Growth in Corvallis is not sustainable

Any more growth in Corvallis is entirely unsustainable — both socially and ecologically.

Corvallis needs business and political leaders with enough imagination to fathom a marketplace different than one based on growth.

Corvallis desperately needs a small-scale, steady-state economy that is not based on the exploitation of nature and captive workers.

The scarcity of such imagination explains the Gazette-Times editorial about wetlands (“Seavey Meadows a worthwhile project” April 28).

In the wake of the destruction of 90 percent of our wetlands, the editors offer the irrational suppositions that it would be a “compromise” to destroy more, and that humans can recreate natural systems.

In general terms, the same drive for continual exploitation brought about a similar “compromise” with American Indians over a century ago, as the industrial economic system pushed the competition into smaller and smaller reservations.

The ideology of bulldozing explains the city authorization to build thousands of mass-produced houses on the former farmland or wild areas of Willamette Landing, Stoneybrook, Timberhill, Grand Oaks, Witham Oaks and Brooklane Heights.

The canard that is invariably offered is that tearing up the landscape is for “needed housing” to support “the economy” — as if capitalism were the only possible kind of economy.

The unstated purpose of growth is to maintain profits for investors. If you look behind all of those housing projects, you will find investors who convert the public benefit of conservation into private wealth.

As Wendell Berry wrote in Harper’s this month, “the real names of global warming are Waste and Greed.”

Mark Knapp, Corvallis

Kroger right choice for attorney general

John Kroger is the right choice for attorney general.

As a former Marine and former federal prosecutor, Kroger has the grit and leadership to lead law enforcement statewide in our fight against methamphetamine.

Methamphetamine is responsible for most of the property crime in the state and is a major cause of child abuse. Kroger brings the right tools to tackle the problem.

Kroger plans to revitalize the organized crime unit of the Department of Justice to target major drug traffickers while building a first rate drug treatment program. As attorney general, Kroger will also expand the District Attorney Division to provide more prosecutorial support to smaller counties.

Kroger is not a politician, he is a public servant. As a federal prosecutor, he appeared in court more than 1,000 times. Kroger went after drug trafficker, mafia killers, and the corrupt Enron executives who defrauded millions of employees and investors.

I am not alone in supporting John Kroger. He has the support of 24 district attorneys, eight sheriffs, the Oregon State Police Officers Association, the Oregon Council of Police Associations and the Portland Police Association. Gov. John Kitzhaber, the Sierra Club and nearly every labor union in the state, including the AFL-CIO, Oregon Education Association and SEIU, also see Kroger as the best man for the job.

Your choice for attorney general may have more direct impact on Oregon than any other vote you make this election. Please join me in voting for a safer Oregon by supporting John Kroger.

John M. Haroldson, Benton County, District Attorney

Obama’s approach better than threats

Sen. John McCain has often said that, as president, he would not talk with the president of Iran or the dictator of North Korea, or Hamas leadership.

Sen. Hillary Clinton agrees with that approach.

By contrast, Sen. Barack Obama would talk with any nation — a friendly ally or a perceived foe, if necessary to move toward resolving issues diplomatically.

Senators Clinton and McCain reflect the failed Bush notion that threat works better than talk in international politics. Such an approach has lead to deterioration of respect for America worldwide.

Talking and listening, on any level, often result in peaceful and satisfactory solutions.

Sen. Obama’s approach to conflict will result in positive changes in our foreign policy. It surely will result in other nations once more looking up to the U.S. as a powerful force for peaceful solutions.

This is just one of many examples in which Sen. Obama’s policies will be effective on “Day One.” Vote for him on May 20.

Hank Elder, Corvallis

Same-sex marriage not a form of abuse

In Kevin Taylor’s April 18 letter (“How far do we carry fight for diversity?”) he asks, “Instead of merely denouncing homophobia, why not denounce incestophobia, as well?”

This is clearly a slippery-slope argument against same-sex marriage thinly veiled as an inquiry into why incest shouldn’t be accepted. This tactic has been taken over and over by those opposed to same-sex marriage, a la Sen. Rick Santorum and Bill O’Reilly.

I will oblige Mr. Taylor and answer his question.

Incest incurs an extremely high risk of producing children born with birth defects. One statistic states that “over 50 percent of live born offspring of brother-sister matings have severe disease, including mental retardation and congenital abnormality as well as defined recessive conditions.” (J. A. Morris, Consultant Pathologist, Royal Lancaster Infirmary.)

I don’t think anyone in their right mind would call these good odds.

The main point is that same-sex marriage is not equivalent to incest.

Further, legalizing the former does not mean opening the door to legalizing the latter.

The following quote from Andrew Sullivan sums it up nicely: “If you want to argue that a lifetime of loving, faithful commitment between two women is equivalent to incest or child abuse, then please argue it. It would make for fascinating reading.

“But spare us this bizarre point that no new line can be drawn in access to marriage — or else everything is up for grabs and, before we know where we are, men will be marrying their dogs.”

Vicky Hollenbeck, Corvallis