[Grovenet] Future of Downtown Forest Grove (WAS: Fwd: LandUse Update August 16th)

[Ron D'Eau Claire]

David wrote:

Ron, when the United States proposed invading Iraq, you did not join  
me in opposing that illegal action because you felt that the  
government must know something that we didn't.  On occasion, you do  
accept situational ethics.  We all do.

---------------------------------------

I've never suggested that we should never go to war. Our government is
charged with going to war when necessary to protect our country. It's a
lousy choice, but one that is written into our constitution and practiced in
our society. It is, for most of us, the ethical response to deadly force,
just as  fighting off an attacker on a street corner is an ethical response.
(I say 'most of us' because in our society we recognize, respect and provide
for those who do reject violence on religious grounds.)

I consider war a lousy option and one that we should do everything possible
to avoid because it has huge costs - human and financial - associated with
it.

To me, it wasn't an "illegal action" until it became clear that the reasons
the President gave for going to war - that Saddam was about to attack
"America and Americans" with weapons of mass destruction in the wake of 9/11
- were false. Unlike others, including yourself, I felt an obligation - that
it was required ethically - to give the President the benefit of the doubt.
My position has changed as time has demonstrated that the President was
wrong. That's the problem with "pre-emptive" action like that. If we're
wrong, there's no way to make it right. 

The same constitution that declares that our government must go to war to
protect us also protects our personal property and wealth from random
seizure. That's what many of us believe the land use laws have done to many
Oregonians. 

The question, as far as I can see, is whether people believe that's the
case. Some seem to claim that having your bank call you to say the
government just decided to clean out your personal account because they
"needed  the money" is okay if it seems to serve some public good, even
though those required to pay are selected solely on a random basis. I
understand and respect their belief. I don't agree with it, but I respect
it. 

The key issue here is that the people of Oregon said, twice, that they did
not agree with that philosophy. The fact that I agree with them is
immaterial now. If I had been the only one to feel that way, M7 and  M37
would have failed, but they didn't.

Frankly, I'm as dismayed that the people of the United States didn't throw
the President out of office when it became patently clear he was not telling
the truth as you seem to be that the people of Oregon embraced M37. The fact
that we have sincere beliefs about what is right doesn't really mean a thing
except to us. If we want to see success, we have to work with the real power
in our society. In this case, it's the voters. 

As for discussing land use laws, if I had answers I'd be down in Salem or
writing initiatives to go on the ballot. 

Ron D'Eau Claire