 |
  |
 |
||||||||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
||||||||||
|
SPIT SHINE I would like to thank Alan Pittman for his articles on the Magaña trial. He gave us a raw and uncensored view of the assaults, thus giving a glimpse of how "dirty" these crimes really were. It will take more than a "spit shine" or internal investigation to restore luster to the EPD badge. Numerous times the city has asked voters to approve needed money for the department. It is apparent how our taxes are being spent. The city of Eugene should be held accountable as well as Magaña. No amount of investigation or reform can make up for what's happened here. Magaña new what he was doing. He preyed upon our city's most vulnerable. He targeted alleged drug users and prostitutes, women already in uncertain situations. As a civil servant he should have tried to help these women, but instead he blackmailed and raped them. I pray the courts can see beyond who these women are or what their habits may be. These victims deserve monetary compensation. Let the city right its wrong. Let them pay back what they owe. Joy Holmes, Eugene
UNPROFESSIONAL LANGUAGE Hats off to Amy Gaudia (Letters, 7/1) for verbalizing her concern about EW's recent editorial choices. As a survivor of attempted rape, I'd like to emphasize Gaudia's point that the Magaña articles used terminology that was likely to distress victims of sexual assault. I felt very troubled by the unprofessional language, and I cringed at the thought of how the X-rated wording might affect other readers, including children who happened to catch sight of the objectionable titles. Ouch. The articles seemed to be a prime opportunity to inform us about the kinds of mental illness that could enable an officer to commit such unconscionable acts of abuse. In "Policing Police" (7/1), I appreciate that Alan Pittman held the police department responsible, yet I'd like to know more about the factors that contributed to the severity of the situation. Was it, for example, extreme self-loyalty, or the need for camaraderie and self-protection that allowed it to go on for so long? I value EW's willingness to address controversial issues. Please consider expanding the impact you make by providing insights that facilitate more in-depth understanding. Lisa-Marie DiVincent, Eugene
CRITIC KICKING I am greatly offended by the 7/1 "Too Much Coffee Man" cartoon. In this cartoon, a critic discusses the apparent self-hate of a cartoon character that kicks his loving and receptive cat. Then the same angry man invades this thoughtful discussion by kicking the critic. I would ask, "Does this cartoon give kids and adults the idea that it's alright to kick critics?" I would say yes. Perhaps you should think about the hundreds of critic abuse cases that are reported in Lane County. Why would you want to encourage this kind of abuse? Why is critic abuse funny? What next, politically incorrect humor? Freedom of speech? I call for a suspension or removal of Shannon Wheeler, the cartoonist, and apology to the cool critics of Eugene. We love critics and seeing them being abused is not funny. And to James Bakerhall who wrote the amazingly absurd letter 7/8 I say: Get a life. Marc Calvary, Eugene
MERCURY SPILL I am writing you regarding the current concern surrounding mercury. I would like to stress here that mercury is not only an environmental issue but also a health issue. Mercury primarily affects women and children, and EPA reports that almost 630,000 babies are born with high levels of mercury in their blood. Studies have shown that these babies are prone to suffer from neurological disorders and brain damage. Now the EPA is deciding to declare mercury as a nontoxic emission, allowing power plants to spill 23 tons more of mercury into our waterways every year. This will not only prove to be disastrous for our wildlife, primarily fish, but will also ultimately create a countdown for the death of our fishing industries, our fishing sport as well as the consumption of fish in our daily diet. Today in the 21st century, we not only possess the necessary technology to prevent this from happening, but we can also allow our industries to continue without affecting progress. Ironically, the EPA has proven in their own studies with a science-backed plan that we can reduce emissions by 90 percent, which would result in helping our economy. As a community, we need to team up to avert this. We are fulfilling a responsibility to preserve Oregon's rich heritage of wildlife in our waterways and protect our loved ones from harm. We cannot allow the EPA to declare mercury as a nontoxic material. Please write Senator Smith and urge him to help solve this problem. With concern, Rachel Lee, Eugene
HOPEFUL SIGNS I want to thank Todd Huffman for his letter to the editor (7/8) entitled "Common Ground." It challenged me to reexamine the ways that I fall into the habit of painting people into corners. If we can take the time to listen deeply to different points of view, shaped by different experiences from our own, labels will seem shallow and ultimately meaningless. In the midst of what appears to be an increasing political polarization in our country I see many signs of hope. Young people are on the streets registering people to vote. I have conversations with strangers about the torture at Abu Ghraib prison and my daughter has the opportunity to attend multi-faith services here in Eugene. All of these activities reflect different and beautiful capacities in human beings: to engage with our world, to recover our ethical sensibilities and to harbor the curiosity and openness that I believe will ultimately lead us all to higher ground. Barbara Sklar , Eugene
SPECIAL TALENT Well, Ed from Creswell (7/8) I hate to burst your bubble, but we are not all born "artistic" and then "thwarted" by some teacher. Your recollections of the "good ol' days" when everyone was allowed to be an artist is a myth. People can be handy or crafty or even innovative in their chosen medium but that doesn't make them artists. I know there is scholarship out there that says we are all artists in our own right and some of us are just waylaid out of being such, but to this I say BS. If that's the logic, then I should be able to play basketball like Jordan or the piano like Cliburn but I don't because someone knocked me off of my path when I was young... I don't think so! It's obvious that these people were born with a special talent that I will never have no matter how long I practice. If one is a real artist there will be nothing or no one who can stand in the way. The obsession to create things never seen before is always there, like it or not. Artists are judged by a large body of work over their lifetime that defines them i.e. Matisse, Miro, deKooning etc. not by just a few pieces here and there. Our biggest problem as a culture is that we've allowed everything to be labeled "art." We even get excited when an elephant blows paint out of his trunk onto a canvas! We can turn that situation around as a culture by nurturing and encouraging the visionaries among us instead of labeling them "weird" or "abnormal." Everyone can learn to be disciplined in the medium of their choice but few will have the genius that moves art forward. Annie Kayner, Eugene
TERMINAL ERROR Lois Wadsworth's review of Stephen Spielberg's new film The Terminal, was right on. However, in her write up she referred to the Beatles song "Back in the USSR," as being sung by John Lennon. Ah — wrong oh! Paul McCartney sang lead vocal on that opening cut of the 1968 White Album and furthermore, Paul wrote the song as a parody of the 1959 Chuck Berry tune "Back in the USA." An homage to The Beach Boys' sound was made with harmonies supplied by John and George, because Mike Love gave Paul the idea for the song while they all meditated in India. Michael Rechel, Eugene
BETTER TO LOVE As we were hiking through Mt. Pisgah this morning we became animated by a discussion we were having about finding simple solutions to what some people tend to make into complex problems. First, we had read about Peter DeFazio giving back money that he received a while ago from Neil Goldschmidt. Now wouldn't it be so much more positive and appropriate to give the money to Sexual Assault Support Services, which is always in need of funds? Then there is the issue of the West Eugene Faith Center tearing down virtually a city block in order to expand their parking accommodations. Wouldn't it be more neighbor-friendly to simply strike a deal with the new Cesar Chavez Elementary School next door, which will have a brand new spacious parking lot that will hardly be in use during the weekends? Finally, there is what to some people is the huge issue of whether or not to allow gay marriages. We are spending billions of dollars in Iraq to insure that the Iraqi people have freedom and equality. Our country could take the step to allow lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered people the ability to have their unions recognized on an equal basis and it would not cost a penny! Isn't it better to support stable, long-term, loving relationships rather than war? As we continued our walk through the forested terrain, we breathed in the beauty of the scenery and the scent of the trees. Wouldn't it be simpler to love rather than to hate? Wouldn't it be simpler to give so everyone has enough rather than continue to take and consume? Wouldn't it be simpler to play fair, play hard and invite everyone to join the game? Wouldn't it be simpler to become a diverse community rather than a divisive one? Victoria Koch and Dan Fuehring, Eugene
WHERE WAS RALPH? To those people who are considering voting for Nader in the upcoming election, please consider the following: What was Nader doing for the past four years? If he was serious about a bid for president in 2004, why wasn't he actively trying to build a constituency? When Dennis Kucinich put himself forward as a presidential candidate more than a year ago, why didn't Nader support him? Their views are compatible, and Nader's support could have given Dennis a real boost. One of Nader's reasons (excuses?) for his 2000 bid was to develop the Green Party as a viable alternative to the two-party system and to obtain 5 percent of the vote so that the party would be eligible for federal funding in the future. In 2004, he turned down the Green Party, giving the reasoning that he wants to build a coalition of Democrats, Republicans and independents. Isn't this just spoiling every party's chance? Why has he siphoned off a Green Party member to run as his vice president? Doesn't that just antagonize the party that supported him? Why are Republicans funding the Nader campaign? And why did he recently say that any Democrats who showed up at his "convention" in Portland were spoilers, while the Republicans were sincere in their support of him? A vote for Ralph Nader gives this country a better chance of being subjected to four more years of the Bush administration. Who believes that Nader does not know that? Do you want that to happen? Kathleen Epstein, Eugene
VOTE YOUR CONSCIENCE Let's talk about what really happened in the last election — fraud. Besides the tens of thousands of eligible voters banned from the polls in Florida and in other Southern states, writer Greg Pallast has recently stated that there were one million uncounted votes. The corporate media constantly uses Ralph Nader as the excuse for what happened. At the Nader convention in April in Portland, the R-G and Oregonian focused their stories entirely on the few protestors outside, instead of the 700-plus supporters inside. Why? To distract our attention so that we won't think about the dangers of electronic voting and the way that black and brown people are treated in this country. It can be scary to hear the truth. Once you know what's happening, you can no longer pretend that you don't. On Nov. 2, vote your conscience. Loren Asrael, Eugene
MARK OF A LEADER The morning of 9/11 provided President Bush with an unfortunate test of leadership and character. On that fateful day, after being informed that a plane had crashed into the South Tower, our president proceeded to a prescheduled visit to an elementary school classroom. While there, he was told a second plane had struck. President Bush did nothing for seven minutes. Weren't there phone calls to make, orders to give, advisors to consult? Wasn't it imperative to be apprised of the unfolding tragedy second by second? His excuse that he wanted to appear calm does not fly. I prefer substance over appearance. Meanwhile, flight 77 traveled undetected for 36 minutes before striking the Pentagon. Perhaps a more responsive reaction could not have stopped the third strike, but we'll never know. In my opinion, President Bush failed the ultimate test of leadership character. Contrast the reaction to crises (or lack thereof) of Bush, to that of John Kerry. On the Bay Hop River in Vietnam, Kerry was told that a man was overboard. John Kerry turned the boat around, headed back into ambush, and with his uninjured arm, pulled James Rassmann aboard to safety. This is the split second decisionmaking that extols the leadership and character I expect in a president. On Sept. 11, when Bush's motorcade sped away from the school to Air Force One, it initially headed in the wrong direction. In my opinion, the Bush administration has continued in the wrong direction. We all want responsive leaders of character and courage for this great country. My hope is on the Kerry/Edwards ticket, where I see a proven embodiment of those qualities. Debbie Parker, Eugene
PREFERENCE VOTING There's a lot of talk these days about the "lesser of two evils" (7/8 letters Paul J. Green "Nader helps Bush" and Bob Watson "Uncompromising Nader"). I find the idea interesting, however, that a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush and the apparent reality of this predicament. Is it really American to not vote for the individual you are most in favor of due to the fear of the individual you are least in favor of winning? This seems to me to indicate a fundamental flaw in the electoral process itself. It's amazing to me how few people know about the voting technique used in most other democratic nations around the world that is often termed "preference voting." This technique would allow a voter to rate the candidates on a scale of least to most favorite and would eliminate the either/or, "lesser of two evils" scenario. In this way you could vote Kerry or Nader first or second and still vote Bush as third (or not at all). A vote for Nader would not be a vote for Bush and would reflect the people's true opinions. The fact of the matter is that a Democrat would typically rather see a Republican as would a Republican rather see a Democrat get the election than a "liberal" or a "green" and the suggestion of this voting technique has perpetually been downplayed and buried, thereby maintaining the either/or, "lesser of two evils" scenario. As was suggested in the Natural Resistance article (7/8), "Breaking Three Hearts," there is a tendency of those in power to want to limit alternatives that are seen as threats to their retention of power. The crucial distinction between a dictatorship and a democracy is the absence or presence of processes that allow alternatives to enter public discourse. Preference voting is one of these processes. So how ya gonna vote people, remocrat or depublican? Rob Brown, Eugene
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
|
 |
|||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||
