This columnist will be missed

Woe is I! No more Kilpatrick.

I have a fat file of James Kilpatrick's columns. A few are clips of his political commentaries, fewer are his Supreme Court observations. Although I didn't always agree, I gained some open-mindedness about an opposite political point of view.

The largest assortment of clippings is from his weekly column on grammar and usage. Yes, I do refer to that file when I have a dilemma of correct form or writing style. I could look it up in a book or trust my computer's checklist, but I'd miss out on the richness of Kilpatrick's explanation.

Another file I have contains all the boo-boos I found in my daily paper and planned to send to the venerable authority: the description of a home with "parkay" floors; the mix-ups of "cite" and "site"; and all those references to people who "honed in" on something. I never sent these examples to my writing mentor. I wish I had, for the pleasure of reading my excerpts in his column or - perhaps - a personal reply.

With Hasso Hering, "I'm sorry that Mr. Kilpatrick is ailing. I thank him for 40 years of wit and wisdom."

With Theresa Novak, "I want my weekly chiding by a grumpy grammarian."

I thank the local publishers for giving us nitpickers our weekly assurance that our writing style shouldn't be reduced to CUL8R.

I wish James Kilpatrick a well-earned retirement and improvement in his health.

Lori McNulty

Lebanon

Can anyone carry on?

James Kilpatrick is leaving us? Oh, no! Oy vey! We are doomed. Of course, at 88 years of age the guy does deserve to retire. Is there no other human capable of carrying on?

What about reprinting columns? Heck, it never hurts to be reminded of things we've already read. Or maybe you could get out your well used copy of "The Elements of Style" and let E.B. White and his buddy Strunk nudge us from the grave?

My copy of The Elements of Style is disintegrating but still readable. It sits on the shelf next to "WOE IS I - The Grammarphobe's Guide to Better English in Plain English." The author, Patricia T. O'Connor was at the time the book was published (1996) an editor at The New York Times Book Review.

Maybe she'd like to move into Kilpatrick's place at the top of the grammatical heap. I don't know what she's up to now. (I am not one to Google about such things.) I think I'd like her - in the little bio on the book cover flap it says she lives in New York City with her husband and his stuffed piranha. There's a nice photo of her - she has quite a twinkle in her eye. Ya gotta love an editor with a sense of humor, right?

Cynthia Cutting

Corvallis

Real science depends on facts

Pat Burrell ("Global warming turns into jobs program", Letters, Jan. 25) thinks that a previous letter writer (Andreas Schmittner, a "liberal scientist") lacks credibility, in part because he has only 10 years' experience.

A quick web search shows that Dr. Schmittner works in the field of climate change and has published dozens of peer-reviewed articles in many of the most respected science journals. That is, his scientific peers deem that his work is rigorously argued and that other scientists need to know of it.

A web search for Mr. Burrell finds no such information. His public contribution to science is to pass along undocumented claims about Al Gore's alleged lack of discussion with senior scientists and to tell us that most energy comes from the sun.

What is this about? Mr. Burrell and others "do" science by defining an outcome (e.g., no tax dollars for environmental research, no constraints on business or consumption), then cherry-picking from unreviewed sources to support that outcome.

In contrast, scientists work out what the facts and physical principles tell us to expect. With the facts on the table, everyone can discuss what to do about it, if anything.

We desperately need to move on to the second step, a public debate about the choices we face as climate will change over the next century. Mr. Burrell may be on the "winning" side of history - as a society it seems likely that we will choose to ignore the long-term cost of climate change and other environmental stresses for the assumed health of the economy - but we should be making this decision on facts, not viral gossip.

Laurence Padman

Corvallis

Change? No, back to 'same old'

What happens to all the changes President Obama promised?

All through the primaries and up to the November election we heard, "Change you can believe in." After being elected and assembling his staff and cabinet members, I noticed 44 out of the 54 people are prior Clinton cronies. Above all, if you forget to pay your taxes for four years and then pay them up really quick, you might get a cabinet position with the Obama administration. Change we can believe in!

It appears the Obama administration intends to give us a good dose of Keynesian economics, where big government gets bigger by spending more money, which creates bigger deficits thereby increasing inflation and unemployment.

His economic plan is supposed to create4 million jobs at a cost of more than $800 billion, which means each job he creates will cost taxpayers $217,000. Why spend $217,000 per job to make 4 million that will have a medium wage of $40,000?

It is already projected, and the nation will suffer a deficit of more than a trillion dollars in 2009. Why add another 800 billion on top of it? It's like abandoning a luxury liner (capitalism) and jumping overboard onto a raft (socialism) where the government determines who are the winners and the losers.

When Obama was campaigning for President he stated, "This is the worst economy since the Great Depression." He would have been closer to the truth if he had said, "This is the worst economy since Jimmy Carter."

Will President Obama follow former President Jimmy Carter's Keynesians economic policies? I believe he will.

Wayne Pruitt

Lebanon

Entitlement spending? Be glad!

It never stops. George Will tells us (column, Jan. 25) not to expect "entitlement reform" as though "everyone knows" we need entitlement reform. He offers us the factoid that "entitlements make up 40 percent of the federal budget." This is not true, and if it were true it would not matter. Social Security is "off budget."

It is not "government spending," and it has nothing to do with the deficit.

Social Security is YOUR savings, protected by the government from inflation by "pay as you go" with wage indexing. It is the money YOU put aside to make sure you have at least the bare minimum when you want to retire. It is not welfare. It is not an "investment." It is simply an insurance policy.

Furthermore, if the cost of entitlements is almost as much as the cost of government spending, that is more something to be glad about than alarmed about. What it means is that the cost of Wall Street bailouts and golden toilet seats for the Pentagon is still less than it costs for 50 million people to feed themselves and live indoors and pay for the medical care that keeps them reasonably healthy in their old age. The difference is the people pay for their own old age expenses, through "entitlements," while "the budget" is money you give the government and never see again.

Unfortunately, some very wealthy interests have been spending millions to confuse the people about Social Security, so that in fact it is true that most people think there is a need for "entitlement reform." I am afraid they may finally succeed with an Obama "Nixon goes to China" ploy.

You need to be very skeptical and find out the truth about entitlements. That is hard to do; the very well funded "think tanks" dominate the media and the websites. But a little careful thinking and determined research will help you learn the truth.

If you haven't got time for that, just think, "It's my money. It's my retirement they are stealing. It's my medical insurance they are taking away. I pay for it myself." It is not "government spending." It is not welfare. It has nothing to do with the deficit. No matter what you have been told.

Dale Coberly

Corvallis

Remember Republican history

Republicans invented the Civil Rights movement. It was the post-Civil War Republicans who pushed the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments (banning slavery, conferring equal protection under the law to the former slaves and giving the former slaves of the right to vote.)

These initiatives were staunchly supported by Republicans and furiously opposed by Democrats. We also pioneered women's suffrage and were largely responsible for the passage of the 19th amendment.

Yet today, no one dares credit Republicans for these gains. No one remembers that when it came to voting on the Civil Right Act of 1964, a larger percentage of Republicans than Democrats voted "yes" in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. No one mentions that Sen. Robert Byrd, a former Klansman, filibustered against the Civil Rights bill for 14 hours.

I am a Republican because I believe in the fundamental wisdom and intelligence of ordinary people, just as the first Republicans believed that the slaves possessed these qualities, and more.

Lincoln referred to Frederick Douglass as "one of the most meritorious men in all of America." Lincoln's successor, Andrew Johnson, a Democrat, used racial slurs to describe Douglass.

Lincoln believed that the former slaves could govern themselves just as Republicans today believe that good government means less government. Johnson believed that if the former slaves governed themselves, they would "descend into barbarism."

I believe that Lincoln got it right, and I am proud of the Republicans' contribution to civil rights and to America.

Jeff Limon

Corvallis

SUNDAY LETTERS should be e-mailed to news@dhonline.com with "Sunday Letter" on the subject line. Letters are subject to editing for newspaper style and length.