Dear Editor,
            I just read the front page headline in the "Arts and Leisure" section of the Sunday, March 14 issue of The New York Times. I find it somewhat unintelligent, if not offensive. It is an article talking about the new building to be built on "Ground Zero", where the World Trade Center once stood. The headline reads "High Anxiety: Designing the Safest Building in History For the Scariest Address on Earth."
            That's stretching the truth a bit, don't you think? "Scariest Address on Earth"? It's downright trash; it has no true meaning. You might say "Scariest Address in New York", or even "in the United States", but "on Earth"?
            I don't think we realize that Americans enjoy and have enjoyed a safety and stability that most people on this globe have never experienced. I'd much rather hunker down at ground zero than be anywhere in Iraq right now, especially after our invasion. Let's not fool ourselves. 9/11, though very tragic, was nothing compared to having your home bombed day in and day out, or growing up with the threat of major social up-heaval every day of your life. Let's be intelligent, shall we? Let's not be so self indulgent. What has America become, that our papers would rather print garbage than challenge anyone to think a little; that we should be so spoiled as to think that 9/11 was anything compared to being bombed for months, years, on end?
James Krueger
Pine Hill, NY

Dear Editor,
            I enjoyed reading about James Heil's experience in Haiti as a young photojournalist. Technology has dramatically changed the way war images are produced and distributed. However, while the equipment may have changed, the photographer's personal interpretation of how he sees the situation remains the same. I hope to see his photo credit in many publications in the future.
            (I also moonlight as a bear watcher in Woodland Valley!)
Nancy Glowinski
Head of Pictures Business Development - Americas
Reuters America Inc.
New York, NY

Dear Editor,
            Marriage has always been between a man and a woman. It has been a tradition for thousands of years. It is novel to see it any other way. Looking back at history many traditions have gone by the wayside. In truth, we are all the better for it:
            1. Slavery was a tradition for hundreds of years. It took a civil war to end it.
            2. Traditionally only men had the right to vote. The Suffrage movement ended this injustice.
            3. Segregation was a way of life, especially in the south. It was not until 1954 that the Supreme Court ruled that separate is not equal.
            4. In Victorian times men adjoined to another room after dinner to discuss politics. Women were not considered to know about such things. Today we have women in both houses of congress. This year a black woman competed for the nomination of presidential candidate for the Democratic Party.
            5. It has been a tradition since George Washington that only a protestant was elected president. President Kennedy ended that tradition.
            6. It was illegal for a white person to marry a black or oriental person in most states. It was not until 2000 that Alabama became the last state to do away with that law.
            Traditions don't die easy but all persons should be allowed to love and have that love recognized and receive the benefits that marriage brings.
Anthony Pavone
Saugerties, NY

Dear Editor,
            In the 20th century astronomical science has revealed to us the immensity of the universe. But it is not just that the Creation is incredibly large; it is also of immense inspiration and beauty. We too easily ignore the reality of Earth's nourishment that goes well beyond food, air, and water. The entire fullness of our lives depends on the wellbeing of Nature. If we lived on the barren moon our lives would be equally barren - devoid of wonder and delight. We seem in these days to be moving towards transforming our beloved Earth into a moon.
            The decision about the Bellearye Resort project should not be made by giving profits, which last a short lifetime, more weight than an environment abounding with life in an infinite array of forms that has enthralled and sustained many in the past and will continue to bless future generations. Let us not forget that in the beginning, God created the world and called it "good." (Genesis 1:31)
            We who were made in God's image should not look upon the Creation and call it "big bucks" and use it as enrichment for the few at the expense of the many.
Reverend Finley Schaef
Saugerties, NY

Dear Editor,
            Unitarian Universalism began in the 1500s. Unitarian Universalism has a long-standing and deeply held commitment to support full equality for bisexual, gay, lesbian and transgender people, going back 33 years, to 1970. In 1996 we called for legalization of same-sex marriage. The Unitarian Universalist Association has joined the Religious Coalition for the Freedom to Marry in an effort to oppose any constitutional amendment that would ban same gender marriage. Laws and constitutional amendments aimed at discriminating against anyone and limiting their rights as human beings are affronts to all. Such laws have been used to separate and divide us and surely separation and division are not in the best interests of justice, understanding and peace. Unitarian Universalism, grounded in faith, as we understand it, supports the full humanity of all people, including everyone's ability to love and everyone's value in the world.
            Yes, the Bible does have injunctions against homosexuality but to invoke such passages with no reference to the context and history in which they appear is, in my opinion, to do disservice to the Bible whose overriding message is to do justice, to love mercy and to walk humbly with one's God, loving both God and one's neighbor. To hold up some Biblical injunctions while ignoring so many others appears as if the Bible was being used to further a human, rather than a divine, agenda. How does same-gender marriage threaten marriage between persons of different genders?
            In any case, we live in a society that separates church and state and our constitution does not permit the religious convictions of some to be given a legal status that would apply to society as a whole. Religious and secular views about same gender marriage vary widely.
            I believe that we are part of an inter-dependent creation that has brought forth a wonderful diversity, including diversity in sexual and affectional orientation. The future of our planet is best served by our courageous acts of love, kindness and compassion, especially when the ethical and spiritual examples provided by our faith differ.
The Reverend Dr. Linda Anderson
Unitarian Universalist
Congregation of the Catskills
Kingston, NY

Dear Editor,
            I wanted to see how quickly I could come up with three additions to Bush's long legacy of legendary lies. It took a few minutes.
            The first one is simply disgusting. Soon after September 11, Bush told reporters that he had "no ambition whatsoever to use this as a political issue." But the campaign ads he revealed recently use imagery of Ground Zero and of a fire fighter's funeral to argue for his reelection.
            The second is scary - a reminder that fascism is lurking in dark corners. In the past the Bush administration insisted on the sanctity of medical records. Bush stated in 2001 that he would protect "the right of every American to have confidence that his or her personal medical records will remain private." Now this administration is trying to force hospitals and clinics to turn over many abortion records. In San Francisco a federal district judge, Phyllis J. Hamilton, said forcing the providers to turn over the records would undermine the privacy rights of patients and could dissuade some from seeking treatment. "There is no question that the patient is entitled to privacy and protection," Judge Hamilton said. "Women are entitled to not have the government looking at their records."
            The third is frightening as it is an attack on our ailing environment. In a campaign promise, Bush supported regulating emissions of carbon dioxide, the gas most responsible for climate change. Promise broken to smithereens! Under Bush and Cheney, industry has clearly won their battle against environmental protection when it comes to clean air policy.
            These are only three quickies. Just think how many more there are.
Peter Koch
Woodstock, NY

Dear Editor,
            Hmmm, someone please correct me if I'm wrong with the following analysis: If I am the President of the United States and lie to a Grand Jury about having sex in the White House or if I am a Mayor of New Paltz or San Francisco or many of the other towns in the country, I can break the law and do what I want in violation of my oath and the laws of my community and not be charged with a crime ?
            If Martha Stewart or you or I lie to a federal investigator we can be charged with a crime and prosecuted! How come all the politicians and Government employees can lie to the public and not be charged with a crime or prosecuted? Am I correct in assuming that there are two sets of laws on the books, one for the general public and one for politicians and government officials? Can someone please tell me where I may view this second set of laws? Has the oath of office been amended to state, "I swear to uphold and execute the laws of my state except in the interest of diversity or if I don't like them then I may do what I want" I certainly would welcome other viewpoints on this; politicians need not offer theirs!
Dominick LoGiudice
Big Indian, NY

Dear Editor,
            We reject the myth of "pesticide-free," "environmentally-friendly" or "sensitive" golf courses.The adoption of the U.S. Golf Association specifications as the international standard for golf course construction and maintenance inherently requires a total package of exotic grass, toxic chemical fertilizers and pesticides, high water consumption, turf equipment, etc.
THE GLOBAL ANTI-GOLF
MOVEMENT MANIFESTO
            1. Golf courses and golf tourism are part of a "development" package which includes infrastructure (multi-purpose dams, airports, ports, roads, bridges), mass tourism, expensive housing, entertainment facilities, export-oriented agriculture (flowers, exotic fruits and vegetables), and industrial parks/zones.
            2. At the heart of the golf industry is a multi-billion-dollar industry involving transnational corporations, including agribusiness, construction firms, consultancies, golf equipment manufacturers, airlines, hotel chains, real estate companies, advertising and public relations firms as well as financial institutions.
            The transformation of golf memberships into a saleable commodity has resulted in widespread speculation and dubious practices. In many countries golf course/resort development (including time- sharing resorts) is in reality often a hit-and-run business. The speculative nature of memberships and associated real property transactions also makes the industry very high risk.
            In the wake of the current slowdown in the Japanese economy, many golf course and resort companies have become bankrupt, with investors and banks bearing the losses.
            The bulk of the foreign exchange earned from golf courses and golf tourism does not stay in the local economy. The benefits which do remain are reaped by a few business people and their patrons.
            3. The green golf package can be compared to the Green Revolution package in agriculture.
            Golf courses are in fact another form of monoculture, where exotic soil and grass, chemical fertilizers, pesticides, fungicides and weedicides, as well as machinery, are all imported to substitute for natural ecosystems.
            These landscaped foreign systems create stress on local water supplies and soil, at the same time being highly vulnerable to disease and pest attacks. Just as the Green Revolution is collapsing in country after country, the Golf Green is also fraught with ecological problems.
            The environmental impacts include water depletion and toxic contamination of the soil, underground water, surface water and the air. This in turn leads to health problems for local communities, populations downstream and even golfers, caddies and chemical sprayers in golf courses.
            The construction of golf courses in scenic natural sites, such as forest areas and coral islands, also results in the destruction of biodiversity.
            4. In addition to environmental damage, golf course and resort development often creates skewed land use, displacing local communities or depriving them of water and other resources. In a number of countries, the victims of such projects are subject to police or military intimidation when they protest against the destruction caused by golf courses.
            5. The golf industry aggressively promotes an elitist and exclusive resort lifestyle and notion of leisure.
            This globalization of lifestyle is also a form of exploitation, the victims being the wealthy urban population who are encouraged to spend their surplus dreams and illusions, at the expense of the environment and other members of society.
            Golf course and golf tourism development violate human rights in every sense of the word.
            6. In the face of growing criticism of the adverse environmental impacts of golf courses, the industry is promoting the notion of "pesticide-free," "environmentally-friendly" or "sensitive" golf courses. No such course exists to date, and the creation and maintenance of the "perfect green" comprising exotic grass inevitably requires intensive use of chemicals.
            7. Similarly, the increasingly touted Integrated Pest Management (IPM) system as an alternative to the use of pesticides on golf courses is not a solution. In practical terms, application of pest control through IPM is impossible to achieve and should be viewed as nothing more than a hollow attempt to make golf courses appear less toxic than they are.
            The danger is that IPM will be taken seriously by officials involved in the approval of golf courses. Under scrutiny, the theory of IPM can be easily discredited.
            It should also be stressed that considerable amounts of chemicals are used in the preparation of a golf course and in fertilizing the grass.
            These are toxic, too, and thus make golf courses a threat to the environment and health.
GLOBAL ANTIGOLF
MOVEMENT CLAIM:
            1. An immediate moratorium on all golf course development.
            2. An open and public environmental and social review/audit of existing golf courses.
            3. Existing golf courses should be converted to public parks, and where they lie in forest areas, wetlands and islands, there should be rehabilitation and regeneration of the land to its natural state.
            4. Investigations into illegalities in the golf industry, including illegal occupation of public lands and encroachment into protected forests, diversion of water, violation and evasion of corporate regulations and corruption. We call on governments to prosecute the violators.
            5. Laws should be passed to prohibit the advertising and promotion of golf courses and golf tourism.
            6. Overseas development assistance , from countries including Japan Australia and European public founds should not be used for the promotion of golf courses and golf tourism or the construction of infrastructure related to such development.
            - We appeal to golfers to be fully informed and aware of the adverse environmental, health and social impacts of golf tourism.
            - We supported the decision of the International Olympic Committee (IOC) to reject the inclusion of golf as an Olympic sport in the 1996 Atlanta Games.
We call on the IOC not to change this decision, for it would amount to the legitimization and international recognition of a sport which destroys the environment, creates social disruptions and which is financially unsound.
            - We reject the myth of "pesticide-free," "environmentally-friendly" or "sensitive" golf courses.
            The adoption of the U.S. Golf Association specifications as the international standard for golf course construction and maintenance inherently requires a total package of exotic grass, toxic chemical fertilizers and pesticides, high water consumption, turf equipment, etc.
            This is by its very nature destructive of the environment and the entire ecosystem. Toxic chemicals used at the golf course construction stage, for example, include hydrogen peroxide to harden soil before turfing.
            - Even if it were technically and economically feasible, determined by a full cost-benefit analysis, to construct and maintain pesticide-free golf courses, the industry is still unacceptable due to the wide range of social problems and other environmental impacts (e.g. water depletion, inappropriate land use) that are generated.
            - We also reject the myth of Integrated Pest Management because it is experimental, the conditions for its application cannot be achieved and it still relies on toxic chemicals.
            THE GLOBAL ANTI-GOLF MOVEMENT was launched on World No-Golf Day (April 29, 1993) (by mr. Gen Morita ), following a three-day conference on Golf Course and Resort Development in the Asia-Pacific Region in Panang, Malaysia from April 26 to 28, 1993.
            The three sponsoring organizations are the Japan-based Global Network for Anti-Golf Course Action (GNAGA), the Thailand-based Asian Tourism Network (ANTENNA) and the Malaysia-based Asia-Pacific People and Environmental Network (APPEN). Twenty delegates from Hawaii, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, the Philippines and Thailand were also present.
            In 2000 the Global Antigolf Movement is particulary present in Europe (Italy, Spain) and in the Usa , but has supporter also in Australia, Asia and Latin-American.
Global Antigolf Movement