Bolton could be the best thing for the United Nations
Some people wondered why I did not openly oppose John Bolton's nomination to be United Nations ambassador. The answer is: for the same reasons that the Republican Party cheered and supported the nomination of Howard Dean in the presidential primaries last summer.
My first instinct of course was to oppose Bolton, for this would surely be another nail in the coffin of American diplomacy, such as the loss of the American backed candidate in the Organization of American States recently. Then it occurred to me that the election of Bolton may yet prove to be a good thing in the long run for both the United States and for the United Nations. It has long been thought that the U.N. depends too much on the U.S. for support and leadership and the payment of its dues to fund projects. With Bolton as ambassador they will have to find ways to deal with problems without U.S. assistance, or even with U.S. open intervention and disruption. From that will come new alliances and more independence from regressive U.S. policies.
Congress just passed a bill called the U.N. Reform Act of 2005 to withhold U.S. dues from the United Nations if the United States does not approve of U.N. actions. The U.N. does need reform. For instance it should suspend the vote and the veto power of any country that has not fully paid its dues until such dues are paid. In fact it should get rid of the veto which is an obsolete relic of the Cold War era and institute full democracy to the United Nations -- one country, one vote, giving an equal voice to all the people of the world.
Are American opinions worth more than the opinions of other peoples? I don't think so. Not in a democracy anyway. That is the American way, and if it's good enough for us then it is what the U.N. needs too. The Security Council should be abolished just as that other relic of the Cold War, the Soviet Union, was. All this is possible if Bolton goes to the United Nations instead of a rational diplomat of the kind that Sen. George Voinovich prefers.
Concerns about police protection need clarification
I am writing this in response to a May 31 letter in The Vindicator that was written by a resident of Craig Beach Village, a sophomore at Jackson Milton High School. The writer expresses concern regarding local police protection. It is true that that we only employ one full-time officer. As a small village that receives extremely limited funds, it is necessary that our monies be spread out to cover as many areas as possible.
The writer suggests that people attend the local council meeting to bring concerns to the local governments' attention. I think this is a great idea, however, we rarely have an audience at any council meeting. If the writer would have attended any or both of our past two meetings, she would know that we are trying to adjust funds so that we can employ a part-time office. I welcome local residents to attend our monthly meeting or turn into the local cable channel to view the meeting. Even without residents present, I am well aware, along with my fellow council members, of problems in the village. We do our best to address and fix as many problems as possible.
The writer asked voters to vote "yes" on the upcoming Jackson Milton School levy. She states "the lack of policemen is a very big issue," all people have to do is take interest; vote "yes." What does voting and passing a school levy have to do with local government monies?
Our village will not receive any money from a passed school levy for additional police protection. The writer needs to understand that Craig Beach Village is financially independent from Jackson Milton School and vice-versa.
WANDA SABOL, council member
Craig Beach Village