Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Portland observer. (Portland, Or.) 1970-current | View Entire Issue (April 19, 2017)
Page 6 April 19, 2017 New Prices Effective April 1, 2017 O PINION Martin Cleaning Service Carpet & Upholstery Cleaning Residential & Commercial Services Minimum Service CHG. $50.00 A small distance/travel charge may be applied CARPET CLEANING 2 Cleaning Areas or more $30.00 each Area Pre-Spray Traffic Areas (Includes: 1 small Hallway) 1 Cleaning Area (only) $50.00 Includes Pre-Spray Traffic Area (Hallway Extra) Stairs (12-16 stairs - With Other Services) : $30.00 Area/Oriental Rugs: $25.00 Minimum Area/Oriental Rugs (Wool) : $40.00 Minimum Heavily Soiled Area: $10.00 each area (Requiring Extensive Pre-Spraying) UPHOLSTERY CLEANING Sofa: $69.00 Loveseat: $49.00 Sectional: $109 - $139 Chair or Recliner: $25.00 - $49.00 Throw Pillows (With Other Services) : $5.00 ADDITIONAL SERVICES • Auto/Boat/RV Cleaning • Deodorizing & Pet Odor Treatment • Spot & Stain Removal Service • Scotchguard Protection • Minor Water Damage Services SEE CURRENT FLYER FOR ADDITIONAL PRICES & SERVICES Call for Appointment (503) 281-3949 A Bigger Problem than our Commander in Chief Our nuclear folly W insloW m yers The well-estab- lished assumption that North Korea is our most difficult and dan- gerous foreign policy challenge is worth a little dispassionate ex- amination. North Korea is not a fun place. If ever a nation had earned the right to be labeled collectively psychotic, it would be the Dem- ocratic Republic of North Korea under Kim Jung-un, who appar- ently just outsourced the bizarre assassination of his own brother. The country possesses neither a viable judiciary nor any kind of religious freedom. Famine has been a cyclical presence. Electri- cal power is intermittent. In 2015 North Korea ranked 115th in the world in the size of its GDP ac- cording to U.N. statistics. Yet nothing the United States has tried to do, including decades of diplomatic negotiations and the application of severe sanctions, has stopped this isolated conun- drum of a country from strutting proudly through the exclusive doors of the nuclear club. But let’s get real. As odd and alienated as North Korea may be, their leaders know perfectly well by that even if the United States had not a single nuclear warhead at its disposal, if provoked we could bomb North Korea until there was nothing left but bouncing rubble. The idea that they would be so suicidally unwise as to use their nuclear weapons to launch an unprovoked first-strike attack upon the United States, or South Korea for that matter, seems utterly remote from reality. Instead, they are pursuing a policy—the policy of deter- rence—which is a mirror image of our own. But by a collective trick of the mind, our use of weapons of mass destruction to deter is ra- tionalized and justified by the fact that our intentions are good, while from our perspective both their intentions and their weapons are perceived to be evil—as if there were such a thing as good nuclear weapons and bad nuclear weap- ons. In this particular sense, there is not a whit of difference between our otherwise two very different countries. North Korea took care- ful note of what happened to Lib- ya when they agreed unilaterally to give up their nuclear program. Their motive is self-protection, not aggression. It is one thing to say that de- terrence was a temporary (now nearly three-quarters of a century) strategy to prevent planet-destroy- ing war. But can we go on this way forever, with all nine nuclear powers committed to never mak- ing a single error of interpretation, never having a single equipment failure, never succumbing to a sin- gle computer hack? If we think we can, we’re just as out of it as Kim Jung-un. Our bowing to the false idol of nuclear deterrence as the ultimate and permanent bedrock of international security is in its own way as delusional as the way the brainwashed citizens of North Korea give absolute obeisance to their dear leader. If the United States, as a re- sponsible world player, does not move beyond the obsolete para- digm of endless paranoid cycles of we-build-they build; if it does not begin to think in terms of setting an example; if it does not begin to participate authentically in inter- national conferences to ban these weapons, there is going to be a nu- clear war in our future. We’re uneasy with Mr. Trump’s finger on the nuclear trigger, but this is a bigger problem than who specifically is commander in chief. When the moment comes and we begin to slide down the slippery slope of deterrence breakdown because of some completely unan- ticipated dissolution of “fail-safe- ness,” it won’t matter how expe- rienced the human parties to the disaster might be. Whoever is left on this small, no longer so beautiful planet, freezing under the ash clouds of nuclear winter, uselessly nursing their boils and pustules from ra- diation poisoning, will hate and despise us for what we didn’t do for decades, and they will be quite right. Because we know. We know and yet we do not act on our sol- emn obligations under the Nucle- ar Nonproliferation Treaty. In fact the United States actively under- mines legitimate efforts to outlaw nuclear weapons. We just boycot- ted a recent one. North Korea is a pariah nation led by a greedy Stalinist family. No one can say with any certain- ty whether they could be brought to the table to discuss abolition. Why can’t we admit that we our- selves harbor a similar reluctance? The process of building trust, agreement and verification among the nine nuclear powers would be the most difficult diplomatic chal- lenge ever undertaken. The only thing more difficult is the unthink- able agony of the alternative. Winslow Myers, syndicated by PeaceVoice, is the author of “Living Beyond War: A Citizen’s Guide.”