Opinion
Lawrence Journal-World l LJWorld.com l Wednesday, September 21, 2016
EDITORIALS
Planning wisely City and county officials should not strictly limit future development to a certain area.
A
s a steering committee develops and recommends policies regarding future development in and around Lawrence, city and county officials would be wise to keep guidelines broad and recognize that both infill and greenfield development serve purposes that can be beneficial. The Journal-World reported this week that a draft of updates to Horizon 2020, the comprehensive plan governing Lawrence growth, would put a ring around the city to prioritize infill development. Developers wishing to build outside the city limits would have to meet specific community benefits. Nancy Thellman, who chairs the committee working on the Horizon 2020 updates, said surveys of city residents and best practices support development density inside the city over sprawl in open areas outside the city’s perimeter. The steering committee began meeting in 2014 and in coming months will complete its policy recommendations, which ultimately have to be approved by city and county officials. The plan will be updated to cover through the year 2040. An action report listing the topics the plan will address — including managing growth, encouraging infill development and addressing affordable housing — has been completed. The draft for managing future growth states annexation of new areas for development should only be considered “if the need to accommodate demand is established and if a community benefit is provided.” Potential community benefits could include affordable housing, land for a public purpose, land preservation or employment opportunities. City planners were cautious to say the draft is preliminary. But already developers are concerned about the directions the plan could be headed. Bobbie Flory, executive director of Lawrence Home Builders Association, warned that requirements that are too strict could impede development, whether infill or greenfield. Infill development can revitalize a city. Lawrence has experienced that in recent years with several mixed-use projects that have added retail, apartments and condominiums to downtown and the area around the University of Kansas. Continuing to encourage such development with appropriate incentives is smart policy. But it’s a stretch to argue that Lawrence suffers from urban sprawl. Certainly there is room, especially to the south and west, to add development that will be key to the city’s long-term health, especially in terms of affordable housing and retail sales tax growth. It’s hard to predict the future. But what is likely is that both kinds of projects — infill in the city’s core and greenfield beyond its perimeters — will come before the government officials. Planners should make sure that Horizon 2020 includes policies that not only can accommodate both, but also encourage projects that aligns with the city’s goals no matter where they are located.
Countering Russian cyberattacks Washington — Faced with Russian nuclear threats during the Cold War, the strategist Herman Kahn calibrated a macabre ladder of escalation, with 44 different rungs ranging from “Ostensible Crisis” to “Spasm or Insensate War.” In the era of cyberwarfare that’s now dawning, the rules of the game haven’t yet been established with such coldblooded precision. That’s why this period of Russian-American relations is so tricky. The strategic framework that could provide stability hasn’t been set. Russian hackers appear to be pushing the limits. In recent weeks, the apparent targets have included the electronic files of the Democratic National Committee, the private emails of former Secretary of State Colin Powell, and personal drugtesting information about top U.S. athletes. The Obama administration is considering how to respond. As in most strategic debates, there’s a split between hawks and doves. But there’s a recognition across the U.S. government that the current situation, in which information is stolen electronically and then leaked to damage and destabilize U.S. targets, is unacceptable. “A line has been crossed. The hard part is knowing how to respond effectively,” argues one U.S. official. Retaliating in kind may not be wise for a country that is far more dependent on its digital infrastructure than is Russia. But unless some clear signal is sent, there’s a
David Ignatius
davidignatius@washpost.com
“
As always with foreign policy problems, a good starting point is to try putting ourselves in the mind of potential adversaries.” danger that malicious hacking and disclosure of information could become the norm. As always with foreign policy problems, a good starting point is to try putting ourselves in the mind of potential adversaries. The point of this exercise isn’t to justify Russian behavior but to understand it, and learn how best to contain it. The Russians have a chip on their shoulder. They see themselves as the aggrieved party. The U.S., in their view, has been destabilizing Russian politics by supporting pro-democracy groups that challenge President Vladimir Putin’s authority. To Americans, such campaigns are about free speech and other universal human rights. But to a paranoid and power-hungry Kremlin, these are U.S. “information operations.” Russian officials deny meddling in U.S. politics,
but it’s clear from some of their comments that they think the U.S. shot first in this duel of political destabilization. This payback theme was clear in Russian hackers’ disclosure this week of information stolen from the World Anti-Doping Agency about Olympic gymnast Simone Biles and tennis superstars Serena and Venus Williams. The Russians have been irate about the exposure of their own officially sanctioned doping, which led to disqualification of many Russian Olympic athletes. And so — retaliation, in the disclosure that Biles and the Williams sisters had been given permission to use otherwise banned substances. If you’re a Russian with a sense that your country has been humiliated and unjustly maligned since the Cold War — and that seems to be the essence of Putin’s worldview — then the opportunity to fight back in cyberspace must be attractive, indeed. How should the United States combat Russian cyber-meddling before it gets truly dangerous? I asked a half-dozen senior U.S. officials this question over the past few weeks, and I’ve heard competing views. The Defense Department’s cyber strategy, published last year, argues that the U.S. should deter malicious attacks by a combination of three approaches: “response ... in a manner and place of our choosing”; “denial” of attack opportunities by stronger defense; and “resilience,” by
creating redundant systems that can survive attack. A few caveats to this official strategy were cited by many of the officials: l The U.S. response probably shouldn’t come in cyberspace, where an advanced America is more vulnerable to attack than a relatively undeveloped Russia, and where the U.S. lacks sufficient “overmatch” in cyber-weapons to guarantee quick success. “Don’t get into a knife fight with someone whose dagger is almost as long as yours,” explains one expert. l The Obama administration should disclose more of what it knows about Russian actions, much as it did with Chinese and North Korean hacking. But getting in a public argument with Moscow will be fruitless, and the U.S. may blow its cyber “sources and methods” in the process. What would the Cold War “wizards of Armageddon” advise? The nuclear balance of terror finally gave way to arms-control agreements that fostered stability. But this model probably doesn’t work in cyberspace. Such agreements wouldn’t be verifiable in a world where cyber-warriors could re-equip at the local Best Buy. Norms for global behavior emerge through trial and error — after a messy period of pushing and shoving, accompanied by public and private discussion. Starting this bumpy process will be the last big challenge of Barack Obama’s presidency. — David Ignatius is a columnist for Washington Post Writers Group.
OLD HOME TOWN
150
From the Lawrence Daily Journal-World years for Sept. 21, ago 1916: IN 1866 “Louis Marsouin, a Jefferson county farmer living two and a half miles east of Lecompton, was drowned in the Kaw river yesterday afternoon when his boat overturned within sixty feet of the bank in water so shallow that a tall man could wade in it. Marsouin’s 18-year-old brother, who was in the boat, swam to safety.” — Reprinted with permission from local writer Sarah St. John. To see more, go online to www.facebook.com/ DailyLawrenceHistory.
Why kneeling during anthem is disgraceful
Letters to the editor
By Francis J. Deasey
l Letters should be 250 words or fewer. l Letters can be submitted via mail to P.O. Box 888, Lawrence KS 66044 or via email at letters@ ljworld.com.
LAWRENCE
Journal-World
5A
®
Established 1891
What the Lawrence Journal-World stands for Accurate and fair news reporting. No mixing of editorial opinion with reporting of the news. l Safeguarding the rights of all citizens regardless of race, creed or economic stature. l Sympathy and understanding for all who are disadvantaged or oppressed. l Exposure of any dishonesty in public affairs. l Support of projects that make our community a better place to live. l l
Scott Stanford, Publisher Chad Lawhorn, Editor Kim Callahan, Managing Editor Kathleen Johnson, Advertising Manager Joan Insco, Circulation Manager Allie Sebelius, Marketing Director
The sight of people kneeling during the playing of our national anthem, “The Star-Spangled Banner,” requires a response. Unquestionably, we are an imperfect and flawed country, where bigotry, racial inequality and social injustice exist. But the notion that the American flag created or perpetuates these social ills is simply wrong. It is people who create and perpetuate these social ills and, unfortunately, some of these people wear the American flag on their sleeve. However, to link those individuals with our flag is both disrespectful and unappreciative of those who proudly wear the flag on their sleeve. The American flag embodies an incalculable generosity to those suffering from natural or man-made disasters. Americans don’t take a knee when, at home or abroad, victims of tsunamis, hurricanes, earthquakes or other natural disasters ask for our financial help. The American flag embodies the selfless sacrifice of those brave men and women who respond to national crises. American first responders didn’t take a knee on Sept. 11, 2001, when asked to help others amid the horrors of the twin towers. The American flag was buried with them in the rubble that day. The American flag embodies the courage and bravery of our service men
and women when called upon to relieve the suffering and oppression of others around the world. American soldiers, sailors, Marines, airmen and coasties don’t take a knee when it comes to protecting our liberties, including our First Amendment right of free speech. The American flag embodies the unnoticed simple acts of kindness and compassion that Americans show to one another every day. Americans don’t take a knee when it comes to helping others in need. We are, as our Pledge of Allegiance reminds us, “one nation, under God, indivisible.” Kneeling during our national anthem denigrates the very symbol of our indivisibility. Kneeling during our national anthem promotes division, not healing, and disrespects those that proudly wear the American flag on their sleeve as an emblem of what is good in this country. In a strange way, kneeling during the national anthem is both ironic and hypocritical. When those who kneel during our national anthem need the services of those Americans who proudly wear the flag, who do they call? Certainly not their supporters. They call those same fellow Americans who proudly wear the flag. And those people who respond to calls for help never take a knee. They respond without inquiring about race, ethnic background, social status, or political persuasion. They simply respond and, in many instances, risk
their own lives in doing so. That is what the American flag is all about and that is what makes this country great. Those who kneel can’t have it both ways. They can’t seek to exercise those freedoms for which the American flag stands while at the same time disrespecting the very same flag and those who wear it. Simply because the First Amendment protects the right to kneel during our national anthem doesn’t mean these actions should be applauded. If we as a nation are to move forward in a unified effort to eradicate bigotry and eliminate racial inequality, we must change people’s minds and attitudes. The American flag is not a symbol of bigotry and racial inequality; it is a symbol of hope, courage, and compassion. If we as a nation believe otherwise, then our efforts to bring this country together will be for naught. My job, as a citizen of this nation, is to strive every day to embody what makes this country great, and to not take a knee when others around me need help — even those who kneel during our national anthem. If we could all make that same effort, we can bring Americans together and not promote divisions among us. We can bring our people closer to being one nation, under God, indivisible. — Francis J. Deasey is a lawyer in Philadelphia. He wrote this for the Philadelphia Inquirer. Readers may email him at fjdeasey@ dmvlawfirm.com