|
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,
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,
A number of people in the Mid-Hudson region have criticized New
Paltz Mayor Jason West's decision to marry same-sex couples on
the basis of what they insist is the "inherent word of God"
as recorded in the Bible, wherein homosexuality is alleged to
be an "abomination" (Leviticus 18:22 ).
It would be interesting to find out if these critics likewise
stand behind the following biblical injunctions relating to marriage:
For example, do they believe marriage consists of a union between
one man
and one or more women, as it would appear in Gen 29:17-28; II
Sam 3:2-5? Do they maintain marriage shall not impede a man's
right to take concubines, in addition to his wife or wives (II
Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron 11:21)? Do they advocate that
a marriage is valid only if the wife is a virgin, and that she
may be put to death if she is not (Deut 22:13-21)?
In addition the Bible says marriage of a believer and a non-believer
shall be forbidden (Gen 24:3; Num 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Neh 10:30).
Since the good book also holds that marriage is for life (Deut
22:19; Mark 10:9), do these true believers advocate that divorce
be banned in the United States?
It would also be informative to know under what conditions these
upholders of "God's word" as it appears in the Bible
might decide to sell their daughters into slavery, as sanctioned
in Exodus 21:7, or purchase slaves for themselves, since permission
is granted in Lev. 25:44.
Could it be that some religious opponents of gay and lesbian equal
rights --including civil marriage which confers many governmental
benefits and responsibilities upon wedded couples -- are actually
selective in their application of the "inherent word of God"
and that, at bottom, they are merely homophobic bigots?
Jack A. Smith,
New Paltz, 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,
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
Dear Editor,
I am writing to express my gratitude for the hospitality and community
spirit that is consistently demonstrated by the United Methodist
Church in Phoenicia. Most residents, both full-time and part-time,
are familiar with the "Formerly Yours" Thrift Store
hosted by the Church three days a week. This little shop, run
entirely by volunteers, provides a wide variety of clothes and
house-hold items at incomparable prices, while also offering a
convenient drop-off location for unwanted and discarded items.
I think hundreds of families benefit from these services alone
in the course of a week. In addition to the thrift store, the
church hosts a $2 senior-citizens' luncheon, open to the public
every day, operates a food pantry and hosts AA and Men's Club
meetings. It would seem that this list is more than adequate in
demonstrating community spirit, but it has only begun. As a life-long
member of this community, I have observed many changes, good and
bad, in the area over the last couple of decades. One of the changes
I value most is the improved variety of cultural and artistic
activities here in our small town. It is evident to me that the
United Methodist Church has made a very conscious effort to be
an important part of this movement. In addition to the many services
already listed, the church more recently has begun to host an
appealing display of cultural events and weekly classes for all
ages, including physical fitness, African dance, performing arts
for kids and teens,and wonderful way for community members to
gather together, not to mention something for us all to look forward
to and enjoy on a weekly basis!
I'd like to thank the church and all it's Board members for being
such a gift to our town.
Cara Cruickshank
Phoenicia, NY
Dear Editor:
A
recent article about NYS Senator Bonacic's support for a constitutional
amendment to allow non-Native casino gambling quoted his statement
"whether we agree, or disagree, the merits of gambling have
already been decided." My question to Senator Bonacic is,
who decided that casino gambling is meritorious and what evidence
is there to support that claim?
As
is the case with every major development project, anywhere in
the world. developers typically come to an economically disadvantaged
area with lots of cash to throw around and the promise of jobs
and increased business opportunities for everyone. Well-intentioned
leaders, who are desperate for economic development at any cost,
often bend over backwards to accomodate such development promises,
often extending huge tax breaks in the process. Unfortunately,
when things don't work out as promised, the community is left
holding a very heavy (and expensive) bag of broken promises.
Casino
gambling is not the panacea that Senator Bonacic promises. Though
it should enrich the New York State coffers, town and county resources
will be stretched beyond the point where state and federal aid
can make a difference. Research proves that in practically every
area where casinos are built, surrounding communities have incurred
a long-term net increase in traffic congestion, crime, infrastructure
costs, emergency service costs, education costs and social services
costs. Sure, plenty of money is available at the beginning, but
when the first infusion dries up the casino acts as a sponge soaking
up revenue from the surrounding area.
There is no economic gain for the surrounding communities. People
who visit stand-alone casinos do not leave the casino property
They stay at the casino and spend their money in the casino, in
much the same way that guests stay and spend money at all- inclusive
resorts, surrounded by barbed wire, in poor countries. The owner
of the casino or resort gets rich. The surrounding community does
not.
To understand the real reason why Governor Pataki and Senator
Bonacic are supporting casino gambling, one need look no further
than the 11.5 billion dollar New York State budget deficit, a
deficit that in Governor Pataki's own words, "is larger than
the total annual budgets of 36 other states." This is a deficit
caused and fueled by the governor's tax breaks for the wealthiest
5% of New Yorkers, his inability to get his financial house in
order, and his unwillingness to say no to all of the special interest
groups who support him. They are selling off the interests of
our local communities and taking advantage of casino gambling's
very short term benefits. This is a recipe for longer term economic
disaster.
If Senator Bonacic has not had the opportunity to read the concerns
of the citizens of Marbletown, or other communities, on this issue,
as iterated in our visioning workshops, I suggest that he take
the opportunity to do so. He will discover that our citizens overwhelmingly
oppose casino gambling.
Casino gambling is not the type of economic development that our
community, or the Hudson Valley and Catskills, wants or needs.
What we need is governmental and financial support for small,
entrepreneurial, family-owned and operated farms and businesses.
Such businesses earn their money here, spend their money here
and recognize the value and advantage of being located in an area
rich in history, culture and natural beauty. I strongly urge Senator
Bonacic to rethink his support for any kind of casino gambling
in the region and I invite him to enter into a dialogue with us
on the subject.
Sincerely,
Vincent C. Martello
Marbletown
Supervisor
To Whom It May Concern:
Town Board meetings are for the purpose of conducting town business.
It has become apparent that certain parties and groups come to
Town Board meetings to personally assault individuals with no
basis in fact.
This practice will not be tolerated at Town Board meetings. If
anyone has a problem with someone who is either an elected official
or a town employee, please send comments to:
Robert Cross Jr.
Supervisor
PO Box 134
Shandaken, NY 12480
Or email to supervisor@town.shandaken.ny.us
Your comments will then be handled as they should, without grandstanding.
Sincerely,
Robert Cross, Jr.
|
