Wichita Eagle

Citizens' voices finally heard

We are constantly told to voice our opinions. We are asked to vote. We are asked to take more action in the northeast community. That action was rewarded with the Lord's Diner deciding not to locate in the area.

We are finally being heard. We said "no" and got the result we wanted.

Calm. That's not a word one hears much these days, but calm is what some are urging in the wake of a federal report on breast cancer screening.

Released Monday, the report has caused a stir with its recommendation that women in their 40s don't need annual mammograms and that self-exams no longer should be part of a doctor's instructions to female patients.

The timing of the report in the midst of a health care reform debate about reducing medical costs also has eyebrows raised. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius responded Wednesday that the task force does not set federal policy and said that women should continue to get regular mammograms starting at age 40.

The Sarah Palin phenomenon — for that is what it is, because her celebrity flows singularly from John McCain's choice of her as a running mate — offers an opportunity for conservatives to choose their path to the future. Will it be a path of the angry and disenfranchised outsider? Or will it be something of substance that produces triumphs in both politics and policy?

The victim thing is getting old. Conservatives have a significant presence in virtually every venue they like to denounce. That includes government (though not this one) and especially the media. Talk radio rules and the rulers are conservatives. Fox News Channel dominates the ratings. The conservative presence in academia lags, but there are universities that do not revise American history and mock religious values. Movies? There are some with solid conservative principles, such as Sandra Bullock's latest film, "The Blind Side."

In Palin's interview with Oprah Winfrey, the queen of talk asked the queen of politics about the famous Katie Couric interview. I thought Couric gave Palin ample opportunity to reveal herself and to let viewers see if there was substance behind Palin's attractive exterior. Couric legitimately tried to find out what shapes Palin's worldview and what she reads. Palin couldn't name a single publication.

Yasser Arafat got a Nobel Peace Prize. That should show you it's good for nothing but a doorstop. So let Barack Obama keep his. He could use it for a presidential paperweight.

* * *

I'm sure that Obama, like every other president, has his speeches written for him. Granted, he can read them, although I think his cadence is sort of monotonous. But he needs to be more than an orator. We need someone who is decisive.

HASH(0xbf58f14)

It's simple: If you are arrested by local, state or federal law enforcement agencies, then you should be given the full protection of the Constitution. But if you are in custody because we had to declare war on a country and send in the Marines, you should get a military tribunal.

* * *

I prefer my odds with those terrorists on trial much more than trying to cross the street with a green light in New York City.

In 1987, two Rutgers University researchers ignited a prairie fire by suggesting that much of the High Plains, including a large swath of Kansas farmland, should be returned to its natural state — what they called a Buffalo Commons.

The idea, which envisioned parts of 10 prairie states being transformed into a massive short-grass prairie national park, was derided as impractical, impossible and un-American. "The idea offended me," said former Kansas Gov. Mike Hayden, once a harsh Buffalo Commons critic.

But in the decades since, the population decline that spurred the plan not only continued, but accelerated. The already stressed Ogallala Aquifer, the sole source of water for much of the region, has dried up faster than anticipated. Irrigated farmland has become dry, low-production farmland. Local economies of the High Plains have dwindled.

Not long ago, the media made us listen to mind-numbing stories about the "balloon boy." This week they've given us hours of useless information about a five-chapter book written by another publicity hound named Sarah Palin. Where is Walter Cronkite when you need him?

* * *

Why do people make a big deal out of Palin's so-called lack of experience when she has had 100 times more than President Obama? Oh, yeah — Obama is a great speaker.

How could terrorist remain in Army?

I am very saddened that our military, FBI and perhaps others dropped the ball on the terrorist stationed at Fort Hood.

How could the alleged shooter, who was being investigated as suspicious and sympathetic toward suicide bombers, be allowed to remain in the service?

Liberals are still attacking Sarah Palin a year after the election. They are afraid a good choice will be made next time.

* * *

I hope Palin does run for president in 2012. Maybe after she loses, again, she will take the hint and go away and take her theocracy supporters with her.

Now we can say, with no real doubt, that the Obama administration has suffered its first major foreign policy failure, and it's hard to see a way to recover.

In fact, the administration's Middle East strategy has been nothing short of a debacle, born of inexplicable naivete. Couldn't they see that previous presidents, going back more than two decades, had asked Israeli and Arab leaders to make exactly the same "gestures" — and none of those presidents had succeeded?

Certainly it is laudable that a new president plunged into this, the oldest major festering sore of the modern world, weeks after taking office. Presidents George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush, Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter all paid lip service to the issue until late in their terms. Every one of them realized that the problem was so fraught, the chance of success so faint, that the most likely outcome of any major effort was embarrassment.

Terrorists by definition try to frighten you into changing the way you do things. In the run-up to his trial as an alleged mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's success as a terrorist is showing in us. A lot of good, patriotic, law-and-order Americans suddenly sound frightened by our own civilian judicial system.

Almost two-thirds of Americans would rather see Mohammed tried in a military court instead of a civilian court, according to a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll released Monday. Only 34 percent say that he should face trial in civilian court, as the Obama administration plans to do.

If Mohammed is tried in the United States, 64 percent of those polled think he will get a fair trial. Most of us believe our system is fair, yet that seems to be what troubles many of us. We'd rather have Mohammed tried by a system that was a little less fair. We'd like a deck stacked more against him.

Military people know how to fight wars, but diplomatic tactics may prevent wars. Perhaps President Obama can catch more flies with honey than the military can with bombs.

* * *

Why do Republicans think that Americans cannot successfully house the Guantanamo detainees in the United States? Do Republicans think Americans are too stupid for the job?

Strident opposition was astonishing

As a former Wichitan, I read with astonishment the Wichita Ministerial League's strident opposition to the proposed Lord's Diner satellite location at 21st and Grove ("NE Lord's Diner site faces vocal opposition," Nov. 13 Local & State).

I sympathize with the area's residents who are concerned about the potential impact on their neighborhood. No one wants to see crime increase and property values drop. However, for a group of ministers to offer such a scathing rebuke is truly astounding. It seems that expressing their concerns and discussing possible preventive measures — such as coordination with the Wichita Police Department substation less than a mile away, or forming an advisory board of neighborhood residents — might have been a more reasonable response.

With the discussion on health care reform, emotional terms such as "death panels" and "health care rationing" are making the news. Though no one is advocating sending Grandma off on an ice floe, perhaps this discussion is forcing us to think seriously about such questions as: What is good medical care at the end of life? Is there a time when we do need to pull back on costly, high-tech, aggressive therapies? Do we sometimes make the treatment worse than the disease?

Studies repeatedly have shown that Americans consume staggering amounts of medical resources (as well as human resources) near the end of life, often on treatments that realistically do not extend quality of life very much.

November is National Hospice Month. Simply stated, the hospice philosophy is about "quality of life" rather than "quantity." Hospice is now involved with 40 percent of all deaths in this country and recognizes that all individuals have their own goals in life that give meaning and purpose.

The Greater Wichita Economic Development Coalition commissioned a study five years ago that identified industries to target for growth and to help diversify the local economy. Given new economic and market conditions (including the emergence of the green-energy sector), GWEDC is wise to update that study and re-examine the region's competitiveness.

To that end, GWEDC hired Dallas-based Site Selection Group to assess the community's current work force, business and economic conditions; develop a strategy for leveraging and attracting resources; update the list of target industries; and report on how comparable communities have moved from being "good to great."

The consultant has completed its review of peer communities but won't release its full report until Jan. 18. But David Brandon, a senior vice president with Site Selection Group, told The Eagle editorial board this week that the top priority for economic development should be nurturing and supporting existing local businesses.

To those who proudly fly your American flags, place yellow ribbons on your cars and so abuse your freedom of speech: You have veterans to thank for many of the everyday liberties you take for granted. And they aren't just men; you have women to thank, too. Remember them next Nov. 11.

* * *

I have very little faith that the people who were so incredibly reckless and irresponsible as to vote for President Obama in the first place can be counted on to actually understand what they have done.

Perhaps you've long believed that extremist Islamic terrorism poses the greatest danger to America. Well, the Republicans wish to disabuse you of that notion.

House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, declared the other day that health care reform is actually "the greatest threat to freedom that I've seen in the 19 years I've been in Washington" — an enlightening assertion, since I'd foolishly figured that the piloting of a plane full of innocents into the Pentagon wall had constituted the greatest assault on freedom in Washington.

Call me crazy, but I'd assumed that al-Qaida scored higher on the fright meter than the prospect of Americans getting the same health protections that are common everywhere else in the democratized world.