the hundreds of millions.

The point (philosophically speaking) is that war has failed. It has failed to keep the peace. It has failed to save any lives. It has failed to make the world safe for anyone or anything.

During the course of the Cold War, we and the Soviets threatened to incinerate the entire planet to preserve our very different ways of live. By what right? We had the right to wipe out the life of every man, woman and child on the planet because we were defending a superior form of government? By what form of reason could that possibly be true? Merely the fact that we lucked out (so far)?

No Frank, I object to anyone or any group that would teach our children to kill each other while comforting them with the opinion that it was necessary. It's not necessary. It's lazy. If we (mankind) spent the trillions on peace that we spend on weapons, what a paradise our planet might be.

Of course you can quote history to say killing has always been a part of our existence, and you'd be right. The question is, do you want your children to live in your past, or their future?