 |
  |
 |
||||||||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
||||||||||
|
BEST DEMS CAN DO? During the Watergate scandal, Nixon's team coined the term "limited hang-out" to describe the tactic of fessing up to a small crime to avoid full exposure. Several recent articles in the Weakly fit the "limited hang out" pattern. EW's de facto endorsement of Dean carefully avoided Dr. Dean's history in Vermont. Gov. Dean worked with Gov. Bush to dump Vermont's nuclear waste in west Texas (stopped by outraged citizens of both states). Dean and President Bush bypassed normal environmental review of the Interstate 289 around Burlington. If you're against the west Eugene parkway, you can't vote for Dean! Dean gutted environmental enforcement, gave corporate welfare to polluters, brought Wal-Mart to Vermont, and covered up the police execution of peace activist Robert "Woody" Woodruff (see www.oilempire.us/dean.html).Dan Carol's "Kumbaya Dammit" column has had numerous errors. His Dec. 4 column called 9/11 a "sin of omission" and "At this writing, several congressional investigations and commissions are hard at work on this matter and may prove that the president could have done more to stop 9/11 from happening." This is part of the cover-up, since the deliberate "stand down" of the Air Force is one of many facts that prove 9/11 was not an intelligence "failure" but rather an intelligence crime. There is only ONE official investigation currently underway, chaired by former New Jersey Gov. Thomas Kean, a former business partner of Osama bin Laden's brother-in-law. See www.oilempire.us/investigation.html.Carol's company works for MoveOn.org, whose film Uncovered: The Whole Truth About the Iraq War, did not even hint at the subject of oil. See www.oilempire.us/moveon.html for a review. Your cover story (1/22) praises the work of Clinton's EPA chief Carol Browner, who gutted environmental enforcement, food safety, toxic regulations and promoted biotech phood. If this is the best the Democrats can do, then we're doomed to have four more years of Bush. Mark Robinowitz, Eugene
DIDN'T CUT IT Regarding your "highest recommendation" review of In the Cut (Movie clips, 1/15) playing at Cinema 12 in Springfield: I haven't seen that many people leave a performance before it was over since Churchill High School on Thursday the 15th. I hope that wasn't Lois Wadsworth's recommendation. Go see Elf instead. Now that's a classic! John Sharkey, Eugene
THE TRUE-MAN SHOW As a great grandmother, I have seen presidents come and go, but never have I heard so much inaccuracy in any State of the Union speech. Is the president already on Mars? If he became unemployed in 2005, perhaps his physical side might unite with his abstract world. "Our economy is strong." Right, 1,000 jobs in December '03. Eight million unemployed middle-class Americans aren't believing his propaganda. He made no mention of gifts to his cronies' no-bid, billion dollar contracts. He uses the media to convince the masses that black is white, mass unemployment of more than 8 million people means a strong economy. FDR had a Scottie, JFK promised the moon-landing. What photo-opportunistic copy-cat idea will this no-thinking, unoriginal, formerly outstanding military come up with next? Call Jim Carrey to direct and produce a sequel, with a different want-a-be star. One major glitch — 24 hours of truth. He has no sanity to spend billions (debt for your grandkids) to explore Mars, when 99 percent know the reality evident to us here in this world. Perhaps when one is in a separate "Mars world" already, it does sound like a good credit bankruptcy project. I was listening for something totally absent from his speech — the truth! No, I don't believe in fairy tale stories being propagandized by the rich, whose most famous words for posterity will be, "Bring 'em on (but no body bags for my kids nor my cronies)." Sally Gandy, Eugene
IRRESPONSIBILITY After reading the (1/22) "Living Out" column, I wonder if Sally Sheklow realizes she probably did more to damage her position on pro-choice. Readers are reminded how careless and irresponsible sexual practices invariably lead to unwanted pregnancies. In Sally's case she talks about her decision to cast off her birth control because of her lesbian lifestyle. Unfortunately, she chose to have relations with a male partner, which led to her "quest" for an abortion. With the country split between pro-choice and pro-life, some on both sides would be disturbed reading about her "quest back to Los Angeles" to get her abortion, presented as some type of an adventure. Selfishly, she does not mention the possibility of adoption. There is no suggestion on her part of poor judgement. When laws force pro-life Americans to help pay for the operation of abortion clinics through tax dollars, Sheklow's flippant irresponsibility widens the gap between Americans on opposite sides of the issue. If Sheklow had wanted the child, she would suddenly feel it was human and something worth nurturing. I suggest she use her life experience and her column to teach. Her credibility took a dive on this one. Steve Waleri, Veneta
TROUBLING TIMING I support legal access to abortion but I found Sheklow's recent column (1/22) to be deeply troubling. Many people would agree that a newly-fertilized egg cell does not have a moral or philosophical "right" to life, especially when weighed against the inconveniences of pregnancy. Many of the same people would agree that a newborn infant does have a moral and philosophical "right" to life, and that infanticide is never justified, even in light of the inconveniences of raising a child. It seems hard to escape the conclusion that the moral harm an abortion inflicts increases with each hour that the new life grows in the womb. So to read, in a column entitled "Good Timing," that
Sheklow was able to finish off three more weeks of Spanish classes after
discovering she was pregnant, before zipping home to the good old U.S.
and the clean, safe, "welcoming arms" of the abortion clinic workers,
was disturbing to say the least. And Sheklow's comments about nationalism
and patriotism were more apt than she may have realized. I'm coming
to believe that those who wrap themselves in the sloganistic More and more I'm finding the habitual use of the phrase "a woman's right to choose" to be thoroughly nauseating — can't we at least give the sacrificed life a token amount of respect by stating exactly what it is we feel we have the "right" to "choose" to do? From the ease with which these buzz-words are thrown about, one would think we were talking about something that is morally uncomplicated and logically obvious, such as the "right" to "choose" to take non-human life for sport or the "right" to "choose" to bear arms for self-defense against the criminal element and the powers of big government. Steven Kyte, Corvallis
GET REAL, GREENS My heart bleeds for the Greens. Lest we forget for one second that we have them to thank for the last four years of greed, disaster and mass murder that we call the Bush administration. The Greens' excuse for this is that they "wanted to prove we're a viable party." In other words, it was OK with them for people all over the world to die on the altar of their self-promotion. What they proved themselves to be is the biggest political nincompoops on the left, and a menace to society. People who sincerely want to bring a more representative diversity to electoral politics should start with realistic, achievable goals: such as running real candidates who are planning to do the jobs they're applying for, in local elections where they have a prayer of getting that job. And/or spend their time working for election reform; such as proportional representation that allows parties with 10 percent of the vote to get 10 percent of the seats. (That's what won the legitimate Greens of Europe their success.) The Brown campaign of 1992 was a better example of a shot at changing our political landscape: It proved that a presidential campaign could completely boycott the corporate mega-bucks system and still persevere all the way to the national convention. But unlike the Greens, Jerry Brown then did the right thing, and stepped out of the way of the national race, to assure that this country would not end up with a goose-stepping fascist at the helm of the world's most powerful military machine. Mr. Brown then went out and got himself the toughest job in politics: mayor of a small American city. Anyone with a kindergarten degree in electoral politics knows that when it comes time to cast votes, the number one rule is don't split the left. Anyone who does so serves no one but the right. As for the Greens supposed high ideals, I'd like to see one single thing that they've accomplished that's served anyone but themselves. Sybil Fabian, Ashland
BUS FAIR Those who know LTD know from "Bus Talk" fliers that the system is hurting. A $2 million budget shortfall over the next three years is anticipated. The impact? Consider more Talk: "Service Reductions Anticipated … substantial … in Fall 2004" and "more dramatically in Fall 2005." That was the Talk of December. January's has devolved the alarm a little. This year may not be so bad but "more significant … cuts will take place in fall 2005 if conditions have not improved." What "conditions"? Could Measure 30 passage help? Will the largely conservative LTD establishment ever get liberalized and activated to our benefit? Are we beyond the point where fare increases could help? Anyone who rides and knows the routes knows how to translate Bus Talk: The routes which will suffer will involve the many neighborhoods where low-income, senior, disabled, and young frequently unemployed riders depend upon the bus to get to affordable shopping centers, libraries, friends and relatives who may need our help, and such jobs as yet remain. UO and LCC will continue to be served. LCC will have new articulated long buses and Duck shuttles will shuttle. The new BRT, completed, will delight commuters but get no one closer to needed groceries, diapers or toothpaste. Personnel whose employers contract with LTD at discount rates will probably continue to enjoy expresses to park-and-rides and the more distant suburbs. It's all OK. Less polluting buses online that get people out of their vehicles will be lung-beneficial. But let's not forget the needs of those who have less change in their pockets. Talk back to LTD by mail and, in February and March, in public hearings. John A. Hickam, Eugene COMMON DECENCY I was willing to read Sally Sheklow's extremely crude article (12/18) and move on without comment at the time. However, after reading the recent response to a reader who did take issue with the piece I felt I must check in. Prudery and the "thought police" are not the issues here. Rather, I would say "common decency" (not a term heard too often these days) is at stake. I am far from being a prude, but I don't expect to find graphic details of anyone's sexual experiences described in your paper. There are many avenues available for those interested in going down that path. Please don't be one of them. Jane Dods, 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.
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
|
 |
|||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||
