August 99 letters, September 99 letters, October 99 letters, November 99 letters, December 99 letters
Note: We note with some embarassment that letters to the editor has recently taken a back seat to other more pressing business. Here are the combined letters received during January and February.
2/23/2000. As many of you know, when you email a letter to the editor, you will get a short acknowledgement from the auto-responder, notifying you that your message is received. Last week several of these auto-responder messages bounced, meaning that the return addresses contained in the letters was invalid. We don't know if this was intentional or not, but we will not print letters to the editor that have invalid return addresses. This posting should bring us up to date on all letters to the editor, so if yours is not printed, then you need to check your setting in your email program to insure that the return address is valid.
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 07:44:12 -0800
Subject: Letter to the editor
To: editor@jacksonprogressive.com
When terrorism is confined within the borders of a nation, the responsibility to curb it falls within the realms of that nation alone. But, when terrorism crosses national borders and knows no bounds, the world has a definite role to get involved. This is because any one nation, particularly the affected nation which is the target of the terrorists, may have a very limited leverage to effectively counter international terrorism by its own efforts alone. This was clearly the case in the recent hijacking of an Indian airplane. India was forced to deal with that incident alone without much outside support.
No matter how 'noble' a cause may be, any uncivil means to achieve it clearly qualifies it as terrorism. In this regard, every civil nation has a very important role to play wherever international terrorism occurs. Unfortunately, in today's world, the international attitude is such that any one nation has no active interest in such incidents unless that nation's interests are directly affected. As an example, the U.S. did not have very much to protest until after one of the released militants publicly proclaimed in Pakistan to 'destroy India and the U.S.'
It is time for the world community to be more proactive than reactive to counter the threat of international terrorism. If the existing organizations, such as the U.N, are ineffective, we must create and enforce new protocols, like the CTBT, to which every nation must be a signatory. Such protocols must ensure unconditional involvement and action by every nation to counter international terrorism. Even if some nations do not like to work with each other or otherwise have no direct stakes in terrorist incidents, they should still take collective accountability. Otherwise, international terrorism will dangerously repeat again and again, holding the international humanity and peace at ransom. As the world enters a new millennium, mere words of condemnation alone are still inadequate to address this problem.
Murali Natarajan
Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2000 10:04:42 -0800
Subject: Letter to the editor
To: editor@jacksonprogressive.com
Dear Editor:
The recent statement by Pakistan's military ruler General Pervez Musharraf that Indo-Pakistan tension would escalate if US President Bill Clinton skipped Islamabad from his coming tour to South Asia, are tantamount to nothing less than heinous political blackmail. Earlier, in an interview with TIME in late November 1999, by saying that Clinton's absence in Pakistan would give leverage to the extremists there, Musharraf had issued veiled warnings to the US. The US cannot -- and should not - succumb to these kinds of pressures from the dictator of a country that has seen many of its governments exit through non-democratic means.
At a time when two of the biggest democracies in the world are trying to devise a cohesive strategy for countering terrorism, it is imperative that the President of the most influential nation in the world send out a strong signal by not visiting the country that the indisputable training ground for thousands of terrorists. Including Pakistan in President Clinton's visit would only seek to embolden the breeders of terrorism in Pakistan to multiply their activities with increased impunity. The only ones to be hurt then will be millions of people around the world who will continue to be affected by terrorism.
Sincerely,
Amar Karvi
Indianapolis, IN 46250
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 19:42:38 -0600 (CST)
To: editor@jacksonprogressive.com
Subject: bill 94
I don't understand all of bill 94, but one part that I do understand is that married people will not be able to get a divorce unless one of them is unfaithful , The bill is wrong. What if one of them beats the other one up? I would like it if some one would explain it to me.
have a great day Sandra & Bob
Editors note: You understand right. A convenant marriage is not required, however; you can still be married the same as ever. But if you choose to enter into a covenant marriage, you are stuck, even if your spouse beats you, becomes a drunkard, or gets sent to the penitentiary for 20 years. Covenant marriages, under the guise of preserving the institution of marriage, are actually an attempt to return to a time when women were little more than chattels. Not a nice prospect.
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 20:59:20 -0800
Subject: Letter to the editor
To: editor@jacksonprogressive.com
President Clinton appears to be vague and wavering about whether or not to include Pakistan in his proposed itinerary to the Indian subcontinent next month. Because the U.S. is the only remaining superpower today, the American presidential visit to a particular nation will not only be construed as a privilege to that nation but also be interpreted as supporting the policies and practices of that nation. In this regard, it is very important for Mr. Clinton to carefully weigh the consequences of visiting Pakistan, before making any final decision.
The U.S. and several other nations have criticized the military takeover in Pakistan and demanded a timetable from the Pakistani regime to return to civilian rule. This underscores the strong American policy to support only democratic rule in the world. To this date, there has been no clear response from Pakistan on the agenda to return to democracy. Also, the U.S. has openly acknowledged the presence of international terrorists in Pakistan and is actively pressurizing the Pakistani government to ban any support for them. Again, the gestures from Pakistan are at best vague and symbolic in this regard. Pakistan does not appear to be genuinely interested in weeding out the international terrorism operating from its soil. No matter however noble the cause may be, Pakistan is not justified to actively support terrorist acts in Kashmir or anywhere else.
If Mr. Clinton visits Pakistan despite these issues, Pakistan will be inclined to interpret his visit as the American endorsement to its policies and practices and will continue to engage in them. Thus, Mr. Clinton's well-intentioned visit to Pakistan will only help perpetuate the existing problems in that region. Moreover, it is not fair for the U.S. to equate India, the world's largest democracy, to the militarily ruled Pakistan on the same footing. The U.S. should practice the policies it preaches to the world by not including Pakistan in Mr. Clinton's itinerary next month.
Murali Natarajan