 |
  |
 |
||||||||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
||||||||||
|
DANGEROUS ALLIANCE Joan Pierson's response (Viewpoint, 7/29) to the talk David Barton gave to area pastors at the Willamette Faith Center was on the mark. It's hard to believe any thinking reader could choose the politically partisan approach of a visiting Texas fundamentalist instead of the caring and realistic religious statement by Pierson. But there is a danger in depending on rationality to counter the views of those Christian fundamentalists whose valid faith risks becoming irrational in the hands of political manipulators like Barton. Pierson honored religious belief with her well-reasoned statement. But it did not address the most ominous effect of the GOP strategy enunciated by Barton: to do away with separation between church and state. That threat is most evident in the dangerous alliance between a president who claims a direct line to his version of a Christian god and a segment of fundamentalists whose agenda welcomes such delusions. Christians of the fundamentalist persuasion need to recognize that danger, and not capitulate to GOP spinners of a strange religious code. If they don't, the rest of society needs to marshal its efforts to offset votes that mistakenly go to George Bush because of his self-serving appeal to well-motivated but misled Christians. George Beres, Eugene
SPEND WISELY In his letter of 7/29, Christopher Logan wonders if EW's advertising is "encouraging" a lonely, tired working man to "spend his attention and his income on a prostitute." Well, like any other advertising, he can interpret it how he will, and take it or leave it. It's not the responsibility of EW to screen ads for the sake of those who can't manage their spending as necessary or those who might somehow be lured into thinking those seductive girls must be interested in their clients' personalities. Most people spend some of their attention and income on recreation and escape of one sort or another, and sexually oriented businesses, among others, tend to use fantasy as one way of attracting their share of the customers. And since when are the "less intelligent" among us (apparently including this "lonely, tired working man") the only ones who ever pursue such fantasy? Ryan L Newburg, Eugene
RECIPE FOR DISASTER After reading Ruth Saunders' letter (729), I found myself shocked and outraged that anyone could be so callow and unfeeling as to name a drink after terrorist acts ("Irish Car Bomb"). The nerve! In a spirit of reparations and reconciliation, I would like to offer up a drink recipe that our friends in Dublin should offer as a special. I call it "Twin Towers:" Fill two tall Collins glasses with ice. In each glass, pour 1/2 oz. vodka, 1/2. oz Triple Sec, 1/2 oz. gin, 1/2 oz. rum, 1/2 oz. sweet and sour mix. Fill with tonic. Wet two raw sugar cubes with Bacardi 151.Place each wet sugar cube on a half-slice of lemon. Place a sugar cube and lemon on each drink. Drizzle droplets of Grenadine into each drink. Light both sugar cubes and serve! Caleb Fegles, Corvallis
REGULATE SEX WORK I am writing in response to all the letters on your sex industry ads. I have been a feminist for 15 years and I am a self-defense teacher at SASS. Twelve years ago I picketed porn stores in Portland, and I felt very worried about sex workers from my middle class, white position in the world. While I still think Andrea Dworkin is a genius and agree with many of her ideas, such as actors who are raped in porn being able to stop circulation of the product, I think the best way to achieve this is through legalization of prostitution. Sex workers do not need our condescension. They need to be protected under the law, and need the rights that so many legal and illegal workers need and do not have. This would improve health and safety and chances of changing jobs if desired. Sex workers do not deserve criminal records, or being shamed, made invisible, and blamed for x, y and z. Yes, sex work used to be an honored vocation in many places and, for some it still is. Some have been able to, and have chosen to, claim a heritage of pride in their work. It is obviously an oppressed industry because a) it is illegal, and b) this is patriarchy. We hate women, and most sex workers are women, though by no means all. Childcare work is an oppressed industry that compares in some ways. It is devalued and has class stigma and sexist stigma because it's women's work. But it is legal and also has the safety of being acceptable for women in this patriarchal climate. If sex work were regulated and legal, there would be less profit for traffickers of sex slaves, and law enforcement and community could focus on busting these crimes and eradicating child prostitution and pornography. The rape and murder of sex workers would be a lot easier to stop, and sex workers would have more credibility, thus less vulnerability to rape and murder. Mandy Sturgill, Eugene
FROM THE BOTTOM UP To all you folks who are calling for a Nader vote in November, because he represents the progressive voice much better than Kerry I ask, where were you in May? Don't get me wrong. I think Kitty, Bonny, Betty, Andrea and David are just great, but none of them are registered as Greens or another third party. They are all registered Democrats. Why is it that there is such a call for us to vote a third party on a national level, but not such a call on a local level? When are we going to have a serious local campaign run by someone who seeks out the Green Party or another third-party endorsement? It simply makes sense to me — build the party from the bottom up, not the top down. To have a true affect on the national outlook with a third party we need to start with our City Council, our mayor, our state house and up. Without a solid local and statewide base the chances of a national third-party candidate (Green is my preference) as our president one day are none. M. Brooke Robertshaw, Eugene
JUST THE FACTS I am continually amazed at how puritanical this "progressive" little city is. Once again, the "porn"-in-the-back-of-the-paper issue has reared its stupid little head again. So let's review the facts... Fact: EW is a free paper that supports local businesses by providing a well-read advertising forum for what I can only assume is a reasonable price. Fact: There are many industries in this town that rely on advertising to speak to you, the customer, about their product. Fact: If you do not want to support said industries, the best way to do so is to not purchase their products. Contrary to popular belief, griping about it does not make it go away. So, that said, can we focus on more important issues than the "porn" that graces the last pages of this periodical? As I have said before, I will support the EW's right to procure funds from whomever they desire. If I find I do not like their product (or the people who fund it), I will not purchase/pick it up. I advise you to do the same. Justin Bengtson, Eugene
ART IS HERE The recent dialogue about art has been music to my ears. Truth lay bleeding and artists are in her arms. When she goes, there go our heroes. So, if the truth is to be allowed to live or set us free, let us heal her and save her defenders. The masters of the past have set a timeless standard for art; this has been recently pointed out by her advocates. Art needs to be revered as the launching pad for greatness in our own time. Are there still non-artists out there who recognize real art? Art is buried, like so many layers of hard candy hiding the soft truth in the center. How long will our curiosity be piqued by layers of fake flavoring and corn syrup, before we start looking for the chewy, chocolate truth inside? Art takes work, insight, spirituality and more work. Let's not look to the mislabeled to show us what we want to see; let us look to the past and to real standards to show us where we are. Want to know if someone is correctly labeled an artist? Compare his work, drawings, notes, to a venerable hero of the past. The truth is objective, and there are methods of proving it. Eugene, be unafraid! Yes, art is here, and we can all share her truth. How many more licks is it going to take to get to the center of this Tootsie Pop? Willie Paradis, Elmira
ART HAPPENS To Annie Kayner and all who are interested in the ridiculously pathetic notion that there could be an ultimate source for determining who is a "real" artist, I would like to add this simple view: Art happens. It happens in every breathing, waking and sleeping moment of our lives. Perhaps it even happens in death, but I wouldn't know for sure because I haven't been there. Artists are people who, upon an encounter with love, horror, anguish, joy, insanity or whatever (be it real or imaginary) experience the pull at their heartstrings so intensely that they are impelled to capture it. The obsession to capture it is so great it becomes a driving force. Anyone can engage in this. It is open to all who are open to it. Is a Crayola crayon rendering of a child's first rainbow sighting not a work of art? What about the 50-year-old woman who obsessively designs and sculpts the garden in her yard over and over for 20 years, always changing and evolving and passionately displaying exquisite beauty? Is she not an artist because she has only one garden to show? When I read "Real Artists Don't Play Games" (6/10), I laughed so hard and thought it was a joke. I mused that surely it must be another one of those entertainingly stupid articles printed for the sole purpose of getting people like me all riled up. But I did have a great idea for your next art project: Picture a bronze casting of a larger-than-life-sized shoulder — a human shoulder about 6 feet tall. Facing it would be a life-sized man or woman with chisel and hammer in hands, working diligently to take out a big chip. I wonder what the title would be? For all of us with many years in the arts and education, I would suggest that instead of squabbling over what is or isn't art, we should devote more energy to helping others realize their own creative potentials. Amy Gaudia, Eugene
NO SCARE TACTICS Mike McGlone (7/29) writes regarding Nader that "scare tactics and name calling to coax people into voting for [Kerry] is not the way to go." I agree. I supported Nader in 2000 because I believed then, and believe now, that if what we really want is a more democratic system, then we need many parties, and a wide range of candidates to choose among, including genuine progressives. The problem is, how do we get from here to there? Unfortunately there is no easy way. Meanwhile, even relatively small changes in government can have significant long-term consequences, at least when it comes to such things as healthcare, the environment, patterns of media ownership, judicial appointments, and international relations. No one should have illusions about Kerry. If elected, we cannot expect much from him unless there is also a sea change in Congress, and a groundswell of support for progressive causes. I'll vote for Kerry not because I think that he will improve everything, but because he may improve some things. I think that that is the most that we can reasonably hope for this year. My sympathies remain with what Nader, at his best, stood for: a genuinely democratic alternative to a decayed system. But given winner-takes-all rules and what looks like a close contest, to vote for Nader this year is to vote for Bush. I don't say that as a scare tactic, just as a reminder of the situation. I wish it were different. George Gessert, Eugene
BUSH'S MOTIVATIONS When will the national media muster the courage to expose that the emperor George W. Bush is not wearing clothes, as in the old fable. He did not want to depose Saddam Hussein because of a belief regarding the latter's developing/possessing weapons of mass destruction, nor to bring democracy and freedom to the Iraqi people, nor to gain control of Iraq's valuable oil production. George W.'s motive was impure, but simple: to get back at the man who attempted to kill his father George H. The president's cronies around him, e.g. Cheney, may have wanted to mobilize the war machinery because of Iraq's oil and the resultant increased profits for their own already rich pals, but no one has given any weight whatsoever to Bush's own personal motives for his war against Saddam Hussein. I do not fault Bush for feeling as he does about Saddam, for I, too, would want to eliminate any person who attempted to take one of my loved one's lives. But Bush had control of the machinery, including the bodies of our young men and women, to actually act upon his feelings. And as a consequence of his personal vendetta, hundreds of our youth, our country's future, have lost their lives, thousands more have been physically, mentally, and/or emotionally wounded, and a region of our world is now in total chaos. The bottom line is that WMD's and advancement of democracy were mere cover stories to clothe Bush's personal, revengeful agenda against Saddam, to hoodwink the U.S. Congress and American people to go along with it, to even support it. Are the national media pundits afraid to admit that they, as well as we, were duped? Michael D. Linick, Eugene
FALSE ADVERTISING Mr. Bush campaigned in 2000 on the promises to set a new tone in Washington, to be a uniter, not a divider, to promote a humble foreign policy, to be a compassionate conservative, and to not leave problems for others to clean up. Instead we have the most polarized society, the most closed and secretive administration and the most bullying foreign policy in living memory. We've left more of our citizens behind than ever before, rolled back many environmental protections, and have the largest federal deficits in history, which our children will inherit. This is false advertising and poor leadership. In studying Mr. Kerry's positions on the issues, I've found that he has a thoughtful plan for energy independence and the transition to renewable sources and conservation, which will also create many good jobs. He has a health care plan which, according to independent experts, would cover about 60 percent of the uninsured vs. less than 10 percent in Mr. Bush's plan. He understands that cooperation and diplomacy are a more effective starting point in foreign policy than the use of brute force. He understands the need for fiscally responsible budgets. In short, Mr. Kerry would offer the kind of real leadership we're lacking under Mr. Bush's tenure. I'll be supporting Mr. Kerry in November and I encourage you to do the same. Michael Wherley, Eugene
SAD LEGACY Anyone who a) earns less than $200,000 a year or b) has an ounce of concern for the fate of the world and its people, should be hoping for George W. Bush to be decisively beaten in November. But as important as this is, we should also be concerned about the method of that defeat. Not a day goes by without the Bush administration handing John Kerry more ammunition to use against it, and yet Kerry seems happy to play it safe, to let Bush Co.'s hubris prove to be its own undoing. But is it enough to hope that a group of people this demonstrably bad for the world will defeat itself? Should there not also be outrage and condemnation? What does this silence presage for a Kerry presidency? Given that the mainstream media treats Bush with the kind of deference and leniency that it refuses Kerry, this is probably a smart election strategy on Kerry's part. But a presidency that follows one as destructive as this one needs to have more in mind than gaining a majority of Electoral College (or Supreme Court) votes. It needs to stand up for something, rather than just be the safe alternative that has little boldness about the constitution-shredding now taking place. As flawed as Kerry is, I hope he wins the election. I just wish he knew how much better his campaign, his chances of victory and the likelihood of a successful presidency would be if he ripped wide a few of the multiple holes in Bush's sad legacy. Mervyn Duddy, Eugene
ARE WE SAFE YET? Einstein said that problems cannot be solved with the same level of awareness that created the problem in the first place, and I believe that the 9/11 Commission and all the rich white boys in Washington are simply cowards, shaking in their boots, completely helpless to deal with the terror of uncertainty. This kind of leadership has created an America that is a militarized fortress, a police-state nation, which only creates more uncertainty. Fifty percent of our tax dollars serves the Pentagon, 1 percent goes to foreign aid, we export arms to 92 percent of current wars, 80 percent of arms exports go to non-democratic regimes and the arms industry receives the second largest subsidy from the federal government. Are we safe yet? I hear the sound of hollow laughter... The U.S, the world's only superpower, ranks 21st in the world in foreign aid as a percentage of GDP. Just how much safer would we be if all the nations of the world were able, because of our generosity, to eliminate starvation, malnutrition, illiteracy, HIV epidemics, overpopulation, and were able to provide housing and clean water? What would that cost us? Twenty-five percent of the military budget. What would happen to the image of America if we struggled to give up our fear of strangers? What would that cost us? A big change of heart, a leap of faith, and a whole lot of humility. So the choice we face as a nation comes down to humiliation or humility. What's your choice? David Hazen , Eugene
TIBET UPDATE My name is Robert MacFarlane. I am a Buddhist in this fair city of Eugene and would like to share some frighteningly dreadful information about what is currently happening in Tibet and to the monks and nuns, as well as the countryside as a whole, and hopefully you can help me in spreading this knowledge of atrocities to the greater city limits and abroad... China's Vice President Hu Jintao made his first visit to Washington, D.C., at the end of April. Members of Congress should know about Hu's involvement in Tibet, which was invaded by the Chinese in 1949 and where Tibetans are still persecuted for their political and religious activities. Hu's record remains a mystery to many outside observers, but Tibetans know that during his stint as party secretary of the Tibet Autonomous Region from 1989 to 1992 he was responsible for brutal crackdowns inside Tibet. During his time there, Hu oversaw the imposition of martial law in Tibet and continued a campaign of oppression of the Tibetan people by the Chinese government, which continues today. As a consequence of the brutal nature of China's occupation of Tibet, Tibetans face torture, arbitrary detention and harassment. Tibetan nuns and monks, peaceful demonstrators and children among many other sectors of Tibetan society face an intolerable situation in their homeland. We should hope and trust that our administration and members of Congress share our concern for Tibetans' human rights to practice their religion, to share their political views and to self-determination. We should hope that they use every opportunity to raise these concerns whenever they meet with Hu Jintao any other Chinese officials. Robert MacFarlane aka Karma Jinpa Tarchin, Eugene
SPOILING THE PAPER Thank your for printing the op-ed column by Megan Schmidt (7/15) about your ads from the sex industry. I have felt uneasy about these ads ever since they started. I have often thought of writing to you about them, but never did, because there were so many other issues that seemed more important. However, Ms. Schmidt's column reminded me how destructive the sex industry is and how important it is to speak out about these ads. The ads bother me for two reasons: I don't like what these businesses do to women, and I don't like what the ads do to EW. They spoil the effect of all your good articles, because they show that you don't walk your talk. Your articles about sexual abuse by police officers lose their effectiveness when they are followed by ads for businesses that sexually abuse women. Your articles about our schools making it easier for soft drink companies to peddle their wares to our kids are less effective when followed by ads making it easier for prostitution services to peddle their wares to your readers. Ads in a publication are more than just a source of money; they reflect the philosophy of the publication. If the Weekly's values include selling their services to anyone who has the right price, then running ads for prostitution services is the perfect expression of those values. Carol McBrian, Eugene
Last week, the Democratic Party successfully launched a great ship
of hope from Boston harbor. And while the winds of change that would
guide it grow mightier, it is by no means certain that it will reach
its destination come this November. Over the next few weeks and months, the powers that be will seek to reinstate the primacy of fear, and transform our hope into despair. Lest we remain hopeful, color-coded threat charts and warnings of imminent unknowable events will be broadcast again and again to remind us to be fearful. With increasing urgency, we will be directed to proceed in an orderly fashion, duct tape and plastic sheeting in hand, to our muster stations, so to abandon our great ship of hope for their shores of safety. Put simply, they will dare us to hope. Fear is a formidable opponent. The fear of lost power generates even more fear to maintain it. The history of man demonstrates nothing if not the awful lengths to which those in power will go to hold on to it. How else to make us follow leaders whose policies and actions otherwise directly conflict with the self-interests of most of us? Great leaders are not peddlers of fear — they are peddlers of hope. Desperate leaders make little secret of their contempt for hope. Instead, they bring fear to our doorsteps, and into our living rooms, and then, for the small price of a vote, they promise to provide safety and security from the fear they’ve brought. They’re sure most of us will pay it. But not this year — this year change is too sorely needed for us to allow this to happen. The powers that be hold more power, politically and militarily, than have ever been held before. If there is to be fear, let it be of the thought of four more years of an administration now unencumbered by desires of reelection. It is not presumptuous to hope — it is an obligation. Life without hope is life without change. Change is irrevocably betrothed to hope. When the powers that be say “Be afraid. Be very, very afraid”, hope is that little voice inside of us that answers: “I am not afraid. I will not be made to feel afraid.” It is just these little voices, small and courageous, that when heard together will remind each of us that we are not alone on this voyage. If our great ship of hope is to reach its destination, it will take all of our little voices to resist the politics of fear. Todd Huffman, M.D. , Eugene
Regarding “Scare Tactics” (7/29), Mike McGlone suggests that Kucinich and Dean are leading the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. He neglects to mention that they are now both vigorously supporting John Kerry. That’s because they know what is at stake in this election. Why should you vote for John Kerry? There are many reasons beyond the “anyone but Bush” mantra. The League of Conservation Voters, a progressive environmental group, ranks Kerry’s voting record at the top. Kerry led the effort that stopped the proposed oil drilling in ANWR. Most right wing groups rate Kerry as having the most liberal voting record in Congress. I would rather Mr. McGlone vote for Nader than not at all, but to suggest that a Kerry vote is no different than a Bush vote is ludicrous. From health care to energy independence, from job creation with a living wage to improving education, from protecting a woman’s right to choose, to choosing who sits on the next Supreme Court, Kerry is clearly the choice of candidates that actually have a chance to win. If you want to know more about why you should vote for John Kerry, check out all of his positions at JohnKerry.com Andrew Harrison, Eugene
The Democrat Party folks that I know intend to remove a sharp stick form one eye and plunge it into the other. They say they don't like separate but equal, vote to Vietnam-ize Iraq, PATRIOT Act, NAFTA, etc. Nonetheless, they're going to use the "lesser evil" Kerry candidacy against The Bush. For more than 20 years, the Democrats have promoted the myth of the lesser evil. For some DemoPubs, Reagan was the lesser evil to McGovern. Now, to the right of Nixon, Kerry is the lesser evil to the "empty suit." Since I vote my conscience, my plan, until the attempt by the Demos to pack the Portland Nader Convention, was to vote for Ralph Nader and straight ticket liberal Democrat on the lesser part of the ballot. Over the campaign the Democrats have continued to work hard to alienate me and other Nader Voters — they have succeeded! The two-party epiphany: I realized the real choice was between evil, mean-spirited Republicans and stupid cowardly Democrat "dirty trickster." My new plan: Vote for Ralph Nader for president and “none of the above” where the two dishonest parties are the only choices. My motto: Dump the DemoPubs, Defoliate The Bush and Flush the Johns. Nader for president and let the devil take the rest! A. Max Opus, Cottage Grove
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals'(PETA's) recent undercover
investigation of a KFC chicken slaughterhouse run by the second-largest
chicken company in the U.S. has opened my eyes to the reality of the
chicken industry. They also ripped off chickens' beaks, twisted off their heads, spat tobacco into their eyes and mouths, spray-painted their faces, and tied their legs together for laughs — all while still fully conscious. The investigation was conducted at this location because it was the site of a KFC "Supplier of the Year" award ceremony. Chickens are probably the most abused animals on the planet. They have their sensitive beaks seared off with hot blades and are crammed into tiny cages with the decomposing remains of other birds. Hundreds of thousands are left to starve to death, and huge numbers die as a result of long journeys in extreme weather conditions. Basically, any and all abuse is allowable when it comes to chickens, who are, in fact, remarkable animals with distinct personalities and intelligence that, if allowed to develop, is as advanced as that of cats and dogs. Most importantly, they feel pain, just as we do. The video is almost beyond description. How bad does it have to get
before KFC changes the way it treats chickens? Curtis Taylor, Eugene |
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
|
 |
|||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||
