 |
  |
 |
||||||||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
||||||||||
|
POLITICAL WEAPON I am heartened by the perseverance of those who have publicly resisted the Downtown Ordinance, a Junior Patriot Act intended to perfect the local police state. It is not Christmas carolers or Art Walkers, by the way, who will be subject to attack under the new law. Rather, the ordinance is a weapon against homeless people and anarchists, those who cannot or will not fit into this bankrupt and pathological culture. The downtown partisans of the 2002 Homeless Initiative were subject to intense cop harassment and I know for a fact that since about that time it has been police policy to violently attack any and all public gatherings of anarchists. John Zerzan, Eugene
SAY WHAT YOU MEAN I am tired of hearing and seeing the term "reproductive decision" being substituted for abortion. Many pro-lifers believe that reproductive freedom entails making the decision whether to have sex, whether to use birth control and what kind, and taking responsibility for the consequences, including the failure rate of the birth control. I am not against birth control, but abortion is not birth control; it is the ending of a human life. In "News Briefs" (1/15), Aria Seligmann takes the president's phrase "restrict abortions" and turns it into "restrict a woman's right to reproductive freedom." Bush has done both of these things; however, I support his efforts to restrict abortion, and not his efforts to undermine access to birth control and sex education. The same issue comes up in Rep. DeFazio's recent survey mailed to his constituents. One question on the survey asked, "Do you support a woman's right to make her own reproductive decisions?" My answer is yes, I support her right to decide whether to have sex and so on. However, I do not support abortion, and I know full well that if I answered yes without the above caveat, my view would not be properly represented in the resulting statistics. Pro-choicers need to start using more explicit terms and say what they mean. Perhaps they're afraid that if the actual question was "Do you support a woman's right to have an abortion?" they might find themselves in the minority. Nate Brown, Eugene
THE CASE FOR 30 One of the least addressed issues in the state of Oregon is jobs and job quality. Oregon suffers one of the worst unemployment rates and worst job satisfaction rates in the nation. While the reasons for this include many different answers, probably the most pressing reason is that businesses do not come to Oregon because of its poor quality of life. We have road repair problems, education problems, lack of funding for public services for the elderly, child care, police protection and prisons. Despite pleas from both public and private officials in all of these sectors for more funding, Oregonians turn a blind eye to these problems, maintaining incorrectly that taxation is disproportionately high compared to the rest of the nation. Nothing could be further from the truth. Oregon's taxes are lower than those of 43 other states. Oregonians want more and better jobs, but they're not going to get them if they refuse to fund the quality of life. Without services for the elderly and children, parks and recreation, prisons and police protection, no company will be attracted to Oregon to provide better paying and more satisfying jobs that are desperately needed here. If Measure 30 doesn't pass, it will not spell doom and gloom — it will only show that Oregonians are too selfish and not willing to "promote the general welfare" of this state. In other words, it will show that capitalism does not work! We can't have it both ways. Without giving up a little (a mere $43 per year for most families) to provide better services in education, health, and welfare for all, the state's economy will suffer indiscriminately, and not provide better jobs with better pay for the majority. If Measure 30 does not pass, Oregon is destined to stay where it is: at the bottom of the social economic list of all 50 states, in dire need of road repairs, education, police protection, social services, and most importantly, jobs. Len Goforth, Springfield
NO ON 30 Not only is Measure 30 a Band-Aid on a broken system, it's also just another way to bleed the middle class, whose industry should be encouraged, not penalized. Its passage would only allow more fiscal irresponsibility at the expense of wage earners and property owners, further widening the gap between rich and poor. Though it would cost me personally not one thin dime and would assist some who really need relief, I just can't support it. I'm sorry. Maybe we bought a few too many $80,000 police motorcycles, or Measure 11 and the War on Drugs are proving to be cost prohibitive — fill in your own blanks — but waste will not be cured with more money. It's time to bite the bullet and see what they do with what they have. If we don't like it, or if it all comes down like a house of cards, at least we will know what is really important, and who is on the side of whom. If it causes some temporary suffering, volunteer your own time and resources whenever and wherever possible, but join me in voting NO on 30. Pete Raiteri, Eugene
YES ON 30 People against Measure 30 speak of the sky not falling. When Measure 28 failed, for some the sky did fall. The impact was most keenly felt by those on whom the sky did fall; people receiving benefits due to disability, those working in public schools, in law enforcement, those providing services to the disabled and the elderly. People not employed in sectors that provide these services didn't notice that sky falling, for it didn't fall on them. I've heard the tax increase is coercion, that the mess should be repaired by those in the Oregon State Legislature that caused it, without increasing our taxes. Perhaps that's true, but if I pay more taxes to save programs that benefit our children, our elderly, and our disabled, then make it so, for I will vote yes on 30. This increase is minute, averaging $3 per month per household (based on $40,000 household income). Without this increase more sky will fall. People who receive mental health benefits (already greatly reduced) will have fewer benefits and will more likely be hospitalized. Who will pay for this? The taxpayers, and the amount paid out will certainly exceed that of the tax increase. Regardless of how much one pays out in increased taxes, it's the right thing to do to provide care for those less fortunate, for those that need our help. People on welfare, those with disabilities (physical and psychiatric), are not throwaways of society, they are human beings and deserve our respect. Bob Kennedy and 13 co-signers, Eugene,
SMALL PRICE TO PAY I've seen many letters recently about how people can't possibly afford the huge new tax increases of Measure 30. A close look at the measure shows that for people with modest incomes, the tax increase would be very small. For a single person with a $20,000 income, the increase would be about $1 a month. For a couple with a $40,000 income, it would be about $2 a month. Surely, this is manageable even in these uncertain times. There will be real consequences for all Oregonians if we fail to pass Measure 30. These include loss of health coverage for thousands of residents, larger classes in the public schools, loss of drug and alcohol services, etc. A person who loses prescription drug coverage will end up costing the state far more if he has a stroke and requires permanent nursing home care. Crime rates go up when people can't get drug and alcohol or anger management counseling. There's an angry belief that seems widespread that somebody is robbing taxpayers blind. All the states are going through budget crises these days because of the economy. Overall taxes in Oregon are about in the middle of the pack nationally. If you're worked up about waste, fraud and abuse, the federal budget should be your target. Don't take it out on defenseless Oregonians. It costs very little to be kind to your fellow Oregonians in need. Please vote yes on Measure 30. Michael Wherley, Eugene,
OFFER SOLUTIONS This is a general question to those in the Eugene/Springfield area. We all know Bush is the white devil, corporate lackey, yada yada. You write in to EW and moan and groan (to the point of sounding whiny) about him, his administration and his policies. But I rarely see you people actually put up an idea for a possible solution or what you might do. "No War for Oil." OK, how would you have handled Saddam and gotten rid of him? "No war in Afghanistan." OK, how would you have reacted to 9/11? People who do nothing but complain waste time and print. At rallies you hold up signs and say, "No blood for oil" and scream about the injustice on your megaphones. But do you ever scream what you think should've been done? What should we have done with Iraq? With Afghanistan? With Al-Qaeda? With Saddam? News Flash: Isolationism doesn't work. Should we have ignored the genocide of the Jews living in Europe during WWII because it wasn't our problem? The UN is defunct. They are too worried about PC and who they might annoy to do anything. I'm not saying we should swing into any given situation like John Wayne was our commanding officer (though that would be cool), but when there is a time for action and no one else chooses to do so, then one must rise up. I proudly admit I voted for Bush and plan to in the upcoming elections. James Ready, Springfield LETTERS POLICY: We print as many letters as space allows. Please limit length to 250 words and submissions to once a month. All letters are subject to editing for length and clarity, and must include address and phone number. E-mail to editor@eugeneweekly.com, fax to 484-4044, or mail to 1251 Lincoln, Eugene 97401.
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
|
 |
|||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||
