 |
  |
|
 |
||||||||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
||||||||||
DESOLATE DOWNTOWN Tom Connor and Dan Woolley's plan to revitalize downtown Eugene does not take into account the needs and wants of the people who live, work and shop there. The properties owned by Connor and Woolley on the south side of West Broadway have sat empty for years, adding to the desolation and crime downtown. They propose that the city buy the properties on the north side of West Broadway owned by Betty Snowden and Lazar Makyadath and tear them down. If the owners won't sell, the city could go so far as to condemn the properties and force the owners out. These buildings house many businesses, shops and nightclubs. Lazar's Bazar, John Henry's and Glamour Girl have been operating in their locations for years. Recently, Jameson's Bar opened in the former Café Paradiso spot and the owner has done a beautiful renovation job. Behind Lazar's, another new nightspot was just opened by the owners of Ring of Fire and Café Lucky Noodle. These are thriving businesses and nightspots that attract people downtown. Connor and Woolley's empty storefronts across the street do not. Corvallis has one example of a thriving downtown. They did not need to tear down whole blocks of businesses in order to be successful. Local people are trying to open and run businesses in downtown Eugene, but Connor and Woolley have made it very difficult, by buying up large properties and keeping them empty until their deal with the city goes through. If they sincerely want to revitalize our downtown, they can build in locations that are not currently occupied, such as the gaping hole that was once Woolworth's on Willamette Street. Let's begin by building instead of tearing down. This scheme should be seen for what it really is: a plan hatched between real estate developers and construction companies to build a bunch of buildings we don't need, fill them with chain stores, and then split town. Instead, that energy and money should be used to attract and keep the kinds of businesses we want to patronize. Let's not punish the business owners who are heroes for sticking it out through downtown's tough times. Laura Strobel , Scott Kirkpatrick , Eugene
MYTH VS. SCIENCE Has anyone been to the Babyfoot Lake trailhead or botanical area recently, the entrance to the world-renowned Kalmiopsis Wilderness due west of Cave Junction? Sold by the Bush administration's U.S. Forest Service to the highest bidder, these areas have been converted from treasured, old growth forests into lifeless stump fields as part of the reckless Biscuit timber sale. Although late to reverse the damage done, it was refreshing to see the study released by OSU scientists recently that refuted the gist of the massive Biscuit timber sale. The science tells us that aggressive logging and other ground disturbing activities disrupt natural regeneration after a wildfire by literally killing the seedlings that have spouted up. The study also contradicts the myth that logging after fires helps reduce the chance of future fires, as logging operations at Biscuit left huge piles of flammable, un-merchantable timber, while the larger, more fire resistant trees were clear-cut. This study is not too late to educate policy makers like Sen. Ron Wyden and others in Congress who will soon be voting on the so-called "Forests for Future Generations Act," sponsored by Sen. Gordon Smith. Although Smith likes to cloak himself in green on occasion, this bill will mandate post-disturbance (fire, hurricanes, tornadoes, etc.) clear-cutting on public lands with little public oversight at the taxpayers' expense. Smith should listen to the best available science, not to his campaign contributors in the old-growth logging business. And, hopefully he's learned a lesson at Biscuit that wildfire is an essential part of an old-growth forest. If anyone is interested in an insider's perspective on the corruption behind the Biscuit proposal, join the Cascadia Wildlands Project and Rich Fairbanks, the former Forest Service Biscuit timber sale planner, for a presentation at 6 pm Wednesday, Jan. 25, at the Eugene Public Library's Bascom Room. Josh Laughlin, Cascadia Wildlands Project, Eugene
WILL IS LACKING The reality of global warming has become very obvious. Researchers have reported the onset of a "runaway greenhouse effect" in which global warming creates yet more global warming. The average surface temperature of ocean water is rising, causing storms to become more destructive; Hurricane Katrina has shown us the kind of disasters that climate change will cause in the future. What we do now will determine how bad global warming will become. Political leaders need to do what is best for the planet, rather than worrying about a possible voter backlash. A portion of the future victims are trying hard to be in denial; another portion can't vote, because they have not yet been born. Here in Lane County, the bus service has gone downhill. The government generally bows down before the idol of the private automobile, despite the destructive consequences of the technology. Eugene does not deserve its supposed green reputation; the problem is a lack of political will. Milton Takei, Eugene
OFF THE GRID Prison administrators are worrying about the reliability of the energy they need to keep the prison running. We all live in that prison, a place that's steadily more unhealthy and destructive. There's disaster on the horizon and the existence of this prison (technological civilization) and its constant growth cause it. Various people come forward with "green" ideas to solve this problem of precarious energy sources. Do we really need this prison? The 10,000-year-old project we call civilization should never have been undertaken in the first place. Why keep it going? Richard Heinberg, Jared Diamond and Daniel Quinn used to insist on this point. John Zerzan, Eugene
OPB SUPPORT There are a few of us third- and fourth-generation Oregonians who live across or up the river from Eugene. We enjoyed, talked about and viewed again OPB's "Rethinking the Forests." We were blindsided by the amount of bad-mouthing the program and its producer received. We rethought the program's message and compared it with some of our own experiences of the last few years in joining some of these show-and-tell trips promoted by "conservation groups." We have visited forests near Mount Hood, the upper Santiam and McKenzie Rivers. These trips never showed us a "destroyed" forest; we never saw a stream that wasn't "running clear." The wildlife we saw was in the clear-cuts. We did not receive the message that making a living off the forestlands is somehow evil. Then in one case we were panhandled. So it should not have surprised us that the bourgeois immigrants to Oregon would not attack an information source that goes against their ideology — one often based on whimsy, certainly not life experience. And jobs can never be important to those who have had their lives handed to them in a suitcase. They choose to live off the people rather than the land. We are all on fixed incomes, but we will send our year's-end contribution to OPB. We believe the truth will overcome. David Walp, Springfield
HAMMER EPITAPH I wrote the "Hammer piece" (10/6) referencing Peter, Paul and Mary's "If I had a hammer." I wrote that, as a last resort, to keep my son out of the war I'd narc' him against pain and smash one of his ankles with a sledgehammer, rendering him "4-F," unfit for service. I was lambasted and asked my son to write a rebuttal piece. He laughed and said, "Mom, you worry too much. Everybody knew what you meant." A week later, a friend of his, on leave from Iraq, Chris Forcum [a Marine from Springfield], spent hours at my son's place, sharing stories, eating pizza and playing video games. Then, that Tuesday, he killed himself. He was OK coming home. He couldn't face going back. The kid was only 20 years old and all that remains to say in an epitaph for Chris is that, "Though his head was affected, his ankles are fine." Fhooey. Lori Kasprzak, Eugene
ECO-SEMANTICS I wonder if I might raise a semantic issue concerning a word on a lot of people's minds here in Oregon: eco-terrorism. This word has become ubiquitous in defining the actions of those outlaws who set fires in the middle of the night — when no humans are present — in order to highlight some measure of injustice perpetrated by a particular industry or business. "Eco" is short for ecosystem, which my Webster's Dictionary defines as "a system formed by the interaction of a community of organisms with its environment." In this light, we would be inclined to think those who "terrorize" an "ecosystem" would be, ironically, the industry or business itself. This, then, is a misleading connotation. The word that used to be reserved for people who defiled property in this way is "arsonist." Our legal system historically treats arson and terrorism as different crimes. This is rapidly changing as those who commit acts in defense of ecosystems are labeled, treated and punished much more harshly. They receive disproportionately long sentences, longer than rapists and yes, even murderers. Calling someone an "eco-terrorist" or the fires they set "eco-terrorism" equates them and their actions with the actions of suicide bombers and those people who angle planes full of people into buildings full of people. There is an important distinction here that needs to be recognized. The intent of someone who blows him- or herself up on a crowded bus is vastly different from someone who sets a late-night fire at a poplar tree farm. I strongly object to this appropriation of language. It is unfair and capitalizes on our collective fear of the dreaded "T" word. While I am in no position to change what has become common in the vernacular, I do feel a sense of urgency to stress the distinction between property destruction, arson and murder. We tread in dangerous water when we conflate the two. Rob Glenn, Corvallis
BRING 'EM HOME Bush puts deaths at 30,000, with no second thoughts about ordering the attack. "I'd make the decision again," is a statement that goes beyond deep denial to boast of no regrets. It would take nerves of steel to live with yourself knowing that you were responsible for the deaths of 30,000 people and now 2,168 of our own soldiers that could have been home for many Christmases to come. The president may not have pulled the trigger, but he gave the command and had the option of saying, "No!" After all, he's the man. Having second thoughts would be thinking hypothetically, but to make the same decision is saying I'd kill 'em all again. This speaks volumes of our president. If he had rethought his blunder and not invaded Iraq ,then we can only imagine what a different world we would be living in today. We wouldn't be consumed with exit strategies and a country (ours) un-united. Bush keeps referring to 9/11 as the basis for his actions where 3,000 Americans died. Does killing another 30,000 make two wrongs a right? If Bush won't have second thoughts, then 2,168 soldiers would like another chance, because nothing over there is worth dying for. "Don't bring 'em on, bring 'em home!" Floyd Hulegaard, Eugene
A SEPARATE GOD The letter "Why play along?" by Bill Smee (1/5) prompted me to go back and read "Separation Anxiety" by Joshua Welch (12/29). Many of our morals started with what other people told us of what God wants. "God is within you" seems most appropriate. But if you see God as a separate entity within you, it seems like a multiple personality disorder. Both "God" and "the devil" are within us in some ways, somewhat embodied in the ongoing debate, "In what proportions should I act for myself alone, and as a part of the many communities to which I belong?" Welch says he talked with several local ministers, to be told that "the answer to every moral question is found in the Bible." I certainly hope he didn't get that from any Unitarian Universalist. Many less formal groups believe there are other, and often better, sources. A big problem with religions is, ironically, they fail to follow the Second Commandment, which says in part, "Make no [carved-in-stone] images." In other words, don't base your life on rigid, unchangeable principles that you expect to last forever. Leave room for evolution. How many such images do we have around us? My personal god is Truth, sometimes going by the names of Reality, Nature, Understanding, Beauty, Love or even God. It's infinite, therefore virtually all beyond my present grasp, though I continually reach further. Dan Robinson, Eugene
THE WOLF ALITO Samuel Alito is a wolf in sheep's clothing. He is playing the waffling game by attempting to fool the American people into thinking he will follow the law and not let his personal beliefs get in the way of his decisions as a potential judge. This is contradictory to what he did during the 1980s when working in the U.S. Solicitor General's Office. In a memo he wrote, he recommended ways the government could restrict abortion rights in order to chip away at Roe v. Wade. This is one of many reasons that I believe Samuel Alito poses a threat to our fundamental rights. Let us not forget that the First Amendment guarantees us free exercise of our beliefs and the right to file grievance with the government. As representatives of the people, our lawmakers are held to an even greater responsibility — they must follow the law as voices for their constituents while using their own conscience as a guide. Sens. Wyden and Smith, as well as members of the Judiciary Committee and citizens of this great country, I urge you to please stop Alito's nomination. Please take a stand against this ultra-conservative candidate for the U.S. Supreme Court. Jennifer Fogerty-Gibson, Eugene
RELIGION'S DARK SIDE In reply to Jake Gariepy's response (1/5) to Joshua Welch's viewpoint (12/29): Last night I watched a documentary on OPB about 9/11's aftermath regarding faith in God and the lack thereof. One rabbi (and I paraphrase) stated that most religions, including his own, have a definite dark side, which indeed is the cause of much destruction. It is the side that says, "Our people and our God are supreme," and perhaps, "therefore, we must reign." Branding religion as "the root of all the world's evil" may not be as profitless an endeavor as Mr. Gariepy states. In every religion there are plenty of "mindless automatons walking in lock-step with overly conservative politicians." Enough to cause atrocities, anyway. And while we can build coalitions and find the common good, we cannot and must not ignore the bad. Aaron Rosenberg, Eugene
|
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
||||||||
|
|
||||||||
