September 4, 2002

talkback...

Boycott for peace

If Bush and his gang of warmongers insist upon invading Iraq, and our Congress rolls over and plays dead, I believe that an American consumer boycott of buying big-ticket items will finally bring the war machine to grinding halt.

I am proposing a national consumer boycott against buying any new cars, trucks, SUVs, personal computers, electronic stereos, DVD players, televisions, and major appliances to begin on the day we invade Iraq.

The majority of nations of the world and their citizens think that a proposed American "preventive war" invasion of the Republic of Iraq is ill-advised to say the least and is just plain wrong. At least 25 percent of Americans polled recently also agree that an invasion of Iraq is wrong.

If American manufacturers and retailers of big-ticket consumer items suffer a 25 percent decline in sales, they will quickly tell Bush to get out of Iraq. At the same time, we should pledge to not make any new investments in the stock market.

Remember that during the recent war on terrorism and the invasion of Afghanistan, we were told by our leaders to "keep on shopping." This time we will stop shopping, and this will finally end the war on Iraq.

As my wise grandfather once said, "Hit 'em where it really hurts: in the wallet!" It probably wouldn't hurt to tell your senators and representatives, your friends, relatives, and neighbors of this planned antiwar boycott.

This letter constitutes clear legal notice to Bush II that, to quote Bush I, "This will not stand."

James K. Sayre

Oakland

Flawless logic

According to the news, Oakland's unemployment rate is 10 percent, a local group is pressuring to host the Olympic games, and my local Berkeley district council representative wants to neuter raccoons.

Suddenly it all makes sense.

Carol Denney

Berkeley

Water and growth

This November Proposition A asks voters to authorize $1.6 billion of bond spending. Proposition E would put City Hall in charge of authorizing all water-system bond spending. Voters should vote no on both.

If either Prop. A or E passes, San Francisco will join a regional water authority created by state legislation, to which City Hall has agreed. San Francisco will be a minority. Those who wish to develop and grow – requiring more water-system capacity – will be in control. San Franciscans would pay for the future growth, mostly in the suburbs.

Why would City Hall allow such a thing? In a word: money. In the short term, water bureaucrats will control massive hiring and billions of dollars of contracting. Supervisors, who under Prop. E would control bond spending, would get a source for political campaign contributions – developers.

The voters get stuck paying for future development – Treasure Island, Mission Bay, and the suburbs. Water rates will triple; rents will rise. Moreover, San Francisco loses control of its water system, becoming merely a minority member of a regional authority.

Water politics has long been about money. For years Hetch Hetchy money was diverted to fund pet projects of City Hall; $339 million was diverted from 1992 to 2000. Money from the last water bonds ($304 million authorized five years ago) was to "insure" our water system, voters were told. Without further water bonds, over the next 10 years nearly $1 billion will be spent for essential water-system repairs and replacements, about doubling the recent level of spending on capital improvements to our water system.

Under the City Charter, voters would not need to authorize bond spending were it not for the plan to expand the water system to accommodate future growth. Voters should reject Props. A and E; then City Hall can issue all the bonds they need to improve seismic safety. But they must do it without expanding for growth.

Steve Lawrence

San Francisco

Dams are immoral

Dams cause death and major environmental destruction and should all be taken down [Editorial, 8/14/02]. This death and destruction includes drowning of life above dams, change of water temperature that prevents fish from spawning, removal of essential sediments and nutrients below dams, death and extinction of fish and wildlife that depend on those sediments and nutrients, and drying up of the land below dams. Compared with this environmental disaster, air pollution is a minor inconvenience.

Instead of opposing removal of the hideously destructive O'Shaughnessy Dam, the left should be supporting its removal. By opposing removal, the left shows that it is just as willing to kill nonhumans and destroy ecosystems as the right, albeit for a different reason. All life is equal, and humans are no more important or better than any other form!

Jeff Hoffman