Rechercher dans ce blog

Monday, February 28, 2022

Opinion | Why Ukrainians Believe They Can Win Against Russia - The New York Times

I met Volodymyr Yermolenko, a Ukrainian philosopher and the chief editor of UkraineWorld, an English-language news site, in Kyiv in 2019. I’d gone there to report on how Ukrainians felt about Donald Trump’s attempts to extort their president, Volodymyr Zelensky, and on the American right’s demonization of Ukrainians who’d worked against corruption. Yermolenko spoke, then, of Ukraine as a front line in the global battle between democracy and authoritarianism, with Europe on one side and Vladimir Putin’s Russia on the other — and the role of the United States under Trump confusing and ambiguous.

“It’s about whether democracy, rule of law, are spreading farther to the east,” he said of the conflict over Ukraine’s future. “It’s a long story how it spread to Eastern Europe — first it was Eastern Europe, Central Europe, then there was Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova. We hope it will someday reach Russia.” But it was possible that the ideological tide would go the other way. “There is a new authoritarianism going westward,” said Yermolenko. In this view, the fate of Ukraine’s nascent democracy was a sort of weather vane for the world.

I spoke to Yermolenko again on Sunday, as Russian troops besieged his country. “The spirit is very strong,” he said. “There is no fatalism, no willingness to negotiate on Russia’s terms. There is decisiveness.” Ukrainian self-defense, he said, was chiefly a matter of patriotism, of people defending their home and way of life against a cruel foreign power. But he also saw it as part of the great ideological contest we’d discussed two and a half years ago.

“There is a strong feeling that if Ukraine wins — and I’m sure it wins — that can bring the end of both Putin’s and Lukashenko’s regimes,” he said, referring to Alexander Lukashenko, the strongman president of Belarus, who is reportedly preparing to send troops to Ukraine to fight alongside Russia.

His confidence amazed me, but it appears to be widely shared across the country: According to a recent poll, 70 percent of Ukrainians outside of Russian-occupied territories think they will prevail against Russia. Oleksandra Ustinova, a member of the Ukrainian Parliament who is in Washington working on diplomatic outreach, said that Putin thought he could easily seize control of her country. “Ukrainians have proved that we’re not going to go down, and we do believe that we will win this war,” she said.

I have no idea if she’s right, though obviously I hope she is. Russia appears to have stumbled in the opening days of the invasion, but Ukraine’s army is still enormously overmatched, and Putin has the power to rain hell on the country. The Ukrainians’ stalwart faith in their ability to resist Russia, however, is an important political fact, one that people who predicted a quick Russian victory didn’t fully account for. It’s a faith that has stirred much of the world to unite against Russia, reinvigorating a liberal internationalism that until recently seemed spent and flaccid.

As inspiring as Ukrainian determination has been, it’s perhaps not that surprising. Anyone who’s visited Kyiv in recent years could see how much pride people took in the 2014 revolution that forced Viktor Yanukovych, the Kremlin-backed kleptocratic president, to flee to Russia. In Kyiv’s Independence Square, a monument to the revolution included photos, mounted on giant copper-colored plinths, of demonstrators burning tires to repel a crackdown and getting ready to pelt the riot police with cobblestones. Nearby, a vendor sold toilet paper with Putin’s face on it.

Not all Ukrainians welcomed the revolution — Yanukovych had a real base of support in the country’s south and east. But there was a culture of reverence for citizens who’d stood up to Russian domination.

Ukraine has had two revolutions in less than two decades; there was also the Orange Revolution, which erupted after Yanukovych was accused of trying to steal the election in 2004. Nataliya Gumenyuk, a Ukrainian journalist and author of “Lost Island: Tales From the Occupied Crimea,” told me these revolutions have instilled in Ukrainians a strong sense of their own agency. “Ukraine has a positive case of toppling a dictator, doing something that used to be unthinkable,” she said, speaking from Kyiv in the middle of the night.

She noted that Zelensky has directly appealed to the public in Russia and Belarus. “We seriously believe that if people, independent people, stand up,” they can force their leaders to bend. “Because with us it’s like that,” she said.

This means that even if a democratic Ukraine wasn’t an existential threat to Putin before, it is now, since its survival would mean his humiliation. In 2019, I was intrigued by how earnestly Ukrainians I met spoke of liberal democracy. Perhaps they’d won it so recently that they hadn’t had time to grow cynical. Their idealism has turned out to be a powerful weapon. They’ve shown older democracies what it means to fight for their own putative values, leading to an almost ecstatic global outpouring of support.

The odds remain against the Ukrainians. But their conviction has given them a chance.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.

Adblock test (Why?)



"Opinion" - Google News
March 01, 2022 at 07:37AM
https://ift.tt/hmv9rtl

Opinion | Why Ukrainians Believe They Can Win Against Russia - The New York Times
"Opinion" - Google News
https://ift.tt/I1eT5DL
Shoes Man Tutorial
Pos News Update
Meme Update
Korean Entertainment News
Japan News Update

GUEST OPINION: The War on Drugs failed. Lawmakers must find new solutions. - Sentinel Colorado

The fentanyl crisis continues to cause unfathomable loss, most recently with the tragic death of five people in Commerce City earlier last week. Amid so much pain, we have a responsibility to meet this moment by embracing bold, proven and life-saving public safety solutions. Now is the moment when we must also put to bed, forever, decades of failed policies that led to this unprecedented crisis. It is far past time for Colorado lawmakers to take aggressive action to protect Coloradans and save lives.

For over 50 years, the U.S. had only one answer to the question of how to save lives and reduce harm from drug use: punishment and prison. The result of this horrifying experiment is a mountain of evidence showing “the overall effect of imprisonment is null.” Prison sentences do not improve safety. They do not save lives. They do not help people recover from substance use disorder. They do not keep us safe from or reduce the supply of dangerous drugs, or save lives in the event of an overdose.

Taylor Pendergrass

Here is the cold hard truth — we could increase prison sentences 10-fold, cut them by half, then triple them, and all those changes would do absolutely nothing to protect our families and loved ones from future fentanyl tragedies.

Examining the research is hardly necessary for most American families. They know all too well from their experience with a family member, friend, or even their own lived experience, that locking someone up with a substance use disorder will not provide them with the resources and treatment they need. Locking people up only wreaks tremendous intergenerational costs that perpetuate a never-ending cycle of harm to families and children.

Unfortunately, some Colorado lawmakers appear to have no solutions at all, offering only stale and reheated War on Drugs leftovers. At best, increasing prison sentences for drug-related offenses will have no impact whatsoever on this crisis. At worst, and far more likely, it will stigmatize people who need treatment, exacerbate racial injustice, and squander valuable resources. That money could be better spent on healthcare, education, and affordable housing to begin addressing the root causes of the overdose epidemic. 

We are thinking far too small for this enormous crisis when we are tinkering at the margins of our mass incarceration architecture. It is also a colossal waste of time when lawmakers should be laser-focused on rapidly scaling up evidence-based solutions that have proven effective at saving lives: overdose prevention centers, fentanyl test strips, safe supply, drug decriminalization, public education campaigns, and low-barrier access to naloxone and other rehabilitative and life-saving therapies.

Voters of all stripes agree “the war on drugs has failed,” — Democrats (83%), Independents (85%) and Republicans (82%). Voters also know that there is nothing more “soft on crime” than politicians who are too scared to act decisively and aggressively to prevent death and harm from happening in the first place.

Lawmakers who claim failed approaches that haven’t worked for the last 50 years are now suddenly going to succeed are displaying a very dangerous mix of willful ignorance, magical thinking, and political expediency. If they have no real solutions to offer, they should step aside and let lawmakers with a real vision and commitment to keeping Colorado families safe lead the way. We can and must meet this moment.


Taylor Pendergrass is the Director of Advocacy and Strategic Alliances for the ACLU of Colorado. As a veteran strategist, civil rights attorney and former ACLU national Deputy Director of Campaigns, Pendergrass has spent more than 15 years fighting for transformative social change, racial justice and equality.

Adblock test (Why?)



"Opinion" - Google News
March 01, 2022 at 12:02AM
https://ift.tt/YBr8v21

GUEST OPINION: The War on Drugs failed. Lawmakers must find new solutions. - Sentinel Colorado
"Opinion" - Google News
https://ift.tt/I1eT5DL
Shoes Man Tutorial
Pos News Update
Meme Update
Korean Entertainment News
Japan News Update

Opinion | Paul Olson: Diversity of opinion benefits us all - Summit Daily

I enjoy reading the letters to the editor in the Summit Daily News. I appreciate when a writer can enlighten me on a local issue while also being entertaining. I’m not fond of angry letters; a civil style is more persuasive. I prefer short and sweet; I only have a 200-word attention span.

What I like most about the letters is how they demonstrate freedom of speech in action. It may be frustrating to read opinions in the Summit Daily that differ greatly from your own views, but consider the sobering alternative of living in a country such as Russia, China or Cuba, where conformity is the standard and voicing your differences with government policy is dangerous.

In his book “American Creation,” Joseph Ellis wrote that one of the major accomplishments of our nation’s founders was that “they created political parties as institutionalized channels for ongoing political debate.” Dissent toward government policies became a normal part of reaching consensus on various issues. I suggest taking a positive view of the differences of opinion you see in the news.



One of the strengths of our country is diversity. We have a variety of religions, ethnic groups and regional cultures, and a spectrum of opinions on every topic. Self-education comes from reflecting upon our current beliefs and seeking out new and accurate evidence. Without free speech, our sources of information are limited, and everyone is worse off.

There are many misconceptions about free speech. The Bill of Rights restricts the government from passing laws to hinder a free press and freedom of speech. Can the Summit Daily refuse to print your letter to the editor? Yes, they are a private business and can set their own policies.



Twitter and Facebook also set their own policies on what they allow. Do you have freedom of speech at work? Private companies can set their own rules for employee conduct. Speaking unfavorably about your employer can get you fired. It is not protected speech.

There is plenty of “bad speech” out there — con artists who spread misinformation for profit, higher ratings or political gain. There will be calls for legislation to ban hate speech and media lies, but it is better to counter bad speech with more speech, better speech. Laws restricting speech have generally been ruled unconstitutional in U.S. courts. Hate speech restrictions in Europe have often proved difficult to enforce and sometimes result in restricting the speech of the groups that were meant to be protected.

When I started watching the evening news in the 1960s, there were three choices: ABC, CBS and NBC. They were each thorough in their efforts to report all the important news and to be accurate and unbiased. They do the same today. Everyone fortunately has the freedom to listen skeptically and seek out news sites that are reliable and have minimal bias.

I hope you have noticed how well the Summit Daily covers local news, from high school sports to controversial issues. The reporters work diligently to give us important and reliable news. Commentary and readers’ letters reflect conservative to liberal views. You not only get the free press promised by the Constitution, but you get a free paper.

People often take for granted that we have freedom of speech in America. There is an old Soviet joke that sums up how fortunate we are. An American and a Russian are debating free speech:

American: “In America, I have the right to say that our president’s policies are wrong.”

Russian: “It is the same in Russia. I can also say that your president’s policies are wrong.”

Take pride in America’s freedom of speech that we encounter each day in the local newspaper, the neighborhood coffee shop and in the national media. Diversity of opinion has been an important strength of our nation throughout our history. Enjoy this freedom, but be prudent. As Oscar Wilde said, “I may not agree with you, but I will defend to the death your right to make an ass of yourself.”

Adblock test (Why?)



"Opinion" - Google News
March 01, 2022 at 05:00AM
https://ift.tt/YXxmHTB

Opinion | Paul Olson: Diversity of opinion benefits us all - Summit Daily
"Opinion" - Google News
https://ift.tt/I1eT5DL
Shoes Man Tutorial
Pos News Update
Meme Update
Korean Entertainment News
Japan News Update

Flipping failure to fortune | Opinion - South Florida Sun-Sentinel - Sun Sentinel

Unfortunately, our website is currently unavailable in your country. We are engaged on the issue and committed to looking at options that support our full range of digital offerings to your market. We continue to identify technical compliance solutions that will provide all readers with our award-winning journalism.

Adblock test (Why?)



"Opinion" - Google News
March 01, 2022 at 03:58AM
https://ift.tt/Tp4LjIb

Flipping failure to fortune | Opinion - South Florida Sun-Sentinel - Sun Sentinel
"Opinion" - Google News
https://ift.tt/I1eT5DL
Shoes Man Tutorial
Pos News Update
Meme Update
Korean Entertainment News
Japan News Update

Opinion: Epidemic of Deadly Automobile Violence on NYC Streets Dwarfs Rising Subway Crime - City Limits

“Automobile crashes killed 273 people in 2021, a whopping 33 percent increase over 2018, the safest year in New York City’s recent traffic history…It’s a mystery as to why so many city residents, as well as city and state politicians, seemingly accept such a heartbreaking level of carnage as just another unfortunate trade-off of city life.”

Adi Talwar

A Ghost Bike at the north west corner of Lexington Avenue and 104th Street memorializes a fatal crash on April 17, 2014.

Mayor Eric Adams and Gov. Kathy Hochul announced on Feb. 18 that they would no longer allow the city’s subway system to be used for anything other than transportation. The New York City Police Department (NYPD) will enforce the subway’s rules of conduct—including the forced removal of homeless people.

“No more smoking, no more doing drugs, no more sleeping, no more doing barbecues on the subway system,” Mayor Adams said at a press conference at Fulton Street subway stop. “No more just doing whatever you want.”

In 2021, the subway system saw 461 felony assaults, up from 361 in 2020. The system also saw eight tragic murders last year. More recently, on President’s Day weekend, there were four headline grabbing stabbings.

Despite the worrisome spike in menacing incidents, with daily ridership in recent days surpassing 3 million, on a per-capita basis, violent crime is still fairly low in the subway. Crime in the Transit Bureau represents only 1.7 percent of total crime in the city, according to a January 2022 MTA report.

But the perception of rampant crime in the subway is not only bad for the city’s economic well-being and millions of passenger’s peace of mind, it’s political kryptonite. And to their credit, in addition to removing homeless and mentally ill individuals, the mayor and governor did lay out a plan to get them easier access to critical social services, although it’s not clear how that will get paid for.

While NYPD’s roundup of homeless people might contribute to a collective sense of safety among many straphangers, there’s an even more widespread and deadlier crisis happening on the streets above the subway tunnels that warrants all New Yorker’s attention. There has been an alarming spike in deadly automobile crashes on New York City streets and it appears to only be getting only worse.

Automobile crashes killed 273 people in 2021, a whopping 33 percent increase over 2018, the safest year in New York City’s recent traffic history according to data gathered by Transportation Alternatives. Of those killed last year, 124 were pedestrians and 19 were bicyclists. It’s a mystery as to why so many city residents, as well as city and state politicians, seemingly accept such a heartbreaking level of carnage as just another unfortunate trade-off of city life.

The mayor, who is a bicyclist like myself, is well aware of the dangers New Yorkers face when utilizing alternative modes of transit or by just crossing the street on foot. We are essentially human eggshells constantly dodging fast moving two-to-three-ton machines capable of crushing bones to dust.

Both the governor and mayor are also aware that automobile violence has, so far, spiked up even further in 2022. As of Feb. 14, 28 people had died in New York City auto violence, up from 17 during the same period last year according to data published by Streetsblog.  Of those killed, 16 were pedestrians. 

Also, in January 2022, 657 pedestrians were injured by automobile drivers—some seriously.  That’s up from 503 injuries recorded the same month one year ago, according to NYPD data,.

In February alone, there was the 99-year-old Manhattan Beach resident who survived the Holocaust but got mowed down by an SUV driver who had racked up 10 school zone speeding tickets and four red light tickets since 2016, but was still allowed to drive. There was the 57-year-old man who, while using the crosswalk at an intersection of Cooper and Cypress avenues, got run over not by just one, but two separate SUV drivers who crushed his body and head under their wheels.

And we can add 18-year-old Sara Perez to the heartbreaking list after she was killed by a 16-year-old driver of a 2006 Ford F-150 pickup truck in Jackson Heights, Queens, on Feb. 17.  Perez wasn’t riding a bike, crossing a dangerous intersection or riding in a fast-moving automobile. She just happened to be walking on the sidewalk at the wrong place and time.

Perez had stopped to wait for the pickup to back out of a garage and onto Northern Boulevard. But just as the truck pulled out, which was the same moment Perez began walking on her way, the driver realized he’d backed into traffic and likely panicked, then put the truck back in drive, hit the gas and crushed Perez against a fence. Public records on HowsMyDriving.com show the truck had eight traffic violations since September. 

This past January, Mayor Adams and the city’s police commissioner promised that NYPD officers would be watching to make sure both automobiles and bicyclists stop at intersections until crosswalks are clear of pedestrians before proceeding. 

“That does not mean slow down and navigate your car in between people walking in the crosswalk. It means stop until the crosswalk is clear of pedestrians, then proceed,” Police Commissioner Keechant Sewell said. “If our officers see a vehicle failing to stop while pedestrians are crossing in front of them, that’s where enforcement comes in.”

But despite the raging flood of post-pandemic automobile traffic choking city streets today, NYPD’s enforcement of key traffic safety laws was actually lower in January 2022 than the same month one year earlier.

For example, in January 2022, NYPD issued 2,770 summonses to drivers who failed to yield to pedestrians, down from 2,856 in January 2021. In January 2022 NYPD issued just 8,606 speeding tickets compared to 12,753 in January 2021. The same was true for ticketing unlicensed drivers. In January 2021, the department ticketed 3,556 unlicensed drivers while the same month in 2022, the total was down to 2,549.

More troubling, in 2021, there were 93 hit-and-runs with critical injuries. Arrests have been made in just 23 percent of those cases. 

But just like subway safety, policing is just one ingredient in the cocktail of solutions experts believe will help combat the sharp rise in auto violence, while also making our streets more livable for the majority of New Yorkers, not just car owners.

Streets are this city’s largest public space, and as such, city and state leaders should convert 25 percent of car space into space for people by 2025—25×25—so every New Yorker is within a five-minute walk of a car-free bus lane, a protected bike lane and new green space. The Department of Transportation could also make the redesign of dangerous corridors and intersections with life-saving traffic calming infrastructure an urgent priority.  

In addition to making our subways safer, the mayor and governor should also see to it that lawmakers in Albany reauthorize, strengthen and expand the speed safety program which has led to a 72 percent drop in speeding in the 750 zones where the cameras operate from 6 a.m. until 10 p.m. And finally, lawmakers should pass the Crash Victim Rights and Safety Act, which also addresses rampant speeding and provides support to crash victims and their families.

While it might prove politically beneficial to instruct the NYPD to round up homeless people in the subway system and increase safety patrols, safer streets—through a combination of permanent street redesign and enforcement of existing traffic laws—has the potential to save and improve the lives of countless New Yorkers for generations to come. 

Cody Lyon is a New York City-based journalist.

Adblock test (Why?)



"Opinion" - Google News
March 01, 2022 at 01:51AM
https://ift.tt/w03Itxk

Opinion: Epidemic of Deadly Automobile Violence on NYC Streets Dwarfs Rising Subway Crime - City Limits
"Opinion" - Google News
https://ift.tt/I1eT5DL
Shoes Man Tutorial
Pos News Update
Meme Update
Korean Entertainment News
Japan News Update

Sunday, February 27, 2022

The problem with Putin's endgame in Ukraine - CNN

Alexander B. Downes is Associate Professor of Political Science and International Affairs at George Washington University. He is the author of the recently published "Catastrophic Success: Why Foreign-Imposed Regime Change Goes Wrong" (Cornell University Press). The opinions expressed in this commentary are his own. View more opinion at CNN.

(CNN)With the feared Russian invasion of Ukraine underway, the burning question is what Russian President Vladimir Putin would do with the country if his forces can overcome fierce Ukrainian resistance and conquer it.

Although Putin's recent rhetoric suggests he believes Ukraine is an illegitimate state which should be returned to Russia, it is more likely Putin would seek to control Ukraine indirectly through a puppet government.
In other words, this is a war for regime change.
The history of regime change, however, is littered with catastrophes. The recent examples of Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya leap to mind, but they are not isolated cases.
Consider the year 1979, during which three regime changes occurred. In Cambodia, a Vietnamese armored blitzkrieg of the sort Russia has launched in Ukraine ousted Pol Pot and his murderous Khmer Rouge regime. Instead of giving up, however, Cambodian leaders rallied their troops along the Thai border and waged a decadelong insurgency.
In Uganda, Tanzanian troops invaded and overthrew Idi Amin, but his successor, a leader in the rebel movement, lasted a mere three months before he was removed. And in Afghanistan, the Soviet Union occupied the country after replacing one Afghan communist with another. Despite killing roughly one million people and driving several million more out of the country, the Soviets withdrew in failure 10 years later.
The mutilated body of their hand-picked ruler (Mohammad Najibullah, himself installed in another regime change in 1986) was hung from a lamppost across from the presidential palace when the Taliban seized Kabul.
Why do foreign-imposed regime changes like these go so disastrously wrong? Assuming Putin could overthrow the elected government in Kyiv and successfully install a puppet regime, would he also succeed in creating a stable client state? As I outline in my new book, the answer is probably no, for two reasons.
First, military invasions to effect regime change often bring about the collapse and disintegration of the target state's military. Given the mismatch between the Russian and Ukrainian armies, it is likely those on the Ukrainian side who can escape will try to do so, as happened in Iraq in 2003, Afghanistan in 2001, and Cambodia in 1979.
These armed remnants provide deposed leaders or their subordinates with the manpower to launch an insurgency against the puppet regime and its foreign backers. As the United States has learned to its chagrin in Afghanistan and Iraq,100,000 troops are not enough to control even much smaller countries than Ukraine. The likely availability of cross-border safe havens, funding, and weapons for Ukrainian insurgents would only make the problem more difficult, as we saw in Afghanistan in '79 and '01.
Second, foreign-imposed regime changes are plagued by a mismatch of interests between the intervener and the population of the target nation. The imposer wants its protégé to loyally promote its interests, and hence installs a leader it believes will follow its directions.
In the case of Ukraine, Putin might empower a pro-Russian politician who would try to keep the country firmly in Russia's orbit. The problem is the population in targeted countries also gets a say, and they often want very different things than the intervener. And whether by voting or violence, domestic groups can threaten the imposed leader's political (and sometimes physical) survival.
Foreign-imposed leaders thus tend to be pulled in opposite directions by their two constituencies; they are "damned if they do and damned if they don't." Hewing too close to the preferences of one side can lead to hostility from the other, producing civil war, violent attempts to remove the leader, or even inter-state conflict between the two states.
In the case of Ukraine, the battle lines are already drawn: The opposition of the bulk of the population to any Russian puppet regime could not be clearer. Nearly 80% of the population identifies as Ukrainian and a similar proportion continues to support Ukrainian independence. Solid majorities favor joining both the EU and NATO and also have a low opinion of Russia; hardly a surprise given Russia's annexation of Crimea and sponsorship of violent separatists in the Donbas region.
Moreover, Ukrainians overthrew previous pro-Russian president Viktor Yanukovych in 2014 in large part because he intended to steer Ukraine into Russia's orbit and away from the European Union.
All of this means pro-Russian rule in Ukraine would meet strong -- and probably violent -- resistance. And the US and its NATO allies would likely be more than happy to provide aid and comfort to the rebels, making them even harder to beat. If history is any guide, Russia faces the risk of descending into the quagmire of insurgency in Ukraine.
There are two paths regime changers historically have used to avoid this outcome and obtain stability. One is democratizing the target. This route is clearly off the table here and has a highly uneven record when tried (compare Germany and Japan after World War II to Afghanistan and Iraq today).
Get our free weekly newsletter

Sign up for CNN Opinion's newsletter.

Join us on Twitter and Facebook

The second is massive repression on the order of the Soviets in Eastern Europe during the Cold War. This path is risky and could easily backfire if it spurs rather than suppresses resistance or prompts threats of NATO intervention.
If he wins the war, Putin can also install a pro-Russian protégé in Kyiv and withdraw his forces. In that case, that individual is unlikely to remain in power long, and then Putin is right back where he started.

Adblock test (Why?)



"Opinion" - Google News
February 28, 2022 at 05:15AM
https://ift.tt/bVDkxyT

The problem with Putin's endgame in Ukraine - CNN
"Opinion" - Google News
https://ift.tt/laYZwqh
Shoes Man Tutorial
Pos News Update
Meme Update
Korean Entertainment News
Japan News Update

Opinion: The war in Ukraine could drag us back to barbarism - DW (English)

The Russian invasion in Ukraine is not just about the fate of two countries. It's about much more than that, says DW's Miodrag Soric. Because Europe has learned that freedom comes at a price.

Russian President Vladimir Putin really needs to win this aggressive war against Ukraine quickly. And that's not because he has a conscience or any scruples. No, it is because the coffins of young Russians, who died fighting their neighbors, people with whom they share Orthodox Christian values, will soon cast doubt on Russian state propaganda about this being purely a defensive action.

Soon it will be Lent, the period during which eastern European Orthodox Christians fast and prepare for Easter. Putin likes to present himself as a pious Christian at this time, with a candle in his hand. But that picture won't jibe with photographs of dead women, children and men, who have been killed over the past days, thanks to the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

This war won't be over quickly though.The Ukrainians won't give up, even if they have to fight with their bare hands and home-made Molotov cocktail explosives.

Moral high ground?

The Russian people bore much suffering during the Soviet era and they showed great courage during the Second World War. But it is not like the Ukrainians are in any way lesser than the Russians. Additionally, the Ukrainians stand on more solid moral ground in this case. They are defending THEIR country, THEIR families, THEIR lives. The Russian soldiers are there as aggressors, occupiers, kin-killers.

Soric Miodrag portrait

Miodrag Soric is a senior correspondent for DW

It is true that for the hesitant West, there wasno enmity with Russia until recently. We promoted bilateral trade, we cooperated in the political, cultural and scientific sectors.

Millions of Russians regularly travelled to Spain, Greece and Turkey as tourists, alongside plenty of Western Europeans who also spend their vacations in those lands.

All of that was exactly why nobody could imagine Putin committing this crime, or that Russians would follow him in this mad pursuit.

Putin is correct that Europeans are not well equipped to deal with this. They have taken their prosperous, privileged lives for granted. But that has changed now. Every freedom- and peace-loving European sees this crime against Ukraine as an attack upon themselves. Everyone sees that Putin lies almost every time he opens his mouth, and that he doesn't abide by any international treaties or rules.

Many Germans are dismayed by the sudden realization that right now, only the US can guarantee German security. Of course, they're grateful for that. But can a mother in Mississippi be expected to send her children to fight to guarantee European security, if a mother in Berlin is not prepared to do the same?

German policy turnaround

Germany has to wake up and understand that peace, freedom and democracy don't come for free.

With each picture of crying children in Kyiv's underground train stations, where they've sought shelter from Putin's bombs, the resolve to revive the German military's operational capacities and to strengthen the NATO alliance grows. Europeans are willing to sacrifice for their values and they'll stand up to Russia's declaration of war on the continent's peaceful political order.

People take shelter in a metro station in Kyiv, Ukraine.

Kyiv's underground stations have been used as bomb shelters this week

The civilized world's prospects for winning this battle look good. Putin might try to make the world and his countrypeople believe that Russia is strong. But that too is a lie. The morale in Russia might be good if locals think they are standing up for what is right. But sooner or later, they will begin to realize that their war against neighboring Ukraine is a crime — despite what Russian state-controlled media says.

In economic terms too, Russia is weak because Putin has proven incapable of modernizing his nation. Today's political class is more corrupt than even in the time of former Soviet leader, Leonid Brezhnev. Back then, political corruption became a major obstacle to the Soviet Union's economic development.

Putin himself only tolerates those who agree with him, whom he then humiliates on live television.

Making sacrifices

Economic sanctions and significantly higher spending on the defense sector won't be enough to win in this confrontation with a dictator though. Russia's criminal elite must also be isolated. Diplomatic relations must be reduced to the very minimum.

However the West must be careful not to lock out younger Russians. Both the German and American economies desperately need hundreds of thousands more skilled workers. Those individuals who want to emigrate, to live a normal life in a more secure environment, must still be welcomed.

Because one thing is already clear: Russia's war against Ukraine and the new arms race it is engendering will cost a lot of money. Additionally Putin will only be able to go on as head of his country if he turns Russia into one giant jail, a place more like China.

And that is actually one more good reason why our freedom-loving societies have to emerge victorious from this confrontation. Beijing is watching things closely. If Putin succeeds in overcoming Ukraine, then China may well attack Taiwan and others.

At that stage, might would rule the world order and only the strongest would have a say. Humankind would return to barbarism.

But it doesn't have to come to that. In order to ensure that it doesn't, we must once again be prepared to make some sacrifices to save our freedoms and our way of life.

This commentary was originally published in German. 

Adblock test (Why?)



"Opinion" - Google News
February 28, 2022 at 12:57AM
https://ift.tt/1va7BXg

Opinion: The war in Ukraine could drag us back to barbarism - DW (English)
"Opinion" - Google News
https://ift.tt/laYZwqh
Shoes Man Tutorial
Pos News Update
Meme Update
Korean Entertainment News
Japan News Update

Yad Vashem Condemns Russia's Invasion of Ukraine, Use of 'Propagandist Discourse' Trivializing Holocaust - Algemeiner

israelob.blogspot.com

Flares burn in the empty square of Yad Vashem Holocaust memorial centre to mark the annual Holocaust Remembrance Day in Jerusalem amid the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) restrictions around the country April 21, 2020. REUTERS/Ronen Zvulun

The head of Israel’s Holocaust memorial and museum Yad Vashem condemned the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the accompanying use of “propagandist discourse.”

“Yad Vashem deplores the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which will inevitably lead to dire consequences,” Dani Dayan, chairman of Yad Vashem, wrote on Twitter on Sunday. “We fear in particular for the wellbeing of innocent civilians and deplore any deliberate endangerment of their safety.”

“Moreover,” Dayan said, “the propagandist discourse accompanying the current hostilities is saturated with irresponsible statements and completely inaccurate comparisons with propagandist and actions before and during the Holocaust.”

“Yad Vashem condemns this trivialization and distortion of the historical facts of the Holocaust,” he added.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has depicted Ukrainian leaders, including the country’s Jewish president, Volodymyr Zelensky, as Nazi sympathizers.

In an appeal on Friday for Ukrainian military officers to launch a coup against their country’s leadership, Putin stated, “It seems like it will be easier for us to agree with you than this gang of drug addicts and neo-Nazis.”

Zelensky has responded angrily to the Nazi comparisons, pointing to his grandfather’s service in the Soviet Army during World War II.

“How can I be a Nazi?” the Ukrainian leader asked in a televised address on Thursday. “Explain it to my grandfather, who went through the entire war in the infantry of the Soviet army, and died a colonel in an independent Ukraine.”

Adblock test (Why?)



"discourse" - Google News
February 28, 2022 at 05:22AM
https://ift.tt/ZqE9fHU

Yad Vashem Condemns Russia's Invasion of Ukraine, Use of 'Propagandist Discourse' Trivializing Holocaust - Algemeiner
"discourse" - Google News
https://ift.tt/M6xQSH3
https://ift.tt/fXOUtiA

Opinion: Out of governor’s race, but an Oregonian for life - OregonLive

Nicholas Kristof

Kristof is an author, journalist, farmer and former Democratic candidate for governor of Oregon. He lives in Yamhill.

The Oregonian/OregonLive’s editorial following the end of my campaign for governor this month encouraged me to “remain in Oregon public life,” tackle problems and identify solutions (“Kristof’s abbreviated campaign raises enduring questions,” Feb. 20).

Mission accepted. I’m in.

While I don’t know precisely what my next chapter will be, I will continue to wrestle with the challenges we see around us. Years ago, I grew tired of returning from humanitarian crises overseas only to find unaddressed suffering in my own backyard. I’m haunted by the genocide I covered in Darfur but also by my Yamhill high school friend, Stacy, who froze to death while homeless in McMinnville. More than one-quarter of the classmates on my old No. 6 school bus are now gone from drugs, alcohol and suicide — and we all know that there are buses like that in every corner of this state.

What I learned campaigning around Oregon is that the problems we face are deeper than even I had expected. We all know that homelessness is a problem in Oregon’s major cities, but in tiny Bay City, population 1,400? I hadn’t anticipated that.

In Lincoln City, I learned of a woman who has a job at a supermarket and yet still can’t afford skyrocketing rents there. So, for the last year she has lived in her car, even though she has a colostomy bag.

Most worrying, we still don’t have an effective strategy to address homelessness in Oregon. That’s partly because Oregon is short approximately 140,000 housing units, and unless we build another 30,000 each year the problem gets even worse.

We should learn from other jurisdictions. Dallas and Houston are both Democratic cities that cared about homelessness, and both tried to address it. But in Dallas, despite the best of intentions, homelessness rose; in Houston, it dropped by more than half, as The Texas Tribune reported.

Like Dallas, we have good intentions and plenty of resources, but we don’t have the right policies or sufficient follow-through and implementation. And when 22,000 Oregon children are homeless, good intentions are not enough. We need accountability.

Housing is also linked to mental health and addiction, and there too we have stumbled ­– Oregon lost 150 residential treatment beds last year just as demand was increasing.

I learned of a 13-year-old boy in Bend who suffered a mental health crisis, but no bed was available for him. So, he was kept in hospital emergency rooms for two months and then transferred to an institution in New Jersey. Can you imagine anything more traumatizing for that boy?

I’m close to three generations of an Oregon family that has enormous talent but continuing struggles with addiction and crime. The youngest child was the first born in decades without a prenatal exposure to drugs or alcohol, and we all hoped that he marked a turning point. But now ,his parents have relapsed, and the child is in foster care.

We as taxpayers have spent (and will spend) enormous sums incarcerating members of this family and now paying for foster care. How much more humane ­– and thrifty and effective – it would be to provide adequate mental health and addiction services, and job training.

A final missing puzzle piece in Oregon is first-rate public education. Economic historians suggest that the best predictor of where a society will be in 25 years is the state of education. Yet a majority of Oregon third-graders can’t read at grade level, one of the best predictors of high school completion, and we have one of the lowest reported high school graduation rates in the country. We are failing these kids before they fail us, and the problems will get worse if Oregon schools hemorrhage teachers and staff this year as many expect.

Yet it’s still true that we’re lucky to be Oregonians, fortunate to be bathed by Oregon rains, buffeted by gusts of clean Oregon air and awed by Oregon’s mountains — and endowed with a can-do spirit that helped us pull through the pandemic with low COVID-19 mortality and high vaccination rates. We can fix our state’s problems and illuminate a path for America.

We have outstanding models in place around the state that can be scaled, including relief nurseries for early childhood, Square One Villages for homelessness, Provoking Hope for addiction treatment, Friends of the Children for intergenerational poverty and Lines for Life for substance abuse and suicide.

I’m not going to be the governor to tackle these problems around us, but I will continue to work as an Oregonian — until my ashes are scattered on the family farm I love — to cooperate with others in trying to make a difference. A reasonable starting point is to acknowledge a reality that I heard over and over when I was on the campaign trail, from people of every political persuasion. It’s a blunt assessment with a penumbra of hope: “Oregon can do better. This is not the best we can be.”

Share your opinion

Submit your essay of 500-600 words on a highly topical issue or a theme of particular relevance to the Pacific Northwest, Oregon and the Portland area to commentary@oregonian.com. Please include your email and phone number for verification.

Adblock test (Why?)



"Opinion" - Google News
February 27, 2022 at 09:00PM
https://ift.tt/hUyXLbC

Opinion: Out of governor’s race, but an Oregonian for life - OregonLive
"Opinion" - Google News
https://ift.tt/laYZwqh
Shoes Man Tutorial
Pos News Update
Meme Update
Korean Entertainment News
Japan News Update

Saturday, February 26, 2022

Opinion | A World Moving Toward Autocracy - The New York Times

Readers respond to a column by David Brooks about liberalism in crisis in “this dark century.”

To the Editor:

Re “The Century of the Strongman Begins,” by David Brooks (column, Feb. 18):

Our global trend toward autocracy has been well documented and has produced a great deal of legitimate worry. But the question in my mind has been “Why?” My naĂŻve assumption has always been that people generally desire American-style liberty. But I think that Mr. Brooks articulated quite well the oft-forgotten fact that the founders structured our system the way they did precisely because they understood the less-than-democratic instincts of human nature.

This was an embarrassing, head-slapping realization for me because I feel I should know better. During the 1990s and early 2000s, I was a chief of staff for a Republican member of Congress and a senior-level aide to two others. I worked in an environment in which the founders’ ideals and their craftiness were part of the fabric of everyday life.

Like Mr. Brooks, I have bemoaned the loss of basic civics education in our schools and the collapse of so many basic pillars of society. And yet, the simple idea at the center of his essay that the predominant instinct for most people is not to ensure a just society for all, but one in which they and their tribal interests thrive, had eluded me.

The adversary we face isn’t simply Trumpism or Putinism. Our enemy is human nature. That’s no small adversary, but now we have a better understanding of the problem we face.

Keith Lee Rupp
Tampa, Fla.

To the Editor:

David Brooks writes that liberal democracies, including ours, are in crisis; authoritarian regimes are ascending. Mr. Brooks sees a critical need for a reset, for tending to the soil needed to support our rule-of-law-based democracy. Is it too late?

Our democratic soil is despoiled by poverty, racism, consumerism, extreme income disparities, militarism, partisan interference in elections and an ongoing “war” over the role of government in creating a fair, equitable society. The conflict over who we are as a nation, as a people, reveals significant differences that may very well be impossible to bridge. We are navigating troubled waters with no safe harbor in sight.

Michael Katz
Washington

To the Editor:

David Brooks is right that the United States has neglected “the seedbeds of democracy” at home.

In addition, a new foreign policy is needed to combat the rise of authoritarian strongmen like Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping. Their power is based on their access to global markets created and supported by the world’s great democracies. President Biden should seize on the unifying moment presented by Russia’s military actions against Ukraine. He should lead the founding of a new Alliance of Democracies.

An Alliance of Democracies, including Europe and North America, as well as democratic governments in Africa, Asia and South America, can help make progress to meet our largest challenges. These include not only the preservation of democracy in the world, but also the climate emergency and other global problems.

Eric W. Orts
Philadelphia
The writer is a professor of legal studies and business ethics at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania.

To the Editor:

Tending our seeds of democracy is a lovely metaphor, bringing to my imagination the possibility of an overflowing garden of multicolor flowers and fruits, the literal seeds of our labor. But our democracy of the late 20th century left out increasing numbers of people.

The war on poverty and the cementing of civil and human rights remained seedlings, now withering. Neither current democracies nor autocracies are tending these seeds, ones that must be front and center for our species, let alone our democracy, in all our glorious colors, to thrive.

Extreme income and wealth disparities, growing climate disasters, massive poverty, with its consequences of malnourishment, illness, homelessness, joblessness and lack of education, bring to my imagination an entirely different picture, one of a failed species. Our earth has the resources to tend David Brooks’s garden. Do we have the will to collectively, collaboratively and equitably harness them?

Nancy Bermon
Nyack, N.Y.

To the Editor:

While I share his concern for liberal democracy and the rise of authoritarianism, David Brooks’s selective memory is astonishing. Liberalism is under threat, according to Mr. Brooks, because societal institutions — churches, media, civic organizations — that used to mold democratic citizenry no longer function as they should. Missing from his account are the neoliberal economic reforms that fundamentally transformed societies around the globe, including the United States.

Our economy used to work for working people. Corporations and the wealthy used to pay their fair share in taxes. Inequality was high, but all incomes enjoyed the economic dividends that came from productivity. Societal institutions may be withering on the vine, but we should be clear about the cause: Deregulation, privatization, the hollowing out of government and constant denigration of the public good are what poisoned the soil.

Mark Cassell
Kent, Ohio
The writer is director of the Washington Program in National Issues and a professor of political science at Kent State University.

To the Editor:

David Brooks notes that our founders “had no illusions about the depravity of human beings.” Realizing this and fearing ambitious demagogues, they built a democracy with checks and balances. Now Mr. Brooks sees the threat to liberalism and the destruction of democracy that are taking place not only throughout the world but within our own country. He asks, “What the hell happened?” as he sees the 21st century so dark, regressive and dangerous.

As a psychiatrist, I believe I can answer his question. We are all born with both good and bad instincts, but we learn to control and repress our baser instincts, including anger and greed, to become part of a working society. I think Mr. Brooks is correct that unleashed narcissism took over, subverting the healthy repression that enabled us to live in a democracy.

One demagogue, our former president, through use of primitive mob psychology unleashed the irrational angers that have misled so many citizens and public servants such that we are now a sick and divided nation.

We are in a very dangerous time. If we do not rid our nation of its sickness and become a United States again, we will see the end of what has been the world’s greatest democracy.

Howard A. Corwin
Naples, Fla.

To the Editor:

These are indeed grim times we are living in, but David Brooks’s recollection of the 1990s as a golden era of what he calls “good news” is utter nonsense. Has he forgotten the Rwandan genocide of 1994, which resulted in an estimated 800,000 deaths? Or the Congo civil wars, the carnage in the Balkans, Liberia and Sierra Leone, and so on?

Millions died violently during that decade or became refugees, orphans or the walking wounded. Indeed, aside from the two world wars, the ’90s were one of the bloodiest decades of the 20th century.

Chris Hennemeyer
Washington
The writer is an international consultant.

To the Editor:

David Brooks is on the mark in urging us to tend democracy carefully and continuously, as it is not a natural state for humans. I may disagree that this will be the century of the strongman, as the current crop of autocrats do not compare with the deadly trio of the last century — Hitler, Stalin and Mao.

Even so, the American flavor of democracy evolved steadily, if erratically, from the roots planted by the founders, to use Mr. Brooks’s analogy. But now that we have gone through the conquest of the continent, a Civil War, two world wars and a Cold War, we are finally facing each other and asking: Are we going to use herbicide or fertilizer? Will we yield to autocracy and suppression, or revitalize democracy, the rule of law and working for the common good?

As many others have said, our actions, and our votes, over the next few years may settle which way this country will go.

Ben Janowski
New York

Adblock test (Why?)



"Opinion" - Google News
February 26, 2022 at 08:00PM
https://ift.tt/N9lhzJM

Opinion | A World Moving Toward Autocracy - The New York Times
"Opinion" - Google News
https://ift.tt/laYZwqh
Shoes Man Tutorial
Pos News Update
Meme Update
Korean Entertainment News
Japan News Update

Opinion | We must act appropriately on Ukraine - The Washington Post

Robert Kagan’s excellent Feb. 22 Tuesday Opinion essay, “What we can expect after Putin’s conquest of Ukraine,” was prescient. The single most important action that the United States could take now is to announce a new status of forces agreement and permanent base in Poland, as well as a new U.S.-led base in a Baltic state most suited to housing U.S. forces. The size and complement of any permanent force in these locations are less important than the meaningful commitment to a long-term U.S. and NATO permanent presence in Eastern Europe.

Germany might have outgrown large U.S. permanent bases, but our forces would be greeted with open arms along the eastern flank of NATO. The idea of having no permanent forces along that critical frontier is no longer a negotiating chip that can be offered to Russia to de-escalate conflict in the region or appease Russian President Vladimir Putin’s xenophobic demands, now or in the future.

This relatively small but symbolic investment would provide a direct military response to Moscow, without taking our eyes off the strategic importance of the Indo-Pacific region and China.

Jeremy Greenwood, Washington

The writer is a foreign policy federal executive fellow at the Brookings Institution in the Strobe Talbott Center on Security, Strategy and Technology.

What does it mean to be an American? Whose liberty is worth protecting with your life? Only your own life? Only American lives? Ukrainian lives? Where does one draw the line between those whose liberty Americans will physically defend and those lives we won’t, and why?

On Jan. 20, 1961, President John F. Kennedy made these promises during his inaugural address: “Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty. … To those peoples in the huts and villages across the globe struggling to break the bonds of mass misery, we pledge our best efforts to help them help themselves, for whatever period is required — not because the Communists may be doing it, not because we seek their votes, but because it is right. If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.”

Being willing to keep those American promises at any cost defined what was “American” (to me) in the 1960s.

On Feb. 24, without provocation, Russia invaded Ukraine, a sovereign nation seeking liberty from despotism.

If defending liberty at home and abroad, at any cost, is still an American obligation, then actively defending Ukrainians’ liberty, with American troops on the ground in Ukraine, is an American obligation.

Greg Gianas, Redmond, Wash.

Adblock test (Why?)



"Opinion" - Google News
February 27, 2022 at 04:50AM
https://ift.tt/ItRwPxr

Opinion | We must act appropriately on Ukraine - The Washington Post
"Opinion" - Google News
https://ift.tt/laYZwqh
Shoes Man Tutorial
Pos News Update
Meme Update
Korean Entertainment News
Japan News Update

Letter: Situational Outrage | Opinion | thepilot.com - Southern Pines Pilot

Eric Trump said recently in a televised interview when asked about his opinion of COVID vaccines that he was mad because he is an anti-vaxxer and that COVID-19 vaccines represent the "stripping of freedoms" in the U.S.

He simply ignores that his father claims credit for getting the vaccine developed quickly and has received both COVID shots and the booster.

I doubt that Eric Trump made it through childhood without receiving multiple vaccinations.

Ken Owens, Pinehurst

Publisher’s Note: This is a letter to the editor, submitted by a reader, and reflects the opinion of the author. The Pilot welcomes letters from readers on its Opinion page, which serves as a public forum. The Pilot is not in the business of suppressing public opinion. We are a forum for community debate, and publish almost every letter we receive. For information on how to make a submission, visit this page: https://www.thepilot.com/site/forms/online_services/letter/

Adblock test (Why?)



"Opinion" - Google News
February 27, 2022 at 02:41AM
https://ift.tt/6nj7lWT

Letter: Situational Outrage | Opinion | thepilot.com - Southern Pines Pilot
"Opinion" - Google News
https://ift.tt/laYZwqh
Shoes Man Tutorial
Pos News Update
Meme Update
Korean Entertainment News
Japan News Update

There is no such thing as Russian public opinion - Econlib

This is a theme I’ve considered in numerous previous posts, but it’s worth revisiting in light of recent events. Tyler Cowen directed me to the following tweet:

Consider what would happen if you surveyed 1000 Russians with the following question:

A.  Do you favor using Russian troops to liberate Ukraine from its Nazi-like government?

Then ask another 1000 Russians the following question:

B.  Do you favor invading Ukraine if the locals greet Russian troops with hostility?

I suspect the poll results would differ.  So which poll result reflects actual Russian public opinion?  It depends what you mean by actual opinion.  Do you mean views prior to being well informed of the facts, or views after being well informed on the facts? Views on the invasion they might have imagined, or views on the actual invasion?

Here’s an analogy.  You’ll get one set of answers if you ask Americans if we spend too much on foreign aid, and another if you first tell Americans the relatively small amount we actually spend on foreign aid, and then ask them if that’s too much.  Which one is the actual opinion?  The poorly informed answer or the well-informed answer?  I’d say both, but for different purposes.

People sometimes resist my claim by suggesting that public opinion exists, but that it’s not solid like the trunk of a tree, rather it’s fragile and easily blown about like the leaves on a tree.  But even that isn’t quite right.  We are dealing with something more akin to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.  Merely asking the question actually changes the answer.  The answers on the foreign aid questions differ because the question can be framed in a way that provides more or less accurate information.  The same is true of the two Ukraine invasion questions shown above.

Because I’m a philosophical pragmatist, for me the bottom line on truth is always usefulness.  If you want to consider public opinion, you also need to consider the purpose for which it will be used.  For instance, are you trying to win an election? 

Putin might be interested in Russian public opinion before launching a war.  But he can also shape public opinion because he controls the Russian news media.  So Putin would make a mistake to rely too much on artificially “manufactured” public opinion.  To employ a term used by economists, it’s not “structural”.   If he’s smart, he’d also be interested in what public opinion in Russia will be once the Russian people learn that Ukrainians view them as aggressors, not liberators. 

So when I say there is no such thing as public opinion, I don’t mean that people don’t have opinions.  Rather I am suggesting that there is no single public opinion that is invariant to the way a question is asked.  Public opinion can be manufactured in many ways, including political propaganda, but also including the framing of survey questions.                   

PS.  In my previous post, I was skeptical of the willingness of Western governments to impose tough sanctions on Ukraine.  (Whether sanctions would be wise is a different question.)    This tweet caught my eye:           

               

Adblock test (Why?)



"Opinion" - Google News
February 26, 2022 at 06:34AM
https://ift.tt/jAQnF48

There is no such thing as Russian public opinion - Econlib
"Opinion" - Google News
https://ift.tt/BgNfptz
Shoes Man Tutorial
Pos News Update
Meme Update
Korean Entertainment News
Japan News Update

Friday, February 25, 2022

Opinion: Ballot Initiative Encourages Responsible Development - Laguna Beach Local News - Laguna Beach Independent Newspaper

By John Thomas

An optimist, a pessimist, and an engineer walk into a bar—and see a glass—with water in it. The optimist says it’s half full. The pessimist says it’s half empty. The engineer says the glass is too big for the amount of water.

When residents are asked about Laguna’s biggest problems, the most common answer is traffic and congestion. The biggest complaint of commercial landlords is too much retail vacancy. In an ideal world, supply equals demand. Laguna doesn’t have a demand problem. It has a supply problem. Actually, Laguna has an over-supply problem. We have too much supply of commercial space for the amount of demand. That’s one big reason for vacancy. The developer’s solution is to try to pump up demand. One way they want to do that is for the City to grant concessions that increase the amount of commercial space or allow more intense use of the existing space, which will increase supply and might increase demand. But these concessions to commercial landlords result in more traffic and congestion, which takes us back to residents’ biggest complaints – too much traffic and congestion.

And yet, believe it or not Laguna has just approved a plan that will allow building owners in the downtown to intensify uses and sometimes add space without mitigating the added impacts on the community. The new plan paves the way for commercial building owners to replace lower-intensity uses with higher intensity uses. It allows changing to a use that will need more parking but it does not require the benefiting building owner to provide the additional parking spaces that will be needed.

That engineer is right. The glass is too big for the amount of water. And Laguna has the same problem. We have too much commercial space for the amount of demand for commercial space. And some people even want to add more commercial space.

The business news tells us it’s not just us. The whole country has too much brick-and-mortar retail commercial space.

There are solutions. To a hammer, everything looks like a nail. To a developer, everything needs to be developed. But if you already have too much, why build more? If there is too much commercial space and too little housing, one solution would be to convert the most marginal commercial space to housing, thereby addressing the imbalance between retail supply and demand and the need for housing. And since housing is a far less intense land use than commercial uses, traffic and congestion would be reduced. Talk about a win-win.
If we have too much commercial space, why create more? More and bigger is not the solution. Why make whatever problem we have worse by intensifying uses and adding supply?
The ballot initiative addresses problems like these and offers solutions. It’s a guidebook to prioritize people over profit. The ballot initiative encourages developers and commercial building owners to make Laguna better not bigger.

A smart developer can make a profit by making something better without making it bigger. Intensifying uses without fully mitigating the negative impacts of the development is a shortcut to short term profits by simply leaving the problems it creates to someone else to clean up. That is not responsible development.

Laguna’s developers see the ballot initiative as a problem. The ballot initiative creators see it as a solution. It does not stop development. It encourages responsible development. The sky is not falling. Simply following the path laid out in the ballot initiative leads to a better Laguna.

John is a member of the Laguna Beach Audit Review & Measure LL Oversight Committee and 1st Vice President of the South Laguna Civic Association.

View Our User Comment Policy

Adblock test (Why?)



"Opinion" - Google News
February 26, 2022 at 03:29AM
https://ift.tt/gpMDSin

Opinion: Ballot Initiative Encourages Responsible Development - Laguna Beach Local News - Laguna Beach Independent Newspaper
"Opinion" - Google News
https://ift.tt/5C8hIO2
Shoes Man Tutorial
Pos News Update
Meme Update
Korean Entertainment News
Japan News Update

Search

Featured Post

I just paid $9.99 for a carton of 18 eggs. Will prices ever drop? | Opinion - Sacramento Bee

[unable to retrieve full-text content] I just paid $9.99 for a carton of 18 eggs. Will prices ever drop? | Opinion    Sacramento Bee &quo...

Postingan Populer