Posted: Saturday, March 25, 2006 10:00 pm
This primary would be empty
Your March 19 editorial supporting Petition 86 assumes that it proposes an "open primary." Instead, it offers a system, unique in American history, of an "empty primary" with voters seeing only one Democrat and only one Republican on the primary ballot for each office. Yes, I am referring to the primary ballot, not the general election.
Section 10(3) of Petition 86 allows each party to limit use of the party label on the primary ballot to as few as one candidate per office. You note that it "allows parties to designate someone as the official party candidate if they wish." They will wish. No one can use the party label on the primary ballot, except the official party candidate.
What if the Democrats allowed 10 people labeled "Democrat" on the primary ballot for governor, while the Republicans allowed only two "Republicans"? The result would very likely be two Republicans advancing to the general election, because the Democratic vote would be split 10 ways. Even if the Democrats limit the "Democrat" candidates in any race to two, they could still miss the general election, if the two "Republicans" each receive slightly more votes. In order to ensure a spot in the general election, the unavoidable response of each major party will be to limit, to one, the number of candidates allowed to list the party label in the primary race for each office.
Petition 86 offers voters this "empty primary." The actual primary will take place in advance as the major party central committees choose which candidates get to display the party label on the primary ballot. It will be just about impossible for anyone other than the designated "Democrat" and the designated "Republican" for each office to get to the general election.
Petition 86 is portrayed as reducing the power of the major parties, but its effect will be exactly the opposite.
Dan Meek, Portland
Stooping too low with Opus
Have you no shame? I could not believe my eyes when I opened the March 19 issue of your Sunday Comics. Just because the Opus comic (translate sick) strip stooped below the gutter should not mean that you should also stoop so low by printing such filth.
It used to be that the Sunday Comics were for children, children who were able to read and children who needed to be read to.
Unfortunately, one does not need to be able to read to recognize a drawing for what it is, no matter your age. Surely you have come to your senses by now and have removed the Opus strip from all future issues.
In the meantime, I trust you are sanitizing your presses and all those people who were contaminated while working on your premises.
June Schlosser, Brownsville
True dangers ignored by Will
I'm discouraged by the fact that George Will ("This, most dangerous moment...'," March 19) can write an entire piece dedicated to "this moment, one of the most dangerous since the Second World War," without mention of the true threats to this earth's ecosurvival:
A broken political scheme that can produce (twice!) an American president who is unintelligent, ignorant, semi-literate, and a pathological liar; a score of oil-addicted First World nations incapable of controlling climate-altering lifestyles (and, as usual, it is the sub-marginal billions of humans who pay for our sins); the unconscionable growth of human populations all over this finite globe; and the cancer that is the apartheid state of Zionist Israel, the malignant catalyst for much of the anti-American hatred and global discontent for the past half-century.
I agree with Mr. Will:
This is a dangerous moment in human history. It is also a moment with huge potential for beauty and happiness and joy, which will manifest when our leaders eschew political expediency for the truth: too many humans with too-high living standards are the real danger, not just for us, but for all life on earth.
Kirk S. Nevin, Corvallis
Seward would disagree
In reference to the Emancipation Proclamation, Thomas C. McClintock wrote, "Lincoln, as president, had no power to confiscate the property (including slaves) of American citizens anywhere in the United States." ("Emancipation: Argument continues," Letters, March l2.)
I think Lincoln's own secretary of state, William Seward, would have disagreed with Professor McClintock. Seward mocked the Emancipation Proclamation by saying, "We show our sympathy with slavery by emancipating slaves where we cannot reach them and holding them in bondage where we can set them free." Seward obviously believed Lincoln had the power to free the slaves in the border states.
The editor of the New York World newspaper would also have disagreed with Professor McClintock, I believe. He wrote:
"The President has purposely made the proclamation inoperative in all places where we haqve gained a military footing which makes the slaves accessible. He has proclaimed emancipation only where he has notoriously no power to execute it. The exemption of the accesible parts of Louisiana, Tennessee, and Virginia renders the proclamation not merely futile, but ridiculous."
The editor clearly believed that Lincoln had the power to execute emancipation in the "accessible parts" of Louisiana, Tennessee, and Virginia, parts controlled by Lincoln's government at the time the Emancipation Proclamation was issued. (Jan. l, l863).
David R. Prichard, Corvallis
Expanding Corvallis sprawl wasteful
In criticizing my arguments regarding land-use decisions in south Corvallis, Jean Nelson (Letters, March 19, "South Corvallis, the shopping issue") and other proponents of a south Corvallis auto mall miss my main point:
An auto mall on the proposed site goes against the best interests of the local community and Corvallis in general. There are thousands of people living in south Corvallis, and thousands more to come. The medium- to- high-density residential developments here are well designed so as to reduce sprawl, thereby reducing the need to drive and allowing for nice, pedestrian friendly neighborhoods. All of this will be for naught if thousands of additional residents are forced to drive miles across town for basic daily necessities.
The land in question was indeed zoned "general industrial" years ago, long before the large areas of medium- to- high-density residential neighborhoods were, and continue to be, built there. According to the city planning department's own regulations, these demographic changes must be taken into account, and land uses changed accordingly.
The commercial land that Jean Nelson cites as an alternative is inappropriate for the uses needed in the area. John and Phil's will continue to make lots of money until a suitable spot can be found for their expansion. In any land use change, the interests of the general public must take precedence. In this era of global warming and oil-funded terrorism, increasing the need for more driving because of bad planning is short-sighted, wasteful and irresponsible.
Ted Daum, Corvallis
Confused about the cause of meth
Re: Ricky Knutson's letter on March 19. If Mr. Knutson is to believed, the reason that meth addicts exist is because we didn't keep the meth away from them.
I suppose that also means that the reason that rapists exist is because women won't stop walking around in the open, or that pedophiles exist because those pesky children are just so available.
Will somebody please wake me up.
Rich Kellum, Albany
Was this box thief disappointed?
For many years, I attended Linn-Benton Community College's "Write Your Life Story" classes under the able and patient guidance of Edna Wiese and Linda Smith. Because I have a huge family, the results of those classes filled five three-ring binders with volumes of genealogy information, family stories and photos dating from the early 1800s to 1999.
A cousin in Virginia, a genealogist who was just beginning to research our family, borrowed my first two books: "The Reed-Johnsen Connection" and "Ken and Jewell Bielman's Children and Grandchildren." The box of books was delivered and left on our front porch March 9. Unfortunately, we were unaware they had been removed until March 20, when my cousin called to ask what we thought about the notebook of genealogy research that he'd included with my books.
Losing those books isn't a great tragedy; given time and energy, they can be resurrected, for the most part. But here in our beautiful city, it is greatly troubling to know someone took the box of books off our front porch - while we were home!
As my cousin said, "As valuable as those books are to you and me, it must have come as a great disappointment to the thief to only find three notebooks of family history in that box."
Gee, at the very least, I hope whoever took the books enjoyed the pictures and read a few stories about my now-missing roots. If you're inclined to return the books, let me know where to pick them up. And thank you.
Julie Bielman, Corvallis
Drug company targets alternatives
This letter is to notify menopausal women and their loved ones who wish to maintain availability of bio-identical hormones:
Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, the makers of Premarin and Prempro (traditional hormone replacement medication in menopause) filed a Citizen's Petition with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) asking the FDA to impose restrictions on the compounding and dispensing of bio-identical hormone replacement therapy (BHRT). BHRT drugs are identical to what the body produces, whereas the estrogen in Wyeth's product is derived from the urine of pregnant horses.
Health care providers can customize dosing of different natural estrogens, progesterone and testosterone into a prescription that can be delivered as an oral capsule, a cream or drops for under the tongue.
In order to block Wyeth's petition, there must be 20,000 comments sent to the FDA by April 4, so time is of the essence. Comments to the FDA can be submitted through a link at www.womensinternational.com, or you can come by my office at 917 N.W. Grant Ave. in Corvallis to obtain a form that can be signed and submitted.
Marcia A. Liberatore, M.D., Corvallis
Congress, media falling down on job
Washington treated us to a classic show of smoke and mirrors two weeks ago. Congress showed just how tough and steely-eyed it could be, facing down the president and refusing to allow ownership of some port operations in some ports to be transferred from a British company to one owned by the United Arab Emirates. The yapping echo chamber that is our national media had a feeding frenzy and covered little else.
Meanwhile, Congress swept the warrantless wiretapping scandal under the rug and re-authorized the Patriot Act.
Both actions give the Bush administration free reign to spy on whoever they please, with little oversight. This isn't simply some vague violation of somebody's civil rights, as the press has pitched it - it is a direct threat to our democracy. Time and again, secrecy has been used to stifle political discussion and undermine political opponents. Doesn't anyone remember Watergate, or the FBI's COINTELPRO?
Warrantless wiretapping is illegal, period. Congress passed an Act in the 1970s explicitly prohibiting it. The Bush administration has explicitly violated it, yet Congress does nothing. Similarly, Congress does nothing about being lied to about the "threat" of Iraq, about illegal detentions without charges of citizens and foreigners, about systematic use of torture in violation of signed treaties or about use of government funds for domestic propaganda. The U.S. Constitution made Congress responsible for writing and enforcing the laws of the land. It's well past time for them to do their job.
Andrew Gray, Corvallis
Equal chance? Not a chance!
Sunday's column claims that under Initiative Petition 86 "everyone on the ballot would have an equal chance." Not so, according to the inventors of democracy. The Greeks assured all candidates of an equal chance to be elected because leaders were chosen by lot, with the exception of generals.
But Initiative Petition 86 is about getting rid of the nomination process, and giving Oregon voters two shots at getting it right.
The first vote would be practice, and maybe Oregonians need that.
After all, statistics show not all Oregonians hit the target when getting their ballots in the ballot box, upwards to around 50% miss completely.
So all those who feel Oregonians are lousy voters have a chance for something better - Initiative Petition 86.
Robert G. Gourley, Corvallis
PETA is for rights, not against pets
I have a few issues with two letters that appeared March 5. Both attacked PETA for its stance on animal rights, and one referred to PETA as "by far the most successful radical organization in America."
PETA has been tremendously successful in exposing the cruel, savage and barbaric methods used in slaughterhouses, poultry processing plants, furrier operations and other animal processing industries. For instance, in 2000 McDonald's agreed to require groundbreaking improvements in the treatment of the animals raised and slaughtered by its suppliers following PETA's intensive campaign.
Mr. Ranzoni refers to a PETA supporter as just another brainwashed sap. How terribly condescending. Before you paint a broad swath of accusations, please do a little research.
PETA's mission statement states: "People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), with more than a million members and supporters, is the largest animal rights organization in the world. Founded in 1980, PETA is dedicated to establishing and protecting the rights of all animals. PETA operates under the simple principle that animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, or use for entertainment..."
And Mr. Ranzoni, where did you come up with your claim that PETA does not want anyone to own pets? Again, simply not true. Though PETA believes that all wild animals are best left in their natural environments, our domesticated animals could not survive if left on their own. PETA is totally supportive of companion animals that are loved, respected and nurtured by responsible people.
Mahatma Ghandi once said: "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated." But then, Ghandi was just another brainwashed sap, right?
Ali Gray, Albany