A4 • The World • Monday, August 25,2014
Editorial Board Jeff Precourt, Publisher Larry Campbell, Executive Editor
Les Bowen, Digital Editor Ron Jackimowicz, News Editor
Opinion theworldlink.com/news/opinion
When police act like military Libertarians warned for years that government is force, that government always grows and that America’s police have become too much like an occupying army. We get accused of being paranoid, but we look less paranoid after heavily armed police in Ferguson, Missouri, tear gassed peaceful protesters, arrested journalists and stopped some journalists from entering the town. One week before the rioting began, Fox News aired my documentary on the militarization of law enforcement, “Policing America.” That show didn’t stop some left-wing commentators from making the bizarre claim that libertarians like me have been silent about Ferguson. I can’t force them to read my columns, or Sen. Rand Paul’s (R, Ken.) article titled “We Must Demilitarize the Police” or libertarian Rep. Justin Amash’s (R, Mich.) condemnation of the police for “escalating” tensions with “military equipment.” Although it was government police and government-supplied military equipment that provoked the conflict (plus property-rightsviolating looters), leftists still found ways to blame libertarians and advocates of private gun ownership. Pulitzer Prize-winning cartoonist Tom Toles depicted a sarcastic TV viewer watching news JOHN from Ferguson and sniping STOSSEL that “I’m sure the NRA has an interesting solution for Columnist this” — as if overzealous police are the fault of people who believe in individuals’ right to defend themselves. Other pro-big-government commentators just questioned the sincerity of libertarians, saying that if we were in power, we would become authoritarians and defend the police. It’s true that once people are in power, they often grow fond of authority and less interested in liberty. But I don’t see why this is an argument against libertarians — who warn about this problem all the time — instead of an argument against all those who are actually in power and shameless about wielding that power. But since leftists are so easily confused, and since there’s plenty of blame to go around, let’s list who’s to blame for what: ■ The police do not have the right to execute suspects, unless there is no other way of stopping them and they pose an immediate threat to the safety of others. ■ Michael Brown, assuming current interpretations of security footage are correct, robbed and bullied a store clerk right before he was killed by police. That may well mean he was violent and dangerous, but even violent people should be brought to trial, not gunned down. ■ Individual cops may feel threatened — and may be threatened in the course of doing their jobs — but they still do not have the right to use more force than is necessary. Too often, panicked or angry cops pump multiple rounds into already-wounded suspects, as appears to have happened to Michael Brown. ■ Yes, centuries of white people abusing the civil liberties of blacks have left many blacks resentful of police power, and in recent years, white police officers have shot, on average,two young black men every week. But none of that justifies violence and looting like that which followed Michael Brown’s death. Criminals who ransack stores are always wrong to violate the rights of innocent third parties. ■ Peaceful protesters should not be lumped in with looters and subject to curfews by police. Most looters are opportunists, not people making a political statement. Police and angry citizens alike have a duty to distinguish between protesters and criminals. ■ The Pentagon, the Department of Homeland Security and opportunistic politicians all pushed the idea of heavily arming local cops, even in places more rural than Ferguson. “Why would cops wear camouflage gear against a terrain patterned by convenience stores and beauty parlors?” wonders the Cato Institute’s Walter Olson. He notes that a man identifying himself as a veteran from the Army’s 82nd Airborne Division reacted to video of police in Ferguson by tweeting, “We rolled lighter than that in an actual war zone.” If authorities arm cops like soldiers, they may begin to think like soldiers — and see the public as the enemy. That makes violent confrontations more likely. John Stossel is host of “Stossel” on the Fox Business Network. He’s the author of “No They Can’t: Why Government Fails, but Individuals Succeed.”
Write to us The World welcomes your letter. Write to letters@theworldlink.com, or P.O. Box 1840, Coos Bay, 97420. ■ Please use your real name. ■ 400 words maximum. ■ No defamation, vulgarity, business complaints, poetry or religious testimony. ■ Please list your address and daytime phone for verification.
Letters to the Editor Global LNG view prompts caution Information at the International Energy Agency of Worldwide Natural Gas Producers and Exporters list countries that produce natural gas, from Saudi Arabia to Norway, Qatar, Canada, Iran and Russia. Africa, Australia and Malaysia export gas to Europe and Asia. China is developing natural gas reserves and plans to be self-sufficient by 2020. Currently, the U.S. leads in production and exports 50 percent of domestic natural gas. U.S. industry increasingly demands natural gas to reduce reliance on oil, coal and aging nuclear power plants, and is dependent on natural gas storage to keep prices low for U.S. consumers. Increasing exports results in rising natural gas prices for U.S. consumers. Producers profit by exporting natural gas to China, Japan and Europe for the benefit of different groups. Elected governments award natural gas leases to bidders. Governments who lease to companies with the best environmental, social and safety record share costs and profits with its people. Good governance invests gas profits to secure sustainable physical and social infrastructure for the whole population and preserves scenic areas to attract tourism and investments.
Governments who lease to investor-company highest bidders burden towns and individuals with natural gas production, from loss of potable water from hydraulic fracturing to loss of private property value from pipelines enforced by eminent domain. Investor-company profits taxed by local governments and controlled by appointed boards benefit special agency groups, but most of the population could wait for any direct benefits. World demand drops as more countries become energy self-sufficient, and promised benefits disappear without sustainable investments. Investor-companies cut their losses and abandon facilities as world exports of natural gas decline. Data shows a 3 percent drop in natural gas demand since 2012, and recession is forecast in Europe. Local governments approving natural gas exports to Asia depend on tax gains and promised benefits. Global production, export and import of natural gas keeps changing, and there is no assurance of decades of sustainable profits. AJ Velinty Florence
What she said not what he thought This is in response to an opinion piece in The World’s Aug. 12
paper submitted by Mr. Wim DeVriend regarding an article I wrote discussing the opposition to LNG and past big industries who have attempted to build here. Ordinarily, I would not respond to someone’s opposing comment on an article I submitted, since I’m thankful we can all express our opinions, and I respect the ideas of all citizens. However, when someone claims I said something I did not say, I feel I must set the record straight, since he used my name. The statement in question is “Coos Bay’s glorious industrial future has been blocked by selfish, covetous leftists who hate the free enterprise system.” Thankfully, he didn’t put that part in quotes but did state, “Or so she says, with more untruths than space may allow me to identify.” Nowhere in my article did I state what Mr. DeVriend claims I did in the afore mentioned quote. He also seems to have missed my statement at the start of my article that “What I have to say is mere speculation.” I will admit that my opinions are strictly based on articles in The World and the opinions expressed by those on both sides of an issue that were printed down through the years. Mr. DeVriend states that “The truth is that the ‘naysayers’ were never the ones that blocked the industries promoted by the JOB Messiahs. Every single one
flopped for ... the incompetence of the Job Messiahs themselves.” The “JOB Messiahs”, he states, are “the ‘economic development’ activists at the Port, the chamber, SCDC, BS Oregon, etc.” If he has proof of this, I would welcome his writing an article with information backing up his statement. I’m open to the other side of the story. Perhaps he can change my mind. Lois Buerer Bandon
Your View The World welcomes OP-ED submissions from community leaders, organizations, public officials and others who can lend new, informed insights and advance the discussion on issues of the day. Guidelines: ■ 800 words maximum. ■ Include your address and daytime
phone number for verification. ■ No defamation, vulgarity or busi-
ness complaints. Contact Executive Editor Larry Campbell for more information: larry.campbell@theworldlink.com, 541269-1222, ext. 251.
Where is the GOP heir apparent? The party of the next guy has no next guy. For more than two generations, the Republican presidential nominating process has had an immutable internal logic to it: The next guy in line gets the nomination. That’s how every Republican president of the post-Eisenhower era has won his party’s nomination and how just about every GOP presidential nominee since Thomas E. Dewey (1944 and 1948) got to the top of the ticket. It’s certainly how Barack Obama’s two opponents, Sen. John McCain and former Gov. Mitt Romney, were nominated. But just as the Republican Party is going through one of its periodic struggles for identity — earlier such battles were fought in 1940, 1952, 1964, 1976, 1980 and 1992 — the party finds itself without a “next guy.” The only political figure with possible claims to the title is Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, the 2012 vice presidential nominee. But he is more interested in becoming chairman of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee and realizing his dream, perhaps as difficult to attain as winning a presidential nomination, of rewriting the federal tax code. Ryan is by far the most highly regarded Republican in the House, which today is the only redoubt of the party’s power in the capital. He is more respected among, and works more effortlessly with, Republicans on Capitol Hill than those in national circles. He’s keeping his options open, as so many political figures do at this stage of the election cycle, but knowledgeable Republicans do not consider him even a faint posas a presidential sibility contender. In ordinary times, former Gov.
Jeb Bush of Florida might be considered the next guy up, but his prospects are complicated by the last guy up ( t w i c e r e m o v e d ) , DAVID which was his SHRIBMAN brother, a twoterm president Columnist who left the White House with low approval ratings and who remains a rhetorical punching bag not only for Democrats, who blame him for the messes in Iraq and Afghanistan, but also for Republicans, who consider him a spendthrift too eager to bail out big companies. The result is that there are no next guys — natural, plausible, believable Republican presidential candidates with a touch of the fairy dust of inevitability about them. There are, instead, a lot of natural, plausible, believable vice presidential candidates — a remarkable bench with no apparent leader. That is the natural order of things in the Democratic Party, which has no tradition of political primogeniture and has selected nominees such as Jimmy Carter, who in 1975 was nobody’s idea of the next guy, or even as any guy. And the irony is that in this campaign where the Republicans have no next guy, the Democrats have one, proving that the term “next guy” is gender neutral. She is Hillary Rodham Clinton, and to make things even more bizarre, she was once a Goldwater Girl. That is not to say that there are no Republicans maneuvering for advantage in a nomination race that is probably about three
months from beginning in earnest. The three leading ones are senators: Ted Cruz of Texas, Rand Paul of Kentucky and Marco Rubio of Florida. That alone is a departure from the Republican norm,which tends to favor governors (Alf Landon, Thomas Dewey, Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush). That is natural for a business-oriented party that reveres competence in executive management and that, for a generation at least, has tried to devolve power away from the federal government to the states. For that reason, the Republicans have tended to choose nominees with that sort of executive profile or with management experience in other spheres (Herbert Hoover and Wendell Willkie in business, Eisenhower in the military, George H.W. Bush in diplomacy and intelligence) and not political figures rooted in the Senate. Indeed, no Republican senator since Warren Harding has become president, and only three — Barry Goldwater, Robert J. Dole and McCain — have won the GOP nomination in modern times. It is remarkable to note that, besides them, the only other senators to make plausible runs for president in the GOP since 1944 were Howard H. Baker Jr. of Tennessee, Richard G. Lugar of Indiana and Fred Thompson of Tennessee. None of them broke 6 percent in the New Hampshire primary except for Baker, who withdrew right after that primary in 1980. Republican senators just don’t ordinarily run for president, which is why the current crop of contenders is so remarkable. By the same token, hardly anyone can conceive of Cruz, Paul or Rubio digging in for multiterm careers in the Senate, which each of them seems to consider a step-
ping stone to something else. It is, of course,always possible that one of them will emerge as a potential Senate majority leader or chairman of an important committee like Foreign Relations or Finance, but that is a stretch — kind of like imagining John F. Kennedy with gray hair standing at the majority leader’s desk calling for a quorum call in a half-empty Senate chamber. Indeed, this Republican presidential triumvirate is a matter of wonder and conjecture on Capitol Hill. The three comprise a new wave, a different kind of Republican senator, and Republican congressional insiders don’t know quite what to make of them. Meanwhile, there is a band of Republican governors, but all of them seem primed for brief presidential runs and then Cabinet positions if a Republican were to win the White House in 2016. Among them are Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, Mike Pence of Indiana and Scott Walker of Wisconsin, who is in a tight race for re-election and could always run again for governor in 2018. Gov. Rick Perry of Texas and Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey also are toying with presidential campaigns, but both are big personalities difficult to imagine in a Cabinet meeting. No rule of politics is immutable — except one. Once Cruz or Pence or one of the others wins the nomination, stands before a national nominating convention and, amid confetti and cheers, sets out to fight a general-election campaign, he becomes a giant, with the potential of winning the White House. It will happen again in 2016. It always does.