TO THE EDITOR
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Re: “Law Enforcement” in Lane County
(1/29), every citizen must acknowledge that
the police, etc. are not
responsible for law en-
forcement. Every citi-
zen is responsible
equally. In a dictator-
ship the police, etc. are
responsible for law en-
forcement. In a free
society “we the peo-
ple” are responsible.
Every citizen must
firmly establish that
the police, etc. and
their unions are enti-
tled to their opinion
but outside of that
have absolutely nothing to say about how law
enforcement is managed in Lane County. We
the people will determine that.
Every citizen must recognize that all as-
pects of life begin in the neighborhood — es-
pecially law enforcement — and not in any
legislative body. All citizens are responsible
for every aspect of their neighborhood. And
this responsibility cannot be delegated to
anybody at any time. Authority can be dele-
gated but responsibility cannot.
The solution to all of society’s problems is
public participation. The politician and bu-
reaucrats are never going to solve society’s
problems. If any member of the public does
not step forward they should be drafted. A
free society is not cheap or easy.
The public should be brought into every
aspect of law enforcement. First, as observers
24/7. These observers would be required to
write reports to be sent to elected
officials and the media. After the
observers were firmly estab-
lished, citizens would be called
upon (by volunteering or se-
lected using the same procedure
as jury selection) to become an
employee of every aspect of law
enforcement. These positions
could be part-time or full-time
but they would replace career
bureaucrats. These people would
serve a maximum of five years
before returning to the private
sector. Eventually a substantial
percentage of all positions in
law-enforcement would be held by these
non-career bureaucrats. We must do every-
thing possible to get away from the “paid
mercenary” mentality of law enforcement.
And finally — the more public participa-
tion we have the better and more credible law
enforcement will be.
Frank Skipton
Springfield
LIVING PEACEFULLY
This letter is in response to Bob Kholos’ dis-
turbing letter (2/19) accusing me of inciting
“riot against the Jews in the Eugene area.” I am
neither Jewish nor Arab. But when my son and
his wife worked as volunteers on the West Bank,
I learned how important it is for many people,
not only Jews and Arabs, to work together to re-
solve the troubles in Israel and Palestine, a
source of great international tension.
I have always opposed all forms of anti-
Semitism. I support Jews and Arabs, Israelis
and Palestinians, in their efforts to live peace-
fully together. However, I am concerned
about many policies of Sharon’s government.
I would like EW readers to know more about
these policies than what is published in major
U.S. media, and especially, about peaceful
work of Palestinians, Israelis and internation-
als to bring change. My intent is not to incite
riots but to share information.
It is wrong for Palestinian suicide
bombers to kill Israeli civilians, wrong for
Israeli soldiers to kill Palestinian civilians.
BY DAN CAROL
Ralph Version 3.0
Nader’s third try not very charming.
R
alph Nader is in and running. The only good thing I can see about
this is that it makes my life easy today— I was a little short of good
ideas for the column this time. So I appreciate an easy 750
words.
The bottom line is that this whole affair is straight up Groundhog’s
Day. As in, we’ve seen this movie before. As in, I can summarize how I
feel in five letters: zzzzz.
Unfortunately, not everyone is feeling so serene — many Democrats
are angry (again). For how to handle this strategically (not emotionally),
I’d offer some excellent advice from Paul McCartney and the Beatles: Let it
be. Find your “inner Zen” and take a deep breath before you speak, act or pri-
mal scream.
Otherwise, our progressive political dialogue will look just like the recent (and
unpleasant) Sybil-Blair exchange in EW’s letters to the editor section. (Two good peo-
ple who I’d wager support the same big goals and dreams — but have a lot of un-vent-
ed anger about which tactical strategies are best applied to win).
So please folks, let’s stop eating our own. Let’s stop trying to win past tactical argu-
ments (about who was really right in elections We all lost) that get in the way of what’s
smart now. And that’s the goal, right? We want to win back power from monied inter-
ests who are selling out our democracy. We need to do this intelligently. We all know it
won’t happen with just a new president, anyhow. But we sure need to start with one of
those.
S
ome Democrats will want to re-direct their current anger against George Bush
and their leftover Nader 2000 anger toward Ralph Version 3.0. To which I say:
Don’t bother. Please! Because trying to shame Nader will only strengthen him. If
you are angry at Ralph, the best way to “hurt” him is simply to ignore him.
Enough about group therapy and collective anger management — let’s take a hard
look at this candidacy. How does it measure up first tactically and secondly, in terms of
ideas?
To be as fair as I could, I watched Nader on “Meet The Press” to understand what
his motivation really is this time. I get that he thinks the system is broken and the cor-
porate power dominates Washington. (I think we all get that point). What I don’t get is
4 FEBRUARY 26, 2004
the strategic thinking that drives him to label The Nation magazine and other progres-
sive critics of this third Nader candidacy to be “contemptuous” (his words).
The fact is that Nader failed to get the critical 5 percent of the vote last time to
qualify for major party status and federal funding (as Ross Perot did for the Reform
Party in 1992) and that was the campaign’s stated goal. Ralph and all Nader support-
ers, please don’t tell me you can get more votes this time. All odds are that this
independent and late-starting effort will get fewer votes and qualify on
fewer state ballots. So what’s the tactical goal that this candidacy
achieves for breaking the third party duopoly?
E
ven the Green Party is torn up about this. Some Greens wanted
him to run again as a Green; some wanted no part of another
Nader candidacy after he failed to achieve the magic 5 percent.
I’m down with the Greens and anyone else who say that we should build
new grassroots parties ground up, not top-down, by winning school board
races, state legislative seats, populist electoral reforms and building from where
the party is strong (the Greens almost won the mayor of San Francisco a few weeks
ago and that performance has perhaps inspired the current mayor to be more coura-
geous).
That’s tactics. As for big ideas, which Nader claims is the other reason he is run-
ning, I am unmoved. Ralph promised to run an ideas campaign in 2000; instead he
spent months goring Gore.
The fact is that there are plenty of ways to get progressive ideas in play without
splitting our vote. Dennis Kucinich’s positive campaign (“Fear Ends, Hope Begins”) and
Howard Dean’s recent efforts in the Democratic primary are undeniable examples of
how powerful stances can move the debate in progressive directions. Top-selling books
by Michael Moore, Al Franken and others are opening up important channels for
changing minds. Some have even encouraged Ralph to “run” for president on the
upcoming Showtime reality show American Candidate (www.americancandidate.com)
where 12 contestants will duke it out this fall in a blend of presidential politics and
“The Hollywood Squares.” (Who’s to say now that Paul Lynde is gone, the center
square slot isn’t the best platform for change out there?)
So that’s my take on this mess. I am for sweeping it under the emotional rug. (As of
this writing, even Dennis Kucinich seems to be taking this advice — there’s not a word
about it on his website). If that still makes ya mad, how about ya take it out on Dub-ya.
Dan Carol is a Democratic political strategist and a founding partner of CTSG (www.ctsg.com), a progressive
consulting firm based in Eugene and Washington, D.C.