Views in brief

May 7, 2013

Why some deaths matter more

IN RESPONSE to "Don't let them use fear to lock down our rights": The whole of the paramilitary establishment of the U.S. government from the FBI to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms were in full battle gear looking for the sadistic murderers of people who bear no responsibility for the ills of society after the Boston Marathon bombings.

But what was overlooked was the death of dozens of people in an unsafe rat trap of a chemical explosion in a factory in West, Texas. The government will do nothing to stop the terrorists that operate factories in the U.S. They allow them to cut costs on safety that kill thousands each year.

Every day, workers are forced to minimize safety in order to keep their jobs. The vast majority of American workers have no unions to defend their right to workplace safety. The U.S. Department of Labor and other federal agencies do not protect workers from being killed on the job.

The explosion in West, Texas was as big as the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing by Timothy McVeigh, yet there will be no war on this kind of terrorism. This is because the prevailing philosophy is profit before people.

American workers are more likely to be killed by their boss than a terrorist. Last year, approximately 5,000 workers were killed at work by unsafe conditions.
Kevin Harrington, New York City

Pushing back against the tide of hate

IN RESPONSE to "The tide of Islamophobia": I was born in Brooklyn, N.Y., in 1938. When it came time for me to first enter school in 1943, I was beaten up regularly by the other children because I was "German."

My parents had come to the U.S. with the shirts on their backs, not speaking the language, As a consequence, I had an accent and that was enough of a difference to single me out. It was ironic, because my parents had come in order to escape the Nazis.

Contrary to popular opinion, the first people in the concentration camps were not Jews, but Germans who were opposed to Hitler. My parents continued their active opposition here, participating in rallies against the Nazi-supporting German American Bund, etc.

My parents were able to end home-schooling me about 1948, when the American people came to hate the Russians and Communists more than the stinking Krauts. Most people focused on the "Ruskies" and "Commies," and I was able to go to public school in peace.

I see that unreasoning tendency to hatred is still strong in America, as it is in almost all countries that demonize an entire group of people. 'Twas ever thus, and ever will be, I fear.

My wife and I listened to the secretly recorded speech of Mitt Romney, ranting against the lower 47 percent as slackers and parasites--and I turned and said, "He sounds like a dressed-up version of Hitler, denouncing the existence of the mentally and physically disabled as 'useless mouths' in order to justify exterminating them!"

Only these days, it would be done financially, by denying health insurance, Medicare and Medicaid coverage to such patients. It would take longer to eliminate this class, as it's more subtle--but probably just as effective in the long run.

Recently, there were the horrific bombings in Boston and the complete overreaction and panic-mongering by the media, in order to boost their ratings. What are truth and reason, compared to higher ratings and increased salary? The same goes for the corporate state police and intelligence (sic) agencies, to whom the U.S. Constitution is a mere "scrap of paper" as it was to George W. Bush, that drunken frat boy who ran the country into the ditches of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Then, I see Obama, decrying the horror of the Boston bombings, and I agree with that denunciation--but why can he not see that he is doing the very same thing in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen and elsewhere by ordering drone strikes?

I was first an Infantry officer, then a civilian intelligence officer and finally a federal attorney in law enforcement. Three times, I swore an oath of office, to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution--an oath to serve the people, not the government in office. In my opinion, the president and executive branch, Congress and Supreme Court all violate that oath of office all the time.

I believe in the values and principles set out in the Declaration of Independence, which were used to formulate a practical form of government in the U.S. Constitution. Those were radical ideas then, and they still are now. It may take another revolution to restore them to practice.
Walter Ludewig, Tenants Harbor, Maine

Against the tide of Islamophobia

IN RESPONSE to "The lies they tell about Islam": It's so reassuring to see someone actually standing up for a peaceful religion that has been so distorted. As a Muslim American, I have been disheartened by all the distorted facts being portrayed in the media since the bombings in Boston.

My heart goes out to all the victims, and in no way do I support such terror. I love the U.S., and it is my homeland. However, my concern is that the media is not making a distinction between the extremists who carry out these violent acts and ordinary devout Muslims. The media was actually referring to the Marathon bombers as "devout Muslims," making all Muslims seem like terrorists.

They have also taken verses out of the Koran, out of context, manipulated their meaning to benefit certain interest groups. The verses in the Koran that discuss violence and the killing of others were sent down to the prophets and were to be employed only when they were being killed and oppressed.

It's sad to see how skewed and misinterpreted this religion has become. It's like the word "jihad," which means "inner struggle to do good." It's being misused by critics. The media is brainwashing the public and creating the social marginalization of Muslims.

It's not fair, because the majority of Muslims have to face discrimination and hate crimes in a country that was created on the basis of liberty and justice. Please stop the bias and misinformation. God bless us all!
Dee, from the Internet

Russia's role in Syria

IN RESPONSE to "Angling for way in Syria?": Eric Ruder's brilliant analysis doesn't mention the role Russia and China play in determining U.S. policy with Syria.

Would it be safe to say that, in order to directly intervene in Syria, the U.S. needs to neutralize Russia's dissent? The use of chemical weapon could be a very strong argument to force Russia to agree to U.S. military intervention, but Russia will not accept made-up intelligence such as Saddam Hussein's "weapons of mass destruction" during Bush's war on Iraq.
Francois Laforge, East Windsor, N.J.